Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 NAC Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow 4

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

)

Same as a former Arrow 4 logo article that got deleted successfully a few months ago. Georgia guy (talk) 23:50, 6 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. AdjustShift (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Us

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

Non-notable film, only red link people involved, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to an article about depictions or documentaries on Iraq War. I don't think it should be lost completely but there seems to be insufficient notability for a stand alone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs) 0:26, 7 June 2009
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NF Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, non notable film. Can't find any logical article to merge this into.
  talk) 01:55, 8 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. While notability has not been firmly established (most sources are blogs, and the reliable sources are not about the subject as such - the PM is questionable), there is enough doubt to say there is no clear consensus to delete. SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Appelbaum

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

Contested PROD. My rationale was: No grounds for notability per

User:ThaddeusB, who contested the PROD, stated intent to add reliable sources, but until such a time as those sources are added, I stand by my original rationale. ParsnipChips (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — ParsnipChips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• STrong Keep (It might have been nice to at least give me a chance to add the sources I mentioned before sending it here, but oh well). In addition to the coverage about the cold boot research mentioned in the nom (which is pretty extensive), there is lots of other RS coverage of him. Let's start with this in depth interview & this one. The there is this article about his citizen journalism. ZDNET credits him with discovering a major security bug. So does Wired. Credited with uncovering a significant Vista bug. Additional, there is lots of coverage about some MD5 research he was a part of & he is often quoted as a security expert by RS. [1] Finally, perhaps the best source of all: Makes Popular Mechanic's "The Internet's Top 10 Most Controversial Figures of 2008" list --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

Wikipedia has no deadline --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you explain, please, how any of the sources you mention indicate that the subject satisfies any of these criteria from

WP:BIO

?

ParsnipChips (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see now you are pretty new to Wikipedia, so you might not understand how our guidelines work.

WP:reliable source coverage (e.g. Internet memes), however the general rule is "RS coverage=notability" and you have offered no compelling reason to ignore this general rule. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

From the looks of it, I've been editing Wikipedia for four times as long as you have. This is not my usual account. I've been assuming that there are no reliable sources that actually confirm the subject's notability (rather than mentioning him as the eighth author on an academic paper), because so far, no one has added them to the article. If you, or anyone else, care to edit the article to reflect the asserted reliable-source documentation, then perhaps I'll see it differently. ParsnipChips (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no need to be rude - I could not have possibly known you were using an alternative account (apparently) solely for the purpose getting this article deleted. Second of all, while I do intended to edit the article such is not actually required. Articles should be judged on their potential, not current form.

Wikipedia has no deadline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment: Most of those sources are big names. They all assert his notability, especially the PM and Wired stuff, and if the "major security bug" he found can be verified than that is ever more notable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be taking

WP:BIO at face value, a word-for-word definition of notability. Those are specifically guidelines for helping claims of notability pass or fail. 76.115.39.183 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Apparently restarting a crashed browser logs you out. :\ That above comment was my own, oblivious to my logged out status. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: He's twice called a photographer, but this isn't elaborated at all. His article appears within the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Some of his photos appear on Flickr. (Some of mine do too.) But how is he notable as a photographer? -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In several of the sources I mentioned above, his photography is mentioned and this one is only about his photography. Additionally, a Google search reveals that there are plenty of people talking about him being a photographer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That google search brings Wikipedia and its scrapes, the man's own sites, and echoes around the blogosphere. The particular page you link to is a bit more interesting but it presents no evidence for the claim that Jacob’s work has been published in newspapers around the world [...]. His work has also been published in or by [...] the BBC, Scientific American -- a claim that's surprising in view of the pleasantly pretty samples that it shows. -- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he was only a photographer he wouldn't be notable, but doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in his article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the article says he's both a photographer and independent computer security hacker and elsewhere too it puts him forward as a photographer. Now, plenty of amateur photographers are rightly celebrated (e.g. this one) and others merit and get some attention (e.g. this one). But I'd like to see more evidence of acknowledgement of achievements before so boldly describing somebody as a photographer. How about an independent computer security hacker and a keen amateur photographer? -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I would not object to him being described as a security expert & amateur photographer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the article; I hope uncontroversially. - Hoary (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article Researchers Find Way to Steal Encrypted Data : New York Times seems to not mention Applebaum; I cannot find any evidence of notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think 7 sources I listed above (of which the NY Times story wasn't one of them) fail to establish notability? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the PM article -- keep on this basis. The first two do not seem to be more than webzines and the Spiegel article seems more of a mention than being about him. I think the PM ranking article does it though. Per Parsnips arguments below I do not think the PM article does it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PM article says almost nothing about Appelbaum himself and is almost entirely devoted to the cold boot paper, work that was done by a team of eight people. PM's poor editorial judgment in deciding to credit Appelbaum, seemingly arbitrarily, for a collaboration in which he played a small part doesn't have to be replicated here. By the standards of

WP:N, the PM article does not address the subject in detail (its focus is on a research collaboration in which the subject played a part; the article does nothing to clarify just what his contribution to this collaboration was, either). ParsnipChips (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who disagrees with this particular reading of the PM article, or with your assessment that they exercised poor editorial judgment and acted arbitrarily--seriously, you think they're that dumb? You claim he played a small part, but the arguments you raised above for that position were not based on anything besides the order of the names in the paper. (To paraphrase: there is no indication that his participation in the project was minor.) BTW, Parsnip, you sure put the S in SPA. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed this comment elsewhere in the discussion. As I've said in other comments, it's not a matter of order of names, but that the source didn't document Appelbaum's contribution to the project. As it is, all we can conclude from the sources is that Appelbaum was a member of a team that worked on a certain project and that he was the member of the team who decided to talk to the media. Finally, let's focus this debate on content rather than editors, please. ParsnipChips (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that information necessary for notability? We know he was involved in two papers: cold boot attacks, and MD5, both important papers. How much he did, we can't be sure of without extensive that most would agree we don't seem to have. However, sources we do have portray Mr. Appelbaum as quite the important hacker and security consultant. We know that he's well-known in the sub-culture he's involved with. Obviously he didn't just sit by and watch the others do all the work, and vice versa. But with everything else besides the papers, are those specifics necessary to determine notability? Yes, it's true, more than a few sources only mention his name without expounding upon his content and value to the team, but on that same note, we have plenty of sources that about him specifically, and knowing he was involved among other things seems to confer notability to me. Do we need the specifics? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Nom mentions a paper on cold-boot attacks, and it's brought up a bit more in this discussion thus far. Unless I'm mistaken, that would be this. Would this different paper (admittedly, in which he was one of a more than a few authors) be of any use? Apparently it made some waves.[2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. (Note: a few of those "waves" are blog posts, but from large enough companies that I'd think they meet RS, or similar constaints on blogs. I could be wrong. Still, a couple are press releases as well.) Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified by the assertion that being listed as a coauthor on either of these papers is grounds for notability. Out of the nine authors on the cold-boot paper, only two --

Seth Schoen -- are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Both of them have other achievements that are independent and verifiable. Of the seven authors on the MD5 paper, again, only two -- Alexander Sotirov and Arjen Lenstra -- have articles. In fact, the article on another author, Benne de Weger, was deleted for non-notability. Would you really argue that all ten remaining authors should have articles devoted to them? ParsnipChips (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No where did I say that this paper closes the case. I merely brought it up as another brick in the wall. One more small note to be made, showing the many things this subject has done. I did not make my decision upon this single paper, and I don't believe anyone else has either. "Would this different paper (admittedly, in which he was one of a more than a few authors) be of any use?" If this were the only case of his presumed notability I could find, then indeed you right. In fact, I might even say you are correct right now as well. Being a co-author on a paper does not make you notable, unless there are many other sources saying you're notable. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Relevant sources abound. They may be small, almost trivial mentions in some, but the PM and Wired hits seem relevant enough to pass
  WP:BIO. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep, might not be a "clear Keep", however, he seems to have a bit notability and the references seem to be good. SF007 (talk)
• Delete I just don't see notability in multiple trivial sources. - Vartanza (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Could you elaborate on why you would call Wired and Popular Mechanics trivial? Both articles are fairly in depth, with the focus on his actions. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the former. The Wired article says Jacob Appelbaum, who presented a flaw in Apple's File Vault encryption at the 23C3 conference in December, says he was motivated by anger. "Apple doesn't just treat security researchers poorly, they lie to their users," he asserts, revealing a depth of animosity toward the company's security policies many researchers have echoed in recent months. Does it say any more about him? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper at it, you're right: it doesn't mention Mr. Appelbaum any more than that one part. However, I wouldn't call that note trivial. Wired sought to have in that article specifically about Apple's software security, which I think implies his role in that field, a place we can look for any other sources. They also mention the 25C3 Conference, which allows for a greater search radius. I looked around through google and found a good amount of things mentioning him in ways a bit more than trivial name dropping. Possible sources include: [7], [8], and [9]. From what I saw, they give some more info than what most of us have seen already, but I could be wrong. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired isn't exactly known for their serious coverage of any academic field. I'm wondering whether anyone thinks that Wired is a reliable arbiter of who is notable in the field of computer security, or whether it's that they're of the opinion that a mere mention in a mass-market publication confers notability for the purposes of Wikipedia? ParsnipChips (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired doesn't have to be known for its serious coverage of any academic field. And I don't think that anyone here has implied that a (singular) mere mention in a mass-market (or other) publication confers notability even as the term is dubiously used within WP. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be, but I'm wondering what people voting on this debate so far think Appelbaum is notable for. If it's computer security research, surely there ought to be citations that go beyond passing mentions in popular publications? If it's something else, then what? ParsnipChips (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now starts Jacob Appelbaum is a resident of San Francisco, California, and an independent computer security hacker. I don't suppose residing anywhere other than Mir or atop a pole confers notability, but he seems to have won a certain degree of notability as an independent computer security hacker. I shouldn't be surprised if dozens of people with more notability as this still lack articles; the obvious remedy would then be to create some of the latter. (Would you perhaps like to create some yourself?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was asking precisely because he doesn't appear to be notable as a computer security hacker, and the only evidence anyone has offered consists of brief and shallow mentions in the mass media, most of which focus on work by a large team of which he was a member, not on his own accomplishments. ParsnipChips (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire articles written about the subject are not "brief and shallow mentions." Wikipedia doesn't decide what is important - reliable sources do. You might think that his contributions are unimportant, but that doesn't matter - the fact that "mass media" thinks he is important means Wikipedia does also. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, finally we've identified the difference of opinion here! Recall that

WP:RS. "Wired says that Appelbaum made the following significant accomplishment, and makes his individual contribution to it clear, in a way that can be verified with other sources as well" is. But I don't see anyone making the latter argument. ParsnipChips (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I hadn't thought that Appelbaum's notability was academic. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider specifically the paper he wrote on MD5 or some such, then I think this applies: out of a team of eight or so, he is mentioned frequently, albeit briefly, while other names I haven't seen or seen once. Because we see him frequently mention in any source discussing the paper in any detail, that is "a way that can be verified with other sources as well", to quote ParsnipChips. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't understand this. If Alice and Bob collaborate on a project and there is no reliable source that clarifies their relative contributions to the result, and if everyone agrees that the existence of the project does not automatically confer notability on both Alice and Bob, but there are a lot of media interviews that talk about the project as a whole and mention Bob to the exclusion of Alice, does that confer notability on Bob without conferring notability on Alice? Why? If the work they did is sufficiently important, then they should both be notable. Is the criterion for notability "person has made an important contribution to their field," or is it "person has spent a lot of time talking to the media about their contributions"? ParsnipChips (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who worked on the paper are as follows:

• Alexander Sotirov: Google = [10], [11], [12], [13]

  Marc Stevens: Google = [14], [15] (that last one appears to be the result of search function for his name, finding scientific papers he [or someone named Marc Stevens] has authored; take it as you will)

  Jacob Appelbaum: N/A

  Arjen Lenstra: Arjen Lenstra

  David Molnar: Google = [16], [17] (PDF), [18] (that last one may not pass

  WP:RS

  , it looks to be a letter of some sort)

  Dag Arne Osvik: Google = [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

  Benne de Weger: Google = [24], [25], [26]

If that came off aggressive or insulting, I'm sorry. However, I hope this shows that all the participants are relatively notable. Each and every one has at least some reliable sources to attribute to them specifically. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make a point about the other participants, but rather to ask whether the people arguing Keep here think that all of the other participants should also have articles. And as I pointed out upthread, the article on Benne de Weger was already deleted. If the people arguing Keep think that every one of the people in the above list should have articles, and it's just a question of someone having time to write them, then OK. But that's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing is the argument that the person who talks to Wired is notable and the people who did the same work but didn't chat with a reporter aren't. And I find that very strange. ParsnipChips (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lot of those people probably could have articles, but that is entirely beside the point. No one is arguing he is automatically notable solely for being an author on that paper. If it was the only thing he ever did, you might have a point, but it isn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other grounds for notability being cited. The only cite offered for his "citizen journalism" was a blog post (the spiegel.de) one -- not an RS. ParsnipChips (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I listed 6 sources that had zero to due with the cold boot stuff. Those 6 are a representative sample and hardly exhaustive. This is the last time I am going to say this: the grounds for inclusion is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources not any specific accomplishment considered in isolation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating over and over that trivial mentions in sources that are mostly not reliable for the domain areas they are covering are non-trivial mentions in reliable sources doesn't make them either non-trivial or reliable. ParsnipChips (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire articles about the guy are not trivial coverage regardless of whether you think the source made a mistake in covering him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the articles aren't about him. They're about work he was involved in. That the source happened to attach his name to it is incidental. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Popular Mechanics thing? That's a pretty hefty title from a avery influential publication. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said upthread: "The PM article says almost nothing about Appelbaum himself and is almost entirely devoted to the cold boot paper, work that was done by a team of eight people. PM's poor editorial judgment in deciding to credit Appelbaum, seemingly arbitrarily, for a collaboration in which he played a small part doesn't have to be replicated here. By the standards of

WP:N, the PM article does not address the subject in detail (its focus is on a research collaboration in which the subject played a part; the article does nothing to clarify just what his contribution to this collaboration was, either)." The question I was trying to tease out is: Are we citing the PM article to document Appelbaum's work? If so, it's the wrong citation, because it doesn't clarify his contribution (we either have to concede that all the coauthors on the paper are notable, or that authorship of this paper is not grounds for notability). Or are we citing the PM article to document that Appelbaum is famous? If so, this strikes me as an application of the "Bob is a celebrity because he's famous for being a celebrity" principle and that's something that I thought Wikipedia tried to avoid. ParsnipChips (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The way I see it (and I may be warping core policies, but I really hope that isn't the case), the AfD discussion process keeps with the idea that notability is guilty (i.e., non-notable) until

proven innocent. You prodded the article, and it was contested. It was brought it with the intention to delete the article, but discuss it a bit beforehand. That being said, notability follows the opposite princible: innocent until proven guilty. By creating an article on someone, we are to assume they are notable. People like yourself (and myself) can question that notability, and try and prove the subject non-notable. Then, in the next step it AfD, where those partaking either agree with the nom or do not. In this case, we appear to be at ends. I'm of the opinion that this man is notable, and here are some sources that show he notable, because he is talked about in those sources. Yes, you're right, it would be nice if he was discussed in more detail. Some of the sources only mention him once (like most of the reports on the MD5 paper, or Wired), but others, like the PM piece, are more biographical. Not as biographical as we'd all like, but more biographical than, "Authors: ...Jacob Appelbaum..." Like yourself, I don't want Bob to be a celebrity because he's a famous celebrity; logically, it makes sense, but it adds nothing encyclopedic. However, in this case, we merely need to subsitute "celebrity" for "notable", and citing the PM article makes much more sense, I think. "Bob [Jacob] is a notable [hacker] because he is [was mentioned in mutliple RS's] for being a notable [hacker]." If that skews your point, I'm sorry, but that's how I first thought of it. So, yes: we are using the PM piece to show he is famous. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak keep, for this at Popular Mechanics plus the totality of miscellaneous bric a brac around the web. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All due respect to ThaddeusB,
  WP:BLP1E). The sources found thus far to establish notability fall short. -- Atama^chat 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - I'd like to add that I'm not conceding that the PM article counts as "significant coverage" either; that is debatable since he is only part of the team that is the subject of the article. I am just pointing out that even if one accepts the premise that the PM article alone establishes notability, which has been argued by some on this page, it still does not satisfy
  WP:N. The prior comment that a single article plus "bric a brac" establishes notability by Wikipedia's standards is false, that was my point. -- Atama^chat 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And I would say that I provided 4 sources which are certainly not trivial coverage that should be considered reliable sources. A source doesn't have to be well known to be reliable and I see no reason to assume Guerrilla New Network, Amateur Illustrator, and Spiegel Online are unreliable sources (the fourth source being Popular Mechanics, of course.) Also these are just the first sources I found, and are hardly the entirety of the coverage he as received. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • By the way, the Spiegel Online article linked to was a blog. We also don't assume that sources are "reliable" unless proven "unreliable". More so the opposite. Personally I've never heard of Guerrilla News Network or Amateur Illustrator. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like to know why the delete !votes are completely ignoring Appelbaum's contributions to the MD5 exploit and focusing solely on the cold boot exploit. The MD5 exploit (http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/) has gained almost as much attention as the cold boot exploit and Appelbaum is cited as the 3rd author on that paper. (The impact of the discovery is hardly trivial - for example, it caused VeriSign to remove MD5 from their RapidSSL certificates).[27]
• Between the MD5 paper, the cold boot one, and a couple other papers Appelbaum is cited on 25 Wikipedia articles alone. And the guy is not even primarily a academic researcher. By my count, at least 40 RS articles reference his opinion (on a variety of topics) as notable security consultant.
• Going back to the cold boot article, the deletes seem to be assuming his work on the project was unimportant because he was listed 8th. However, most articles about the subject list him and maybe one or two other if they signal anyone out. The Washington Times says his role was a leading one.[28]. As noted several times, Popular Mechanics gave him the primary credit. If you look at the sources that mention names, it is either Appelbaum or Schoen that get the most mentions, so clearly his role couldn't have been as insignificant as some claim.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"cited on 25 Wikipedia articles alone" -- we don't use Wikipedia articles to gauge notability for the purposes of other Wikipedia articles. As for the MD5 exploit, unless there are substantive reliable sources that document Appelbaum's role in the project, I can't see why that swings things either. Finally, I don't know about the other !voters, but I'm not assuming his work on the project was unimportant. I'm pointing out that there are no substantive reliable sources that show he made a substantial contribution to the project. In addition to the lack of sources, he is listed as eighth author on a paper that doesn't alphabetize its authors. But that's a secondary point. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are many source that say he had an important role, but you just dismiss them with comments like "PM's poor editorial judgment..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I was asked to comment. As far as i can tell, the usual criteria for researchers do not work very well here, one way or another.The primary notability is part of two joint projects; one very widely known one, the cold boot attack --a famous piece of work, that even I as a non-specialist very much knew about, as I think does everyone else with the remotest interest in the subject, and the MD5 work, which as a non-specialist I did not know about, but which seems sufficiently notable also. The question is evaluating his role in the work. One cannot judge too much by position of authors--there are many factors. One has I think to goby the testimony of those in a position to know,and in this subject I would count not just formally published testimony in the conventional sense, but the informal ways in which people in this subject communicate. There's been a lot of discussion above, but in the end I come down to Keep for two reasons: first, I trust those who have commented on this here, and, more objectively, the fact of having been engaged in both projects is compelling. Normally, as a generalist I don't go too much by experts, but this is one subject where we do have enough experts for them to judge reliably. DGG (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious -- how do you know whether anyone who has commented on this deletion discussion is "in a position to know"? The citations that have been offered (to blog posts and so on) suggest that the people offering them are not "in a position to know". (I'm not an expert in any related subject either. Rather, I don't see sufficient reliable-source citations and I thought that was the usual criterion for keeping an article, not the opinions of whoever happens to see the deletion discussion.) ParsnipChips (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In their very first response, ThaddeusB lists a number of sources, and while some of them individually aren't of the NYT caliber, they add up, as far as I'm concerned, to notability. That these articles and interviews discuss different aspects of Applebaum's career hurts a bit--if all of them focused on that cold boot thing some here might have opined differently. To me, it means that Applebaum does a lot of different things and is recognized as such. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 10 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 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Crew of The Terminator (1984)

Cast and Crew of The Terminator (1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Terminator article already has an adequate cast/crew section. Can't see how this level of detail is notable e.g. "Cleaning Man at Flophouse" or the various actors who aren't even credited in the film's credits anyway. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Simply duplicates the important information in the main article. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with The Terminator There is nothing about a cast list that warrants an article separate from the film itself. Eauhomme (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't want to see the precedent set for a "Cast and crew of" article about every film ever made. There is a place where one can expound upon all things Terminator, and encourage the author to build that site. I'll leave it to someone else to say "Terminate this article"-- if nobody does, then I'll be back. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 19:16, 10 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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ustad Surjeet Singh

Ustad Surjeet Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

recreation of article with no improvement to previous iteration, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surjeet Singh (Sarangi) Hekerui (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - forgot the criterion earlier. Hekerui (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable enough for me. I request editors to please read the areticle rather than basing their opinion based on the "speedy delete" statements from the above editors. A web search reveals multiple sources and as per
  WP:POTENTIAL this article must be improved rather than deleted. --Tradeempty (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete NN, playing for All India Radio can show some basic notability to avoid A7, but clearly NOT
  talk) 06:17, 12 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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compost cup

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

Contested prod, but patent nonsense which should probably have gone speedily. Speedy Delete. I42 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete.
  WP:NONSENSE. Pburka (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, but doesn't qualify as patent nonsense. (Possible G3, however). Only things showing up for this are you tube videos; 0 gnews hits, most non-wiki ghits are for compostable drinking cups.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - No sources or references, you can be pretty sure this is patent nonsense. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The CSD criteria "Patent nonsense" means that the text is literally incomprehensible, which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A definiton of

WP:NONSENSE is "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". I find this to be the case here. For example, you will see that the contest supposedly started in 2007, is run annually, and the 2009 event is yet to take place - meaning there have so far been two such events. This makes the line "it is vital that this foul is kept to a minimum as this is proved year in year out" (my emphasis) patent nonsense. I42 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Patent nonsense specifically excludes poor writing -- seems to me that this is either a case of poor writing or exageration, in which case G3 could apply. Still not speediable as patent nonsense, though.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a speedy-- as pointed out in this debate, these fellows have their own YouTube video [29], although not enough sense to have mentioned it in the article. The page is, essentially, an attempt to be funny by someone who lacks the ability to be funny. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-notable cup. GiantSnowman 13:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment i believe after researching the page this is a genuine attempt to develop a tournament. doing some research i discovered they have genuine sponsorship and regulations to play. deleting the page would be short minded and restricting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryEgsited (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — VeryEgsited (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Then feel free to add sources to the article that will help it meet
  WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 9 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. It appears to be in the grey area (consensus-wise) about if the Minnesota Twins league he is part of is a professional league (and thus qualifying Lehmann under

Daniel Lehmann

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

Only claim to fame is two low level minor league all-star appearances far from notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. A quick gsearch for Daniel Lehmann and for Danny Lehmann turned up nothing more than passing mentions. Just 13 games at AA so far, which doesn't meet my standard for "fully professional". As for the Single-A all-star appearance, assuming there's as many players on an all-star roster as the regular rosters, each player in the FSL has about a 1 in 6 chance of making the all-star team -- an honor, for sure, but not enough to give notability in the absence of in-depth coverage.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until he plays at MLB level. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's an All-Star minor leaguer who spent this past spring with the Twins. He'll be in the majors in no time.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. To make a comment like that, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:13, 7 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. Per extended rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lehmann and the lack of in-depth coverage. ~fl 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burnett

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

All-Star in 2007 but appears to be non-notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Gsearch not turning up notability through in-depth coverage; has just been promoted to AA two days ago, which is not "fully professional" in my book. All-star appearance is an honor, for sure, but it looks like any given Midwest League player has a 1 in 8 chance of making the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Save - He was an All-Star last season and pitched 6 innings of shutout baseball in the second game of the playoffs for the Miracle. He's a great pitcher who will be in the majors shortly. He was already up for deletion once and the decision was save.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Afd = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players. Having read the close, I'm a bit confused. Wizardman specifically noted one to keep, one to delete, and didn't make a specific call on the rest. I'm not sure we can assume the call was to keep -- no consensus is equally possible. We might need to ask Wizardman for clarification. (Yet another reason why I dislike these mass noms.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more poking led me to more information. Wizardman actually closed this one as delete, and Johnny Spasm took it to DRV two days later. A number of commenters there, including the DRV closer, said they felt the close should have been no consensus, not delete. Calling the decision "save" is a bit of a stretch. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, I was new to Wikipedia, and wrote Wikipedia entries for the entire Miracle roster. The only articles that I argued for their restoration were the ones that MET the Notability guidelines. For that matter, I ever reccommended an article I wrote for deletion, Edward Ovalle. I've since made certain that every Miracle I've written an article for met notability guidelines. I know what I'm doing--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not question whether you knew what you were doing, just said that implying the previous AfD ended in "keep" for this player is a stretch.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a stretch? If a trial ends in a hung jury, is the guy who didn't go to jail, and is walking the streets wrong for saying "I was found not guilty"? Bottom line is the consensus was to keep the articles. I put up no argument for the utility infielder or the other players who probably didn't deserve articles in the first place and weren't notable. The ones I argued in defense of were the ones who were truly notable. I've since made sure that I remained within the guidelines that were set as a result of that debate. For that matter, I waited until Cris Cates' second All-Star selection to write an article about him. I learned my lesson a year ago, and my track record in the past year shows that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the trial ends in a mistrial (which is really the better analogy here), the guy walking the streets because of it certainly wasn't found "not guilty".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Previous afd failed because the mass nomination was a mess. The minor league player articles did not yet exist at the time. The current consensus is to merge these articles. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Minor-league players are professional athletes. They are paid a salary to play the sport and are employees of a ballclub. No opinion on this article (yet), just wanted to get that straight. Johnny, please remember to be
  civil in your comments. Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply While you're right in that they're athletes, it does not necessarily mean they're notable, which I'm sure you know.--Giants27 (t|c) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Further the guideline at WPBB seems more applicable here. I haven't been able to find a decent third-party report on this player and the linked guideline suggests that minor league players are not inherently notable. Weak delete it is, for failing to meet notability. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 14 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 Minnesota Twins minor league players. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Singleton

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

A low level minor league all-star, fails

• Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Gsearch not turning up notability through in-depth coverage; hasn't played beyond the Single-A level, which is not "fully professional" in my book. All-star appearance is an honor, for sure, but it looks like any give FSL player has a 1 in 6 chance of making the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Singleton is my personal favorite player on the Miracle. I've seen him play several times, and can say first hand that I believe he'll be the Twins' starting second baseman in no time. He was selected for the All star team by minor league baseball managers two years in a row. That should tell you something.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The Miracle is a 100% fully professional team. It isn't even debatable. The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:11, 7 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. Per extended rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lehmann, and fact the news sources about him seen to only look at him on the field (i.e. "Steedley won us the game"), the news sources aren't really about him, they're about the team he is involved in. ~fl 06:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Steedley

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

Non-notable low level minor leaguer, fails

• Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. I've added a ref for a small award, but not seeing much notability out there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Minor league All Star selections are made by minor league managers. If a guy makes it two years in a row, that should tell you something. Steedley will be in the majors shortly.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league teams are professional teams. They pay their players. The issue of the notability of the players is separate from that. But the team is certainly professional. Spanneraol (talk) 13:21, 7 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 Already redirected, afd started by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Doomsday Zone

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

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or merge - meaning, merge to the games Article if possible, else Delete. Not enough notability or context to stand alone. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and redirect as a plausible search term but a subject lacking
  notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect I don't think it needs discussion here - editor should have just reverted un-redirect. I'm going to redirect it. ~ Amory (talk) 14:52, 8 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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Arthur Schwartzmiller

Dean Arthur Schwartzmiller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:42, 7 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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Romania Extra 300L crash

2009 Romania Extra 300L crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, probably - nothing to suggest that long term notability exists. Crashes and accidents happen all the time around the world, only one death, not that significant.--Sevenagechunt (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with an article about minor crashes. --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  WP:NOTNEWS Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting importance. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to
  List of plane crashes. Sebwite (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There is no such list; that title redirects. There is a List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation, but it notes that it "is intended to be a complete listing of those accidents and incidents with Wikipedia articles". It gets an article ar it doesn't get anywhere; probably best as far as GA accidents go as there are so many of them. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pilots crashing in aerobatic aircraft are not that uncommon or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. was this reported outside Romania or Europe? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It wasn't reported in the UK that I noticed, and a search on the BBC News website doesn't find any results. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTNEWS. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Student Television

Albany Student Television (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Facebook-like entry on this student club reveals that it is was not broadcast, but narrowcast on the university's closed circuit television system for a couple of years. Now it seems to be viewable on the Internet. There is no sign of any outside interest, awards or anything else for this student club. Deprodded.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Very limited student endeavor with no evidence of notability.
  talk) 20:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Almost a A7 for no indication of plausible notability. As with many attempted articles on student clubs , emphasis in the article in on which student held which position. I still remember some of my high school and college club elections vividly, as a good preparation for some processes here, but as for putting them in an encyclopedia? DGG (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless better sources can be found. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even notable locally. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mind-boggling amounts of detail about a minor student TV project. No reliable sources mention it. Fences and windows (talk) 23:50, 12 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 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian-American Association of Detroit

Belgian-American Association of Detroit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article, started in September, is of an organization that does not seem to be notable to me. When I prod tagged it, it was under construction, and the creator's (who had done no work since October) response to my prod tag was to remove it and continue adding details, but no reliable sources.

I want the Wikipedia community's opinion on whether or not it is notable before too much more work is done on it. Careful Internet searches revealed only a few indications that this club exists, but nothing that would be notable. For example, it does not seem to have influenced politics in Detroit, incubated any famous businesses or had any controversies in its 82 years.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article reads like an advertisement for a non-notable club.
  talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• 'Comment has anyone actually searched in newspaper articles over the entire period of the clubs existence? Any Detroit library should have files. To the best of my knowledge, there are none on the internet, but that's not the sum of human knowledge. it is possible that the war-time years in particular might have some material. DGG (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they only get cursory mention in the book Belgians in Michigan, I think not. (The context is quite peripheral, the subject is a feather bowling club)
    talk) 04:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete Frequent references to 'we' and 'our club' suggest that either the principle author is too close to the subject for impartiality, or the text was lifted verbatim from the club's publicity. Wavehunter (talk) 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CIO Vocabulary

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

Where to begin....? It's mostly an somewhat random list of terms and definitions that might be useful to someone in a CIO position. No indications at all of why terms might or might not be on the list. In general a big mess, and I really don't see much worth the effort to salvage. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I declined a speedy on this, but I've been wrestling over whether to prod it myself. If kept, it should be moved to
  Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria
  : "Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria." What unambiguous membership criteria can you state? Without that, I have to say delete.

• Delete I put in a G2 tag when this was an exact copy from the sandbox (there was other Sandbox text in the article then) , thinking that the author brought it online ahead of schedule. Looking at it now, I'd still say that. It's a random unreferenced list of words, software names, processes etc. Too broad in score for a list, not article material. -
  talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete: vaguely defined, potentially unlimited and ultimately unencyclopedic.
  Rankiri (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - The
  WP:OR and general non-encylopedic style is chronic. --Triwbe (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Abce2|AccessDenied 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - The lead section appears to infringe the copyright of this eWeek article. Cnilep (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The copyvio seems to be limited to the lead section. I have made the lead section a div and listed the page at WP:Copyright problems/2009 June 7. Cnilep (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• weak Delete even converted to a proper List this would not do much more than a :Cat. I like the idea of bringing them to a list, but this is not the way to do it, IMO. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:13, 7 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. Jamie^☆S93 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic groups with a larger diaspora population than their countries of origin

List of ethnic groups with a larger diaspora population than their countries of origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Interesting topic for an article elsewhere, but not suitable for Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is massive amounts of literature about how the drawing of borders affects ethnic identity, but this is a completely flawed approach based on an imaginary world of pure nation-states. Without a firm definition of which cross-border ethnic groups "belong" to which countries, this is inevitably
  standard language of Tajikistan is based on the Bukhara dialect? And are the non-Persian-speaking Tajiks of Xinjiang part of that "diaspora"? What do you do with ethnic groups like the Nanai people whose urheimat is split across the boundaries of two multi-ethnic countries, in neither of which they are the "titular nationality"? Which Mongolic-speaking groups "belong" to Mongolia? Which Turkic-speaking groups "belong" to Turkey? Et cetera. cab (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - more
  WP:LISTCRUFT in the same vein of this beastie. Please, no more of these, Montemonte. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete ethnic "identity" is a very tricky one, and this list just sheds more confusion than knowledge, and inevitably so. No way to do this neutrally and encyclopedically usefully, will constantly be comparing apples and oranges, etc...
  talk) 05:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Agree, it's
  WP:LISTCRUFT Niteshift36 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep useful list, but add some reference into the list.
• Delete. I'd bet Britain has a larger diaspora than its population too. And the Vikings, as they settled in North-East England and Normandy. How far back do we go? This list isn't of much use, as ethnic groups aren't well-enough tracked to cite this information reliably. Fences and windows (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The title of the article, refers to an important sociological issue. Kasaalan (talk) 21:45, 13 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. Jamie^☆S93 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Neck Ginger Ale

Northern Neck Ginger Ale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another case of an article that should have been CSD being needlessy forced to AFD. Non-notable product made by a non-notable company. Ridernyc (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's not even an assertion of notability, let alone any evidence. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:29, 11 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 redirected to Red Terror. It was a duplicate page in a foreign language, should serve fine as a redirect to the main article. Jamie^☆S93 21:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rode terror

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

this is the same hisorical event as described in the article Red Terror. This is not needed twice. Adbo2009 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect. No need for an AFD. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 6 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. Jamie^☆S93 20:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanera avenue

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

Non-notable local street. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A street doesn't become notable just because a member of a notable band lived there once. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is a
  side street, as seen here. Sebwite (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per everyone else commenting before me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 12 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banter Magazine

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

New magazine with no claim in article of meeting

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wasn't able to find any signs of notability. A more specific Google search for "Banter magazine" "Island's Best Magazine" OR Chimpy showed no results, which leads me to believe that the whole thing may be a
  Rankiri (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Delete Insufficient notability for new magazine (that may or may not be verifiable). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:48, 7 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 both. Jamie^☆S93 20:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Creature Comforts

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

The Politics of Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The only real indication I see of notability is "Band of the year" from what appears to me to be a local award. This just does not meet notability requirements in my eyes, sorry. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the one album from then as well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A7 the band, then A9 the album. No notability asserted at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Fails notability all around. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 7 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 NAC - speedily deleted per

Arian Al-Moghimi

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

Terrorist/Freedom fighter (depeding on your point of view). But not notable as not high ranking,

• Delete. Dying in battle doesn't automatically infer notability to soldiers/terrorists/freedom fighters. Pburka (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, getting killed is no assertion of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC),[reply]

• Speedy delete per A7, so nominated. ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 8 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. Jamie^☆S93 15:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua_Fourrier

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

Delete. Notability not established. Author is responsible for one article, this one. The article lacks any meaningful information, is orphaned, and clearly was written by the subject as an autobiography. Notability is the key issue here. I can't find any information in this individual beyond personal pages on MySpace. The career in radio and television seems to have eluded any notable sources Prop21 (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article was vandalized by an IP a while back - here and here, I have now reverted those edits. I haven't done any search for notability yet. -
  talk) 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I had noted the previous versions when I nominated. The article is autobiographical. The author, "AirAzonaRadio," has only done one article - this one - and it's got personal information that is uncited and unverifiable. The links provided on previous edits are either the subject's own creation or links to web sites that make no mention of the subject. In that regard, it could violate WP:NPOV in addition to WP:NOTE.--Prop21 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Insufficient notability for this self-promotional article on subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salting is hardly called for here.
    -- Banjeboi 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. Totally non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Where was the New Page Patrol when we needed them? Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with
  -- Banjeboi 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I did a quick search on Google for "Joshua Fourrier" and got nothing other than this article. I did another search for "Josh Fourrier" (not Joshua)and got some stuff, but it looks like it was all self-published. A MySpace search revealed the guy does, indeed, live in Arizona and his name is spelled "Fourrier" just like the article. I think misspelling is not an issue, here. The article is all-too-common: Aspiring radio and/or television performer who created his/her own page on Wikipedia as a blatant form of self promotion. The network he is claimed to have been on, "Air Azona Radio" I can find no information on other than with this guy's name attached, mostly YouTube videos that he loaded. The television show was claimed to be on Free Speech Television, which does exist and is public access television but there's no record on their web site of it existing, but then again it's public access. Look at the article's early history...it was clearly created by a Wikipedia amateur who hasn't done anything on Wikipedia since...then it was semi-cleaned up by various users and bots. This was a drive-by new article, if you want my honest opinion...original author completely abandoned it. My vote remains delete.--Prop21 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's a hoax as much as someone who actually did some cool public access TV at a very young age. Had they also done the publicity to land articles in pront this would be a different story. As such this will be great background for if and when they do become notable according to sourcing. Seems a snow delete to me.
      -- Banjeboi 01:10, 13 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 it has been changed back to a redirect. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury Wispa Gold

Cadbury Wispa Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD

)

• Delete. I don't see a need for redirect either. Totally non-notable product. Just because it exists doesn't mean it warrants an article.
  talk) 16:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt Not a useful redundancy and not a useful redirect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually keeping as a redirect would be fine. Perhaps protection of that is in order. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a reasonable redirect. The editor problems need to be dealt with separately.--RadioFan (talk) 16:58, 8 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. 69.X and Cool3 make good arguments that this baseball player is notably short. Some people weren't moved, but no attempt was made to refute this claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Chris Cates

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

minor league athletes fail

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Keep the minor leagues are "fully professional," and plenty of minor league players have their own pages. All of those players listed as all-stars on Cates's page have their own pages as well. If you want to nominate all of these minor leaguers for deletion, you will have a lot of nominating to do. The caption should be removed but that's beside the point. As the minor leagues are "fully professional," by the listed standard, minor league players should be eligible. Also, that league is three levels below the majors, so I question your knowledge of minor league baseball. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would argue that making a minor league All-Star team is considered "notability." I've added a citation mentioning his all-star selection. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That other minor leaguers have pages is not a valid argument. They may need deleted too. See

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and why aren't you signing in? I checked and minor leaguers are not considered meeting WP:ATHLETE unless they are otherwise notable, like moving on to the majors. Good, three levels below majors, even less notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm not "signing in" because, uh, I don't have an account to sign into. Those pages listed all survived an AfD before, and I found a discussion from two years ago where there was some agreement that a minor-league all-star was notable.

WP:ATHLETE, college basketball players and college football players are not notable. Do you really want to open up that can of worms? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete or merge somewhere. As per my comments at
  WP:GNG, I'll gladly change my mind. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I found quite a few notable Google hits, actually, such that when I typed in Chris Cates it suggested Chris Cates Twins, Chris Cates baseball, and Chris Cates Louisville as search options. Quite a few of the hits involved the fact that Cates is the shortest player in pro baseball and was the shortest player in college baseball, but being notable for his stature in addition to his baseball abilities doesn't make him any less notable. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Striking my previous !vote because of two of the three sources added by 69.253.207.9, which are actual articles about Cates, rather than passing mentions. I'd still like to see a bit more than these -- feel free to add them. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I just nommed some more of these, all except for some exceptions should be deleted.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, nominate most of the individual pages for the players listed in

2008 Major League Baseball Draft that haven't gone past A ball. The number 1 draft pick is surely notable and Pedro Alvarez for the controversy that surrounded his signing, but none of those other players are any more notable than the minor league all-stars nominated for deletion. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - He's been playing professional ball for three years and has been an All star for the last two. Sorry he didn't make it while he was in rookie ball. There's no question this article deserves to be kept. I wouldn't have written it two days ago if I didn't think so.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The Miracle is a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify under
  WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Niteshift36 has stated in several other "Article for deletion" entries that he believes they should be deleted because "The Miracle is not a professional team.". To make a comment like that, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, and his opinion has no merit.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He may fail the fully-professional requirement of WP:ATHLETE, but I believe that Cates passes the
  WP:ATHLETE he's been featured all over the media; that satisfies the GNG (even if the attention is just because of its height). Cool3 (talk) 04:15, 9 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. Jamie^☆S93 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Anding

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

Unsourced article - I've tried to find any mention of this purported former England national team footballer, but have failed. Although his career was a while back, I still find it rather unusual that there is absoultely nothing to be found. So this may well be a hoax Passportguy (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy delete - so clearly a hoax. England U21 team? During WW2? U21 team came into existence in the mid 70s according to it's wiki page! Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - can find no mention of him, plus his "stats" would make him by far Englands highest capped player and goalscorer 81.96.65.76 (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete and utter hoax! GiantSnowman 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - total bollocks, not a word of truth in it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. I assume this article was written in the middle of a dairy farm, cos I'm getting a strong whiff of BS from it.
  (bring on the trumpets!) 10:30, 12 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. AdjustShift (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity article about unnotable pseudoscience web organization with no reliable secondary sources Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find any decent sources (hits seems mainly to be about their annual 'awards', but there isn't coverage in reliable sources), no news hits either. The whole organisation looks slightly odd. It is stated on the website to be at the 'University of Pecs' in Hungary, when the article says it is a British organisation, and I can't find any reference to it on the University website.
  talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No third-party sources at all that I can find; only blog discussions etc by those connected with the group.
  talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A search turns up blogs, Youtube, etc, but nothing that meets our criteria. I see that despite the address in Hungary the website says 'The Academy is based in Croydon'.
  talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Answering to Quantpole who has been so kind to check up on Hungary but must be accidentally missed this page [[33]] I pretty much believe this address can qualify as British: Airport House, Purley Way, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 0XZ UK.

I would like to use this guidance in our case Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations

• 1. As above mentioned Hungary and UK can be considered as international scale of activity, hopefully in your eyes as well.
• 2. Notability: I believe you are missing an important part. This is not about the organisation on the google, this is about the absolutely stunning minds at this organisation. They are helping and supporting each other within the framework of this Academy. We are still actively working on building up the article but you make this almost impossible to finish. Wikipedia seems very far from its principle as The Free Encyclopedia

As you have found the awards. I also would like to ask you to devote some time and check who are those people at the award ceremony. I believe you can find some reliable person including Nobel laureate winners and so on.

This is a quote from the above page, I would like to ask you think about the highlighted parts: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Why is this massive fight against this organisation? Where does it come from? This is a non profit organisation which has absolutely no political or commercialise goals. Devoting massive amount of money from private sources to support scientists from all over the world. I believe none of you have read the aims and goals section of the article.

I would like to address you: Why Wikipedia treats us like criminals? Is it really a crime that we are lack of some google sources. So to make it simple no matter how much good this Academy can provide to the whole world, and to the science world without this current third party issue the Academy has to be deleted??? Why?

I am absolutely sure you could make this page stay. It is just a matter of point of view. I need you think about outside the box. If you want to you can let this article to evolute into a great Wikipedia article but we need more time. Please do not bother to answer unless you do not use your third party sources google wildcard.

Thank you for your time --Webmaster6 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated use of the first person plural "we" and "us" reflects that you are closely associated with this institute, correct?

talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I think your definition of notability and word as used in Wikipedia jargon are different. From

secondary sources

about the subject must be found. Find those, and this article should pass the deletion.

secondary sources are important. For one, they prove the subject exists and is what it claims to be. People make stuff up, going so far as to create fake webpages, blog entries, etc. to give the illusion that something exists. Without reliable, independent secondary sources, how is anyone going to know if this organization is in fact real? Another purpose of the notability rule is to keep Wikipedia from filling up with articles about every person's cat or school club. You are going to need to prove that "outsiders," i.e. people or organizations, preferably notable themselves, who are not part of this organization have cared enough about it to write something about it: that way they serve as reliable, independent, secondary sources. It may just be that the organization currently hasn't attracted enough attention so the sources don't exist yet. When the organization has attracted some attention and there are reliable, independent, secondary sources to prove it, recreate the article and cite them. Until then it will be deleted. Sifaka ^talk 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your answer. You put this parent child topic relationship in a very strange angle for me. In my interpretation an Academy is an intangible asset. The Academy is nothing without its members. How you can describe an organisation without its individuals. I believe it is nonsense. We can prove every single member of the Academy as a reliable source. For example

• Franco Selleri [34].
• From China, Chen-I-Wan [35]
• Michael Duffy, he is the organizer of one of the most important conferences that has taken place eleven times at Imperial College, London and now extended to Moscow Technical University (Bauman) and to the Calcutta Mathematical Society . See [36]
• Lawrence Paul Horwitz [37]

The Academy can provide thousands of publication by the members but we need more time. All I am asking why cannot you just put on the tag this article cites few sources please improve it??

The Academy has got associated institutes on an international scale, absolutely independent reliable secondary sources. What is the reason that Wiki cannot except that? Why can be the Academy on the Hungarian wikipedia without even a single problem?

I would like to ask you to tailor the WP:Notability rule for this case as a non profit organisation and share with me only that part that applies here. I think this parent child topic does not apply in this case. I need to know what would satisfy the notability rule, by examples? What kind of article or information that you are looking for on the google about this Academy? Please give me some concrete examples that you would accept. Thank you for your cooperation. --Webmaster6 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, the academy is nothing without its members then there is no need for an article on it: articles on its notable members would be quite sufficient. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you are not able to answer my questions at least do not twist my words. I came here for help and do not assume any wild or nonsense thoughts. Just think for one minute if these "notable" minds are formed an Academy what they are capable of. It is definitely worth to notice. I am certain I can get your information but I do not know what you need. Thank you. --Webmaster6 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, French Academy of Sciences is known to be notable (in the sense used in Wikipedia), as there are many books (reliable sources - written and published by someone who is reputed to be reliable in such area) written about it by writers who are independent of it (they are not its members, they are not its employees, etc.). Google Book search with "Académie des sciences" finds books like "Science and social status: the members of the Academie des sciences 1666-1750" by David J. Sturdy, "Royal funding of the Parisian Académie royale des sciences during the 1690s" by Alice Stroup, "Specialist control: the Publications Committee of the Académie royale des sciences (Paris), 1700-1793" by James Edward McClellan... Thus we can write an article about French Academy of Sciences by making a summary of those sources. And now - are there any similar sources about organisation in question? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no sources and searching yields no potential (as noted above). Also what's with the music on the homepage? That isn't helping at all. meshach (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is getting nowhere but I wonder why since there should be no argument and this possibility of deletion should never have arisen. I would like to know first what Mr Spackman thinks he's up to? In fact, who is Mr Spackman and how is he in a position to cause this pointless furore? If he's so desperate for 'notability', simply go to the main Telesio-Galilei web page, click on the 2009 medal ceremonies feature and then click on the invitations item. You will see with no further problem that Telesio-Galilei is represented at the major Yalta conference mentioned, Telesio-Galilei's founder and preseident are listed amongst the co-chairmen (alongside a Nobel prize winner), and a number of its gold medals for 2009 are to be awarded at that meeting. Is this the situation of a non-serious scientific organisation? I think not! If you, Mr Spackman, feel this insufficient evidence of 'notability' then I have to say you must be following an agenda of your own of which I know nothing. Faithdd (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organisation is virtual. There are no secondary sources showing it exists beyond its website. For the same reasons, notability seems impossible to establish by the normal criteria of wikipedia. It seems to have been created by Francesco Fucilla and his cronies, who again have no notability in science. Wikipedia is not a mirror for fringe/pseudophysics websites. Francesco Fucilla seems to be connected with a company - steriwave.plc - which purports to be able to use an irretrievably flawed grand unified theory of physics to facilitate interstellar travel. Since he seems to have been the force behind the writing of the article, it's very hard to take it seriously, even with all the attempted name-dropping. Mathsci (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW,

WP:SPA sockpuppet/meatpuppet account and could be indefinitely blocked if this turns out to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There is absolutely NO name dropping on my part. If you check out the link I have given, you will readily find that what I have said is true. If being linked with such a prestigious scientific event in Yalta is not sufficient for establishing notability of a genuine scientific organisation then, as I said previously, you must be following an agenda unknown to the remainder of us.

As for your remarks about 'sockpuppet/meatpuppet account', I have no idea what you mean. These are genuine points made by someone becoming more and more disillusioned with the reliability and fairness of Wikipedia itself. I do hope I'm proved wrong on this last point.Faithdd (talk)

Probably you need to read

WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This nomination for deletion was not made by me—see [38], —and I have not voted on it. I am quite relaxed about the article staying, if the organisation’s notability is established, or about its going if it’s not. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain perfectly relaxed about the article staying, if the organisation’s notability is established, but it looks less and less likely that that will happen, given the time that its supporters have had to meet the rather minimalist notability guidelines. So I guess it is time for me to cast my vote.

Delete: no notability established through citatations of even marginally reputable third-party sources. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as seconder to the PROD on 31 May. At the time I could find no third party
  WP:RS material on this organisation and I have been no more successful today. Ian has been more than patient with repeatedly explaining on the talk page what was required in the way of sourcing over the past two weeks and nothing other than diatribes have resulted. I think enough is enough and it is now time to delete. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I look at the only source that could arguibily pass WP:RS and show notability (the BBC article turns out to be apparently only for the area of Wales and written by a person that is related to this academy (Myron Evans, as commented by Mathsci) so it's not an independient third-party source (he's chairman and fellow of the academy and he received one of the awards of that ceremony)...

This academy needs way more independient coverage before it can pass WP:N. I suggest in good faith and good intentions that the authors talk to the academy members (if they know them) and try to coordinate efforts to get the academy to appear at sources that satisfy

WP:ORG for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and all the explanations given there about how to pass WP:ORG. At this moment, the academy doesn't really qualify, so good luck for the next time when the academy has received more coverage and you can list it here to give it another try. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• http://www.gmw.cn/content/2009-06/10/content_932284.htm
• http://news.sina.com/ch/gmw/102-101-101-101/2009-06-10/01453925930.html
• http://www.telesio-galilei.com/2009-06-10%20Guangming%20Daily%20website%20report%20on%20returning%20of%20Jiang%20_ChEng.pdf - in English

I looked up the last. Wonderful—that really does help. To quote from the link, on

Fermat’s last theorem. For some reason Mr. Jiang seems not to be mentioned there. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

--Webmaster6 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two links have colour pictures of Fancesco Fucilla, who funds the prizes and website and also edits the article and talk page. The only mention in the British press of anything connected with this academy is the proposal for an unaccredited Myron Evans University (MEU) when it was declared illegal by the Welsh assembly. [39] This virtual institution, now rebranded as the Maxwell-Einstein University [40], is affiliated with Fucilla's virtual organization. It is quite amazing what can be put on websites. Francesco Fucilla is professor of geoscience and the history and philosophy of science at this private unaccredited and possibly non-existent university which grants Ph.D.'s apparently. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 10 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.

Lob ball

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: falls under
  Rankiri (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails our
  verifiability policy. Google hits on "lob ball" appear to describe a baseball/softball variant unrelated to the game the article describes. Sorry, but you can't just make up a game and stick it on Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete fails
  WP:NEO. Highest Heights (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That's been suggested and rejected several times at
  WT:CSD. If a subject can't be verified then it still needs a few more eyes on it to make sure others can't verify it either. IMHO "blatant unverifiability" should be grounds for "snow delete" at AFD but not "CSD". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete obviously. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It would work better on YouTube. I get the idea of playing on a court that is divided lengthwise into three sections, and each side has to stay out of the middle third. The obvious problem is that if sportscasters keep saying "third" it will eventually sound like "turd" (He stepped out of his tird and into da middle tird before da ball went into da opposite tird so da trow dudn't count..) In fact, I guarantee it will go viral if you can have the narrator say "turd" as much as possible while describing the action. Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:MADEUP. The rules make a little more sense on this one than most new games on Wikipedia, but that does not make it any more notable. Eauhomme (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per
  WP:MADEUP. Note: the edit summary of the first edit (i.e. when it was created) reads, "Raised awairness on homemade game". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramuan

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

I came to the page on NPP. Initially though it just needed help, but the links were to a commerical website and the book source is published by the same company. I've done a quick Google and News search and can't find any sources to establish notability. Ramuan has the veil of being an actual idea but is just an advert Bigger digger (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's never clear to me whether the nominator should vote, but I'll get the ball rolling. I have notified the creator and the single contributor. The article can't even be made into one about the firm as there's nothing notable there. It could possible be a dicdef and is part of the name of a place but is not suitable for wp. Bigger digger (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, as the nominator, your nomination rationale is your !vote. After that you may comment all you want and reply to other comments but you shouldn't bold "delete" again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• D'accord, merci beaucoup. Bigger digger (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google book search indicates that this is more than mere spam though poorly sourced. I can't vouch for the details but the essential concept seems to be notable. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to
  Herbalism but this seems to be a broader concept than that, incorporating beauty and food as well as medicinal values. I am glad to see more articles on ethnobotany but wish they were better sourced. Drawn Some (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Enough Gbooks hits to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As per my !vote above, the dicdef shows that ramuan is Malay/Indonesian for "ingredient". It's therefore inevitable that it throws up a lot of hits. On the second page of the Gbooks search it has a mention in a Harry Potter book. There is still nothing to show notability. Bigger digger (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs work, but with the work it could be good enough. --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What work is there? What sources are there? I would love to be proved wrong, and that this article is actually worthwile because there are sources out there. I spent 30 minutes on tagging and copyediting it before realising it was worthless, but you have just come along and not even !voted, you've just voted. Please provide some evidence for your position. Bigger digger (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is the first documented form of Ramuan. It is an ancient traditional practice of the Malaysian people although unknown to anyone beyond the Malaysian culture. The book is the very first literary introduction of this practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.208.209 (talk) 21:17, 12 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. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Lives in Hot Springs

The Devil Lives in Hot Springs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Movie with no assertion of notability. No third-party reference other than IMDB. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm all for independent films but this one is simply not notable, not just failing
  WP:NF but failing it absolutely and completely by any stretch of the imagination. Drawn Some (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable film that does not appear to be in theatrical, DVD or film festival release.
  talk) 12:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 6 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. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Pacific English

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

Unsourced article. I can't find any trace of this concept - apparently the author self-invented it as a paralell to "mid-atalntic english". the only trace of anything connected to "Mid-pacific English" I can find is on Pacific Ocean Creol/Pidgin based languages, however this still doesn't seem to be a widely accepted term. Passportguy (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Passportguy. The Mid-Pacific accent is distinct. ajhshamley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhshamley (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources for the existance of this ? Passportguy (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone goes through the history of this, I closed it, believing it withdrawn by nominator. Actually I now realise Passportguy intended to withdraw the nomination of the AfD below (it was a little confusing). Passportguy's reversion of my closure was correct, and he did it at my invitation. No abuse has taken place, just a misunderstanding.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This sounds like
  original research. Delete unless evidence is presented that this is a concept recognized by academic linguists. LadyofShalott 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I can find only one mention of the term, in a 1986 article by Gunther Kress suggesting that there is no international media standard English. Google turns up an alt.english.usage thread from 2007 under that title, but that's hardly a reliable source. It appears to lack notability and the potential for reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obvious example of
  WP:OR. Orderinchaos 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Appears to be OR Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 12 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 Please delete - in error Nom. Passportguy (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoxica

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

Prod removed at the last moment - self-invented word Passportguy (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that this had undergone an AfD earlier. Well that's good news : we can speedy this then. Passportguy (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, I should've noticed that earlier... Hadrian89 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSDG4 is the correct category, no? Hadrian89 (talk) 10:57, 6 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 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Tower (band)

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

Newley formed band with two claimed recent EP releases on a nn label. However all the references link to twitter, myspace and one apparent magazine article. I don't see this passing

Element014 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Twitter and MySpace are not reliable sources. The Beat Route source is decent, but the rest are not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited MySpace because the music was first released via MySpace. Most legitimate bands use MySpace, and in this case, Bell Tower's MySpace has information relevant to a Wikipedia article. It might not put the article any closer to meeting standards but it still allows the page to contain supported information that someone reading it may want to know. Element014 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• References have been revised to include better sources. An article in regards to Sled Island music festival, and CBC Radio3 have been used to varify the information on the page. Element014 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article fails to establish notability per
  WP:MUSIC. And dear Lord, what was up with all those lines!!!!!!  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]