Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 1 May 3 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10/26/1986

AfDs for this article:
10/26/1986 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unneccesary split of article, Information already covered in October 26 ∗ \ / (⁂) 04:06, 2 May 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 Marasmusine (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devilsaur

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

Contested PROD. Unsourced essay.

WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wperdue (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep . The concensus appears to be that the Wired article is enough to carry notability. Marasmusine (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BVE Trainsim

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

Notability still not established with reliable sources. ZoeL (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThemFromSpace, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking:
"Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be acceptable."
This is based on a lot of arguments on the subject.
talk) 05:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Anyone can create a website [...] then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether [...] personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings [...] are largely not acceptable." "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources [...] so long as [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources."
You are asking for an exception to an official content policy. 87.123.81.60 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what is wired news?
talk) 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
reliable source. Alex Sims (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I would accept Wired News per se, however, an article called The Best Free Train Simulator isn't exactly the best source to base a neutral-point-of-view article on. 89.247.232.105 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. We'd shitcan someone's essay about how awesome the game is, but when a reliable source gushes on and on, then we need to reflect that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion is not a vote. By the way, it does not make any sense to keep two different programs under one common article that has the name of just one of these programs. If this article is about BVE Trainsim, then it should be so, with all references to openBVE removed (which is a different piece of software). If an article about Linux wasn't allowed, you wouldn't want to include all information you know about Linux in an article on Windows, either, do you? And also, how long an article has been available here is irrelevant to Wikipedia's content policies. If five suggested sources on openBVE result in a deletion of one article, then only one source of comparable quality cannot rectify a keep. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make an amendment:
WP:N - Including two programs under a common article, and naming that article after just one of these programs, cannot be neutral. If you had two separate topics, e.g. British English and American English, you wouln't file it under British English, either. If it's two programs - and both have equally weak sources - then there should be two articles. And if not, then the program unaffiliated with this article should not be mentioned here. Otherwise, I begin to see a bias among Wikipedians and admins: in that they favor one sim over the other and handle both differently - especially as they are closely related. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The sources on openBVE establish - if anything - notability for openBVE, but not for BVE Trainsim. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wired magazine gives it a third party media coverage, which meets the current notability guidelines. Dream Focus 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are two third party reviews by different individuals at http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=bve4 and http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=bve.Eezypeazy (talk)
  • Comment The article Train simulator lists 7 train driving simulations, including BVE Trainsim and openBVE. The other 5 commercial software products that are listed each have their own article. None of these are being considered for deletion, even though some have fewer references than BVE Trainsim or openBVE. If individual software products are only entitled to have their own Wikipedia article if they are notable, this raises the question of what to do about new software. Since openBVE is new, it seems to me, that it is best described in the BVE Trainmsim article, since that is subject to which it is most likely to be considered as an alternative. If it then becomes sufficiently notable to satisfy the Wikipedia community, it could have its own article in the future. I understand the concerns made earlier about not having 2 programs in the same article. An alternative could be to rename this BVE Trainsim article as BVE Train Simulation, or something similar, which could cover both BVE Trainsim and openBVE. The article could always be split into separate articles at some time in the future.--Chris1515 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 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.

talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Glossary of wedding terms

Glossary of wedding terms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is a list of wedding terms, however, Wikipedia is neither a

dictionary. Furthermore, there is no clear consensus on what a "wedding term" is. TNXMan 23:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete.

talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Commercial replacement

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

Declined A1 speedy. This article merely states that a "commercial replacement" is what takes the place of a commercial break on some channels (duh!) but gives no example of what such a replacement could consist of, hence my tagging. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that specifically, but the only use for commercial replacement on cable/sat systems is for local/provider ads (the pitches for PPV, for instance). However, the sentence is so poorly written that it doesn't mention it as that use.
chatter) 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence (beyond the nominator) for requested deletion. Non-admin closure.

talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Cobra effect

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

Contested prod. Non-notable term. Google returns few hits, most of them unrelated. References inserted in deprodding shed very little new light. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:50, 2 May 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.

talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Romania–Switzerland relations

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

Well, aside from the

recent referenda (which didn't really impact relations as such), there isn't much to see. Sure, there've been the usual visits (note the extremely warm handshake exchanged between the Romanian and the Swiss Presidents), but there's nothing special about those (at least nothing encyclopedic, as opposed to newsworthy), and there's trade - but perhaps half a billion dollars' worth, in two economies that are hundreds of billions of dollars in size. To be precise, 0.6% of Romanian exports go to Switzerland, and 0.9% of imports come from there. Oh, and this brand of milk was started by a Swiss - but let's not degenerate into trivia. The point is, this relationship is nothing sort of mundane, and the lack of independent in-depth sources means we should delete. If there's really interest in linking the Berne incident with the referenda, we could always create a Category: Romania–Switzerland relations for that. Biruitorul Talk 21:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Note: the above editor is now indefinitely blocked for block evasion.  Sandstein  11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Romania's recent EU accession coupled with an ongoing integration of Switzerland into the European market through treaties has led to extensive coverage of issues pertaining to Swiss-Romanian relations in Swiss media in recent years, most especially related to the
    Swiss referendum, February 2009, but also e.g. concerning armament deals [11], foreign aid to Romania [12] or Swiss media group Ringier's entry into the Romanian market [13], and that's just the first page of German-language news search results. A 2006 report about a ministerial meeting notes that the countries share a "strong economic and cultural relationship" ([14]). A 2007 report about a state visit of the Romanian president in Switzerland adds that Romania is Switzerland's most important trading partner in South Eastern Europe ([15]). This leads me to believe that there is more than enough material available for an article on this topic.  Sandstein  11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • For Ringier (which anyway doesn't have to do with the Swiss government, being a private entity), couldn't we expand on its Romanian venture at Ringier? And while Romania is Switzerland's most important trade partner in SE Europe, how much does that really mean in context (given that, for Romania at least, trade with Switzerland makes up under 1% of GDP)? And yes, of course a ministerial meeting would have a declaration that the relationship is "strong", but I don't know how much importance we can really attach to that. As for the Iraq business, while it did make the news, it's also probably something we'd never consider including elsewhere - surely it's not important enough for Foreign relations of Switzerland? Finally, the referendum article needs expansion on the Romania/Bulgaria angle, but what could be said here can surely be said there, in greater depth and in its proper context. In sum, then, I respectfully disagree on the potential for an article (the category option I mentioned above remains viable - update: I see the category has now been created), though anyone is welcome to prove me wrong if this is kept. - Biruitorul Talk 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to assume that the scope of the article is limited to diplomatic or other intergovernmental relations. I, on the other hand, would conceive of an article with this title as encompassing all relations between the countries, including cultural and economic ties. The articles I linked to illustrate the potential for an article on this general topic. I do not mean to argue that the specific facts these few articles report need to be included in the article, although some eventually may.  Sandstein  20:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think an article on bilateral relations should focus on intergovernmental ties, but not exclusively, if other ties exist. And I didn't mean to be dismissive of the articles you found, but I think I provided at least plausible reasons why they shouldn't be used. The potential for a well-developed article seems rather weak, though I respect your opinion. - Biruitorul Talk 06:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even on the basis that Intergovernmental relationships are necessary, they include economic ties. Enough of this has been shown. But I don't think thats necessary at all . We can only go by the article title: "R-S Relations", not R-S diplomatic relations, or political relations of government relations. any relations between the two countries. The articles started out with diplomatic relations only, but that was a among the many mistakes in the way they were created. DGG (talk) 07:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. If there are sources to be added to it as alleged above, get on with it, because as it stands it is cruft. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete?. One could say it is bizzar to have articles for the relations between Switzerland (or Romania, but I know nothing about Romania) and all the countries in the world. Actually this article says nothing. It might have been interesting if there was some minor history between the two countries but I cannot think of any and have read nothing. Trompeta (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have just seen the France–Switzerland relations article, it should be much longer but look at it.
  • Comment: some info and sources, mainly relating to the economical ties between the two countries in recent years, have been added.
    Fram (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There is also a webpage by the Swiss foreign department dedicated to "Bilateral Relations between Switzerland and Romania" at [16], which goes into some detail. Moreover, a 384 page monograph has been published on the subject: Chinezu, Claudia (2001). Roumanie - Suisse: approches diplomatiques, économiques et culturelles. Editions Universitaires Fribourg Suisse.
    OCLC 50053030.  Sandstein  09:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The circles mark countries whose relationship with Romania is even less significant than that of Switzerland :-) Vmenkov (talk) 01:40, 9 May 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.

talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Post-punk revival

Post-punk revival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible neologism based on a single allmusic article, lots of original research here neon white talk 13:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted it's use in some reliable sources but there's is only the allmusic article that really covers it in any significance as required for a neologism. Some of the source also appear to attribute the term to differing concepts. --neon white talk 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hundreds of articles link to this one, and deleting this would leave hundreds of redlinked genres in articles, or if these were delinked no explanation of what post-punk revival means, which would be a bigger problem than leaving this here. Approx. 155 Google news results for "post-punk revival" (e.g. this) suggest it's widely-enough used to be sufficiently 'notable', and verifiability doesn't appear to be a problem. --Michig (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no significant coverage there. Remember that a neologism does not establish notability by use but by coverage. --neon white talk 09:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, legitimate genre used in a range of publications, as shown above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Where? --neon white talk 09:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
here and here, for one. It took me about thirty seconds of Google-fu to find these, so I'm sure that I could find more if I really looked hard. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment Relisting at the request of the nominator. Note that the article was not tagged for deletion when it was first nominated. It is now tagged. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pretty notable, and discussed by several sources (one of the most important is the Afterward of Simon Reynolds' book Rip It Up and Start Again: Postpunk 1978-1984). It's a well-established movement. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if i am wrong but Reynolds' book is about post-punk only rather than 'post-punk rivival'. --neon white talk 09:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, the post-punk revival is discussed in the Afterword of the book, as an aspect of post-punk's legacy. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The stylus article doesnt mention the term by name only discuss a rivial of such sounds, not great for notability. --neon white talk 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Stylus article refers to "p-punk revival", I think it's pretty clear what it's talking about, especially given the context of the article at the beginning talking about "post-punk". --JD554 (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Though leaning towards Keep. If it's kept the entry should be edited/expanded. That list of bands doesn't belong. If it's deleted it should be added (and the links redirected) to the main "Post-punk" entry. There's no question that "post-punk revival" is a legitimate term after all. --KatjaKat (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would be a better solution. In fact almost the entire article is already contained as a section in the
post punk article. It might be worth working on that section and spinning out if necessary later. --neon white talk 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
    • WP:BEFORE covers that with "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." --JD554 (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super OS

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

Non-notable distribution; no third-party sources LucAndrea (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are plenty of third party sources on a link already in the article ( [19] ), including popular sites like lifehacker ( [20] ), softpedia ( [21] ), distrowatch ( [22] ), and many other less known sites... What information in the article would you like better sourced? maybe we can find more references for that? As a side note, there is also a mention in lifehacker of a tool included in the distro by the same developers (App Runner): [23]. While I agree this might not be as notable as distros like Ubuntu or Fedora, we have to face it that it is pretty hard for a recent (it seems to be at least from 2008, not sure if it is older...) open source project to get reviews/etc... Also note that this was "Super Ubuntu" in the past, so some coverage probably uses that name... -- SF007 (talk) 14:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I use this distro as my main OS, but I don't think that it conflict of interest... I also use others and I also edit their articles... SF007 (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as notable as any other distro. Note: I don't use it or any other version of Linux, but use of something is not a COI. If that was the case, 99% of all edits would be COI. It would only be a conflict if you were an author. RoyLeban (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added a 3rd party source. Agree its basically as notable as many distros. Those refs above or others must go in. I tagged it as such. Widefox (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A discussion as to whether or not to merge may be opened on the article talk page.

talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

1520 New Hampshire Avenue

1520 New Hampshire Avenue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The information was removed from

straight up now tell me 20:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Merge any relevant information into the embassy article. - Biruitorul Talk 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The nominator is flawed in nominating the article despite it having existed for only a few years, it is displaying an "underconstruction" tag and should at least be given time for improvement. Beside which, there is precedent for seperate articles where the building has its own "claim to fame". I'm not at my own computer so I'm unable to find the articles. The nomination should be withdrawn immediately. HJMitchell You rang? 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you mean hours, not years. There is precedent for combining the information, as I've already mentioned.
    straight up now tell me 22:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sorry, I was in a hurry! Yes, I meant hours. The precedent to which I refer is
972 Fifth Avenue, Canada House and, I'm lead to believe, a number of other articles. It is my opinion that the information is worthy of its own article as an architectural structure as the embassy cannot do it justice without being labelled as "trivia"- apparently Biruitorul's favourite word. The embassy article needs to focus on the diplomacy and there is, I feel, a use for the information on the building in a separate article. If there was nothing interesting about the building, I would agree with you but there is, in my opinion, enough to warrant an article. HJMitchell You rang? 03:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment The reliable sources are not discussing the actual building, only the people/organizations that used the building. I added them to the original embassy article to avoid another 2-sentence stub. The information and sources in
straight up now tell me 15:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If I'm perfectly honest, I'm inclined to agree with you. However, the embassy article was struggling to cover bothe the architectural heritage of the building, which is why I split it. The precedents to which I alluded are very similar cases. The building has certainly had notable owners and is of significance in that it's been used for more than just the embassy, so it's not necessarily appropriate to have its only coverage in the embassy article. HJMitchell You rang? 19:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interesting situation. The
    Embassy of Jamaica in Washington, D.C. is the most appropriate solution. SilkTork *YES! 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A good point well made. However, I believe that it is worth having an article on the building in its own right. The embassy article could, I think, could be improved and expanded, as could this one, without, for example, architectural information being branded "trivia". It was my intention to revisit both and add more information but I shall await the conclusion of this debate before doing so. HJMitchell You rang? 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who described the architectural information as "trivia"? Have you been able to locate a source that specifically covers the building?
straight up now tell me 05:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Alas not, though I'm still looking. It is difficult to find information. Maybe if the article were to be merged back, it would be better than nothing. However, there is definite notability of the building outside of the Jamaican Embassy. There must be information out there but I'm running out of places to search. I wonder if I might be on the wrong side of the Atlantic. HJMitchell You rang? 22:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Encyclopaedia Metallum

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

This article was previously nominated without resulting in a consensus. Fansite; article is entirely sourced from its subject; I've seen nothing that proves that it or its founders are notable or authoritive in any way.

talk) 20:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Same as previous AFD. No significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 20:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gosh, here we go again. Besides being, by far, the most accessed Metal website (Google and Alexa), Examiner.com has one article about MA, which could be found through Google News back when it was written.Evenfiel (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article on examiner is written by a member of the Encyclopaedia Metallum. Examiner.com also appears to be a site that relies on user generated content. Apparently, I can write for them too ... if I am from the USA. --Bardin (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Oh, I didn't know he was a member, but so what? He's not even an active user, and I'm sure that anyone who writes about EM would have an account there, just like a lot of journalists and writers who talk about Wikipedia have an account here. About writing for examiner.com, it's not an user generated site like wikipedia. Your application needs to be approved, as it's clearly written here.Evenfiel (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would also like to remind you guys of what was posted in the latest discussion about MA:

The result was No consensus. The nominator and subsequent participators here have presented a very strong case for deletion based on our relevant

notability guideline for websites. However, some credence needs to be given to the availability of sources for a genre of music that historically does not get any mainstream media coverage, such as metal/death music. The "alexa ranking", or hit count, as cited by Evenfiel below, in this case, does garner some significance as being a high-traffic website for its fanbase. Looking at the concerns of the notability camp, and the ramifications/fallout of deleting this article as far as the List of online music databases, they balance themselves out to a firm "no consensus" to delete. (I'm not a vote counter by any means, but as an FYI, it came out in support of non-consensus closure, at 9D/8K. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Evenfiel (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am in agreement with Evenfiel's observations above. In the absence of mainstream media's coverage of the metal/death music scene, EM fills an important gap. And I believe more than a few metal-related articles on Wikipedia use EM as a reference.
    talk) 22:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The argument that EM is the only available source for coverage of this type of music doesn't hold water. There are (rarely-cited) magazines such as Metal Hammer and Terrorizer that cover it, and try searching for "heavy metal", "death metal" or "black metal" over at Amazon - book sources are available for genuinely notable bands - the problem is that unfortunately a lot of editors who work on these articles don't cite proper sources. EM is not a reliable source and should not be used as a reference in articles here. The argument that we should keep it because it's used as a source in some articles isn't a good one at all.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per
    WP:NOTAGAIN. We've had this discussion at AfD once; what's supposed to have changed in the meantime?—S Marshall Talk/Cont
    08:46, 3 May
    Have you actually read the page you linked to? 'NOTAGAIN' is part of 'arguments to avoid in deletion discussions', because it's not much of an argument. The page states that frivolous nominations can be speedy-kept, but this nomination is not frivolous - the nominator makes a good case for deletion. Robofish (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only encyclopedic books on metal in amazon are those by Garry Sharp Young, which are heavily incomplete, outdated and with info lifted straight from Encyclopaedia Metallum. Other than that, the only books available are those that deal with the famous bands of each genre. If you think that all genuinely notable bands have books sources, you should start to nominate for deletion most metal bands in Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia does not consider EM a source, it's heavily used as such by journalists specialized in metal, but I guess this does not has much to do with the current discussion, which is already a pointless rehash of an old one. Evenfiel (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about these books, all not written by Garry Sharpe-Young? [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Sure, these might not give much coverage to some obscure Scandinavian band that only ever released a couple of demos and a run of 100 CD-Rs on an 'underground' label, but that's probably because they don't belong in an encyclopedia. If EM is the only source available for these bands then I think says a lot about their notability.--Michig (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1, 2, 3 are not encyclopedic in any way or shape. You will not find any complete discography, for example. 4 was published in 1983. 5 is a book with photos. (Did you even care to read what those books are about?). 6 seems to only have a few bands, omitting obvious notable bands, like Opeth, Nightwish, and Bruce Dickinson's solo band. 7 I admit that I don't know, but that book was released in November 2008. The last one is only about Swedish metal.Evenfiel (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Rough Guide certainly is encyclopedic (take a look through the first few pages on Amazon), and surely a book that "is only about Swedish metal" is a reasonable source for articles about Swedish metal bands? You can't expect all sources to give you an alphabetic listing of bios and discographies - writing well-sourced articles on bands isn't as easy as that. Bands such as Opeth have been covered in magazines such as Terrorizer, and even Allmusic has a reasonable bio [32], which, unlike EM, could not have been written by band members and fans. --Michig (talk) 09:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Rough Guide is indeed quite rough. Look at their entry for Accept. There is hardly any info about the albums, something that EM has. About the other book, maybe (I haven't seen the book) for swedish death metal, but that's just a fraction of the metal bands covered in Wikipedia. Also, I don't think that the significance of EM to Wikipedia is due to the biographies. It's importance relies on the information about current and previous line-ups, as well as complete discographies and info about each album, something that you won't find in those books, and many times not even in the official sites. Evenfiel (talk) 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no problem with any source being used to find info on discographies, and I have no problem with EM being used as a source of information, but it cannot be the only source that an article relies on. For bands that are notable, other sources will exist.--Michig (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage of a site consisting solely of user-edited comment; fails
    WP:WEB. Alexa ratings are not signifiers to notability, and as Michig quite rightly points out there are plenty of commercially published print resources for the genre of heavy metal. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete Even though I was the nominator for the last AFD, I was actually going to sit this one out for reasons that are irrelevant to this AFD. Since this AFD is already degenerating into irrelevant topics, I've decided to throw my two cents into the fray. While I respect Keeper76 as an admin, I believe he or she came to a wrong conclusion at the previous AFD. However, I did not felt strongly enough about the matter to pursue it any further. The only reason why the article was kept is because of the Alexa ranking that Evenfiel kept bringing up but the popularity or lack thereof for a website has no relevance in determining whether a site is notable according to wikipedia's very own guidelines on the subject. Notability is not about reliability, so the entire discussion above between Evenfiel and Michig is completely irrelevant. Notability is not about popularity. There is nothing in wikipedia's policies that state a website is notable because it is popular. There are many, many sites that attract more internet traffic than the metal-archives but they do not have an article on wikipedia because none of them, like the metal archives, fulfil the notability requirements of wikipedia. I was not going to bring this up either but since Evenfiel has decided to disparage the reliability of another editor's opinions above, I would like to draw attention to the fact that Evenfiel is actually one of the biggest contributors to the Metal Archives and shares the same highest rank with only four other individuals, including the two owners of the site. I think there is a blatant conflict of interest when someone promotes as reliable a site that houses their own original contributions while questioning the value of books from such notable publishers as Rough Guides, McFarland & Company and Feral House. --Bardin (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that this discussion has got off-topic, but a large part of the rationale behind not deleting this last time was the suggestion that bands in the genres covered by EM are not covered elsehwere, which is what I have been arguing against. I would like to see someone come forward with a good argument for EM being suitable for an encyclopedia article, rather than just being useful or popular.--Michig (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being notable for an article on wikipedia is a different issue to being reliable as a source for other articles on wikipedia. This website is neither. --Bardin (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to WP:Search_engine_test, hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results. On the other hand, examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability.. So, it means that, if you examine well the hits, then it will provide useful information to us. What I'm saying is that, if you compare EM's Google hits or Alexa ranks with any other metal related website, you'll see that EM has far more google hits and is way better ranked in alexa. I'm comparing oranges to oranges here, and it turns out that EM is the most popular site in the metal community, period. As for my relation with EM, I never tried to hid it. I even use the same nick. As for the value of those books, I didn't say they are not reliable. I said they are not complete and cannot be used for checking discographies or line-ups, for example. They might do well what they are pretending to, but they don't have complete info about those bands and that's a fact. Anyway, this discussion should be about notability, not reliability. Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:Search engine test is about the number of hits that a subject gets on a search engine like google or yahoo. It is not about the number of visitors to a site, which is what Alexa measures. Those are two separate issues and nowhere on wikipedia is there a policy or guideline that says a website is notable if it is simply popular. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hatted extended wrangling
My position Bardin's position
This nomination is entirely based on
arguments to avoid
 ATA is only an essay, and it should be disregarded in this case because
consensus can change
This discussion should be at DRV because it advances no new arguments and presents no new evidence not already taken into account in the previous close Other articles are deleted from AfD in this way, so why not this one?
Such repeated nominations are
forumshopping
 No they aren't, take this irrelevant discussion to AN

I'll let the closer decide which of us has the stronger argument. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? You are completely misrepresenting my position in that box of yours. For instance, I never said forum shopping does not matter. I said this is not forum shopping. Kindly remove that box of yours from this AFD. You are really going way beyond the subject of this AFD. --Bardin (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amended.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not asked for an amendment. I am asking you to kindly remove the entire box as a misrepresentation of my positions and an inaccurate summary of our discussion. Please let other editors, including the closing admin, to arrive at their own conclusions regarding our viewpoints. --Bardin (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tabular format is a good way of analysing the strengths and weaknesses of varying arguments. However, I would not wish to misrepresent you, so please feel free to indicate the specific points you object to.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish I have not even seen this AFD in the first place now. I could do without all of this aggravation. I have already told you twice now that the box misrepresents my viewpoints and is an inaccurate summary of our discussion. You chose which points to include in your summary. You chose which points to present next to one another. You chose which points to ignore. I do not want to rehash our discussion again, point by point, repeating myself again. It is late and I have an early flight tomorrow. All I'm asking here is for you to just be nice, drop the box from this AFD as something wholly unnecessary. If you think your summary is accurate, do you not think that any closing admin would be able to come to the same conclusion just by reading our discussion? Please, I'm begging you here. Enough of this, okay? --Bardin (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I'll just do my own summary, as if this AFD needs to get further degenerated into irrelevant discussion.

S Marshall position Bardin's position
This nomination should be closed because of
WP:NOTAGAIN
 We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow.
This nomination should be closed because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments from the last AFD. Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year.
Such repeated nominations are
forumshopping
 The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping.
The nominator is doing something wrong by hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different to the previous one. It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago.

If any admin wishes to strike off, rollback or otherwise hide this entire exchange between S Marshall and myself, please do so. --Bardin (talk) 17:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an admin to hat an extended discussion; I've just done it. We can move the hat to include the entire discussion when we've finished.

I've amended my side of the table as shown below:

S Marshall's position Bardin's position
This nomination boils down to
WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED
. 		The only previous nomination was made over a year ago by a different nominator so it is not a case of repeated listing till it gets deleted. We should not close an AFD because of an essay that nobody is obligated to follow.
This nomination should be at DRV rather than AfD because the nominator has not brought up any new arguments or evidence not considered in the the last AFD. Consensus can change, editors' opinions can change, especially in a period of over one year.
Repeated nominations are
forumshopping
 The first nomination was done by a different person over a year ago so this is not forum shopping.
The nominator advances no new arguments and is simply hoping that the outcome of this AFD will be different. It is neither wrong nor unusual for an article to be nominated for deletion again, especially when the last nomination was made by a different person over an entire year ago.
It doesn't matter whether it was an hour ago, a week ago, a year ago or a century ago. There still are no new arguments here we haven't already considered at the previous closure. Consensus can change because the opinions of editors on the same subject/policies/guidelines can change, especially in a period of over one year.

—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Bardin says that it was another person who nominated by another person, so this is not forum shopping. Just look at the logs and you'll see that he, along with Blackmetalbaz, were the users who were enthusiastically trying to delete the article. Saying that it's not a forum shopping because it wasn't nominated by you is nothing more than a smoke screen.Evenfiel (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What log? I do not see any prod or CSD in the article history. Blackmetalbaz participated in the last AFD which was made over a year ago but that's nothing unusual. There is no forum shopping or smoke screen here and saying otherwise is nothing more than an attempt to paint this nomination in a negative light. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. 'Weak' because it would appear that the site is quite popular (relatively speaking) - the Alexa ranking has to count for something. But ultimately, 'delete' because it doesn't have any references to reliable sources, at all. I'd have thought that, if this truly is a notable, important and influential website, there would be some available references to prove that; as there apparently aren't, it must according to our guidelines be deleted. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not one? Other than the interviews that are already linked in EM's article, indeed, there are no other articles that deal uniquely with EM, though the site is constantly brought up in interviews with metal bands. If you ask metal journalists where they get their info, it's usually in EM. Even Jeff Wagner, ex-editor of Metal Maniacs (which used to be the biggest metal magazine in North America), told me that he uses EM to look for info on his new book about Progressive Metal. This is the sort of popularity that doesn't translate into articles about EM, but it does exist.Evenfiel (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is written by a member of the site and hence, it is not an independent source as required by wikipedia's guideline on notability for websites. --Bardin (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the third time you say exactly the same thing. He's not an active user and is not involved with the site. He's just one among the 137,000 registered users. It would be ridiculous to not consider him an independent source because of that.Evenfiel (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment when the first afd was closed as non-consensus, a second afd is not only permissible, but highly desirable. We want to achieve consensus. S Marshalls interpretation above simply does not make the least sense to me. The only facotr to consider is whether it is reasonable to do it only 4 weeks after the first one. I think it is. This is not a matter of nominating until it gets deleted. Its a question of nominating until there is some consensus on what to do with the article. If I had to give minimum times for this, I would say after a first afd ending in non-consensus, one month is long enough, though I would normally advise 2 months, because it increases the chances of getting a definite result. After a keep, I;d require at least 4 months, and better 6. (and double that for successive keeps My strong position against repeated rapid nominations has been clear since I came here. I consider this nomination perfectly acceptable, even from my view. No judgement on the article, which is not in my subject area of competence. DGG (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to direct DGG's attention here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also - As a side note, I don't really see what's changed since the first afd. Nothing new is being brought up, but I realize that may not be the best argument for keeping the article. But I do have one more argument. There are other sources about MA than the site itself. Evenfiel mentioned some of them already, like the interviews. I suggest somebody put those sources in the article. Also, I just have to say that MA has the MOST comprehensive information about well-known to very rare/underground metal bands and albums anywhere on any site (incl. links to other official band/record sites, etc.). Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 04:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the Miasma Interview (The original is in this edition), some people dismissed it as useless because it was supposedly written for an amateur zine. Here is what a finnish friend told me: "I'd like to point out that someone mentioned Miasma as being an "amateur fanzine" or something; that's bullcrap, it's one of the top-3 metal mags in Finland, and sold in virtually every shop, kiosk and service station with a newspaper and magazine stand. What's more, they even have occasional sampler CDs and such, and the mag isn't a xeroxed crap paper like some foreigners seem to think." In other words, that interview should be enough to guarantee EM's notability. Evenfiel (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your hearsay statement of what your friend tells you is as unreliable a source as your precious site. Many fanzines distribute sampler CDs too. --Anarchodin (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That is possibly the first time I've heard "My mate says it's notable, so it must be" used in an AfD discussion. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How naive I am. Of course that you, seeing that your dream is to delete this article, wouldn't believe that. So how can I prove that a finnish magazine is "notable"? According to their site, Miasma magazine is distributed by Lehtipiste, a professional press distribution (or whatever you call it) company. You can read their translated info here. Now here is the entry for Miasma magazine. So, what now? Should I prove that Lehtipiste is "notable" as well? haha Evenfiel (talk) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the magazine article was just what you linked to for the interview, then it's really just the site owners talking about the site themselves. If the magazine article went beyond this and featured some journalistic coverage of the site in addition the the interview, as many magazine interviews do, it would probably be a reasonable example of significant coverage. The magazine appears to be professional so I see no reason to exclude it on those grounds. --Michig (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see no rule saying that "In additional to an interview, the magazine should also have some journalistic coverage of the site". The interview itself should be enough. I also have no idea if that was the only thing they published. I guess that the interview probably had some sort of introduction. Evenfiel (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:MUSIC excludes "Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising" from coverage that is considered adequate for demonstrating notability. I know we're not talking about musicians here, but the principle holds, and since the interview above is really just the site owners talking about the site in response to some pre-defined questions, it may not be considered significant independent coverage. If there was more than this in the article, however, it may do.--Michig (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • WP:WEB applies and it also has the same requirement, albeit worded differently. In one of its footnotes, it states that "Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it." Unsurprisingly, I agree with the other editors above who feel that the nature of these interviews do not fulfil the requirement of "people independent of the subject" writing and publishing non-trivial works that focus upon it. The only people in those interviews that discussed the website was the two owners of the website. The interviewers only asked questions. That's trivial. --Bardin (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
              ]
  • "Self-promotion and product placement", haha, (Unsurprisingly) I know you're really desperate to invalidate the Miasma interview, but this is getting ridiculous. They do not talk about their personal life there, and the interview was not some sort of PR stunt (if it is, then prove it). They talk about the site, just like a musician would talk about the composition and recording processes, line-up problems and so on. Evenfiel (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "It is one of the top 500 most-visited websites in five countries.[4]" They have a reference backing this up, on the alexa site. The number of active users, and amount of content, makes it notable. Dream Focus 17:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's been on WP:ATA since its creation. Many tens of thousands of websites will cycle in and out of the top 500 on Alexa, and having such-and-such Alexa rating doesn't facilitate writing a properly sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of retired The Price Is Right pricing games

List of retired The Price Is Right pricing games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Duplication of

talk) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Price Is Right pricing games

List of The Price Is Right pricing games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Duplication of information found within

talk) 19:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and no requests for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure.

talk) 00:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Zhong Gong

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

Reason: gives no substantial information other than on of hundreds qigong movements. Should be mentionned in the main article about qigong with its impact on qigong movement. No article only for Zhong Gong Swissk9 (talk) 19:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge KEEP. The information, as you say, can be saved. If there is more than one major Falun Gong-type movement, that is certainly news to many of those outside China and even that fact would be valuable information. This article takes it a step further by describing a rivalry between the two. Of course some claims have to be thrown out properly referenced (i.e. the unsourced statement that it has more members) but much of the information is highly relevant. -moritheilTalk 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In light of the information provided by Ikip below, I think keeping this article would be best. -moritheilTalk 04:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, :) I always respect editors who will change their minds.
talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep There are sourced statements saying that it was more popular than Falun Gong, which should be enough to assert notability. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:59, 5 May 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.

talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Mibbit

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

Hello, I am the user behind the ip 173.66.142.225. My PROD of this article was removed as vandalism. I would like to nominate this article because it has insufficient sources to indicate that this subject passes WP:WEB and there has been insufficient coverage of this to indicate that it is notable. I would also like to note that this article was created by a single purpose account and another user who has been spam username blocked. Myownusername (talk) 19:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Myownusername (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
— 173.66.142.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep. It has three sources which are perfectly sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you counting the iPhone store or one of the external links? Nil Einne (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete at this time. Of the "three sources", one is obviously good (CNET), one is questionable (Ajaxian, a blog, I'm not familiar with whether it really carries any weight), and one doesn't count at all (the app's page at the iPhone store is essentially a first party source and makes no assertion of notability,, all it proves is that this is an iPhone app; not all iPhone apps are notable). So we're left with, at most, 1.5 sources. I don't believe that 5 paragraphs in CNET and a blog entry demonstrate that this meets
    WP:WEB. Add a few more sources and I'd be inclined to keep. Oren0 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

* Delete Does not have "significant coverage" in reliable sources as required by

WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep, changing !vote based on recent rewrite, meets
    GNG. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Neutral I looked for sources to possibly expand this for DYK, and found only the sources in the article. Good luck.... Synergy 20:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Just wanted to point out that chatzilla sux, use pidgin. Gurch (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Oren0 and Ukexpat. Changing to Keep - per the rewrite.— Dædαlus Contribs— Dædαlus Contribs 21:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and heavily revise. CNET is a major source and the blog Ajaxian is a legitimate tech news source with scores of professional-quality articles. The Webmonkey mention (in "Further Reading") is arguably a third, but it's marginal. I agree we should not count the product pages. We have two strong sources and one weak source; if we could just find a better third source this would be a strong keep. As for the writing, that is obviously in need of improvement, but quality is no reason to delete as opposed to revising. -moritheilTalk 21:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing to revise. This isn't notable and there is nothing we can do about it. Myownusername (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it were inherently non-notable, there would be no improvement possible. However, as stated above, the problem is merely that the article doesn't happen to cite enough sources. See below for additional sources found by Ironholds. -moritheilTalk 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cnet is an okay source although it's just one of the blogs so not their best reference of all time. Ajaxian may have a 'professional quality articles' it doesn't make them an RS. The webmonkey other then not appearing to be an RS, is almost a trivial mention. So one minor source is all we have. Hardly qualifies as notable. Nil Einne (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Per the 2 strong strong sources that already exist. Agree that it can use more. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:56, 2 May 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 speedily deleted as a

CSD G3 blatant hoax. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ekafstan

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

This article appears to be about a location that doesn't exist; in fact, a simple Google search of the word "ekafstan" comes up with zero hits, not even a possible misspelling. And following the references in the article lead to a site that really isn't about anything (possibly a business?). It also doesn't help that the creator's username happens to be Ekafstan. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and no deletion requests beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure.

talk) 00:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Kenneth W. Royce

Kenneth W. Royce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete because it fails

WP:BIO and lacks sources. This does not preclude mention of his name in other articles if appropriate. Bejnar (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • STRONG KEEP. This writer is influential in shooting and Libertarian circles. He is also a leader in the Free State Project. His book sales figures alone make him notable. One of his books (Boston's Gun Bible) is presently ranked as follows on Amazon: No. 1 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Materials > Metallurgy, and No. 2 in Books > Professional & Technical > Law > Criminal Law > Law Enforcement

The book has a 5 star rating, with 105 reviews. This is almost unheard of, once a book has 30+ reviews. (Usually at least a few readers see fit to pan most books, and this knocks ratings down to 4 or 4.5 stars.)

Let's add some references and improve this article. The subject is definitely notable. With so many of his books in print, sources should not be too difficult to excavate. Trasel (talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep He's very well known in libertarian, firearm, Free State and some other circles. The last couple of years, I see a trend of marking articles for deletion when they only need improvement. While it's a good evolutionary tactic, I think it's less appropriate for Wikipedia. Tag it for cleanup and improvement instead.Mzmadmike (talk) 02:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been around for years, tagging it for improvement has not seemed to help. --Bejnar (talk) 04:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem is not that people don't read his writings, they do. The problem is that none of what you'all say above about him is substantiated. At present there is not a single citation in the article to a reliable published source, or to any source at all! The article cannot stand without sound support.
WP:BIO. --Bejnar (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree that the article needs references, but the Wiki rule that you cited refers biographies with "contentious material". There is nothing contentious in the article about Royce. Please drop your AfD campaign. Thusfar, you are a chorus of one. Trasel (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote, it is the strength of the arguments that ought to prevail. I have sought reliable citations in published works for the biographical material, and not found them. I honestly believe that while the Boston's Gun Bible might be notable, its author is not. Cites to sources like http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/Kenneth-W.-Royce which copy the Wikipedia article do not qualify as legitimate sources. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Bejnar's comment: "I have sought reliable citations in published works for the biographical material, and not found them. " Well, I don't know where you looked, but I found several references in just a few minutes of Google searches, including a Casper, Wyoming newspaper article.Trasel (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I searched www.casperstartribune.net using "Kenneth W. Royce" and got no hits, do you have a cite? --Bejnar (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The citation you seem unable to find is already listed in the wikipedia article in question. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO states, "This notability guideline for biographies[2] is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." The consensus, or near consensus anyway, appears to be STRONG KEEP. It may be true it is difficult to find conventional sources that mention Kenneth W. Royce/Boston T. Party, but let's not forget Wikipedia is itself unconventional. Kenneth does have notoriety in any reasonable sense of the word, in many locations on the internet, due to the unusual nature of the subjects on which he has written. -- Paul Bonneau —Preceding undated comment added 06:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply
]
I see that the Casper newspaper article "Freedom on the frontier: Gun-toting "Free Staters" make their move into Wyoming" lists him as "Kenneth T. Royce". It says he wrote a novel, once lived in Durango, CO, supports the FSW movement and opposes the FSNH movement. That source appears to be the only independent, reliable, published source for biographical data. Citing to publisher blurbs and Free Stater blogs doesn't cut it. --Bejnar (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have issue with the material and cannot find citations for it, remove it. Turn the article into a stub if that's what it takes (although, as stated above, the uncited material is not contentious). However, the author is notable and deletion is not justified. From
WP:BIO 2: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards" and 2.1: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." Boston's Gun Bible is widely recognized in the firearms community. Even ignoring all of his other published work, that alone clearly makes the author notable with respect to Wikipedia standards. Lord Bodak (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
While I'm confident that Bejnar is well-intentioned and made his nomination in good faith, it is now obvious that the consensus view is that the Royce is indeed notable and that his biography be retained and improved. Bejnar states "...That source appears to be the only independent, reliable, published source for biographical data." Yes, that is true, but it does not detract from the fact that Royce is VERY well known in some circles (shooting, survivalist, and Libertarian). A lack of numerous print references is not at all unusual for biographies of individuals that primarily have a web presence. Simply put: You just won't find a lot of hard copy references to people who primarily have a web presence. This AfD should be dropped. Let's just add more hard copy references, as they become available.. Trasel (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - as I don't know much about American libertarian/pro-gun politics, I'm willing to defer to those who do that this author is highly notable within the field. I must admit the nominator is right though, that this article is very poorly sourced. It seems the problem here is that the only sources that have written about him are, inevitably, fringe ones - there's basically nothing from reliable mainstream sources. On the other hand, I don't have any reason to believe that anything the fringe sources claim about Royce is actually incorrect. On balance I'm leaning keep here, but it's a borderline case, and better sources really need to be found. Robofish (talk) 00:55, 8 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detali Zvuku festival

Detali Zvuku festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor music festival, no

reliable sources cited, part of a walled garden related to the music label. J Milburn (talk) 11:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google News and Google Books aren't particularly useful for this kind of thing. I found coverage on Tokfali, a fairly reputable site [56], and it's been mentioned on last.fm and other places. I have no doubt that someone with access to Ukranian sources can cite this article. The festival was an event over multiple years. I think it's clearly notable and if we want to improve it we need to seek out those with access to the sources. I've suggested merging the record label into the same article. Here's a source with an interview on it: [57].ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    2 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie☆S93 18:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildOfMidnight, but the article needs to be improved significantly. Timmeh! 19:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Slovenia relations

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

Fails

WP:GNG. There's certainly not enough of a relationship that we could write about which goes much beyond the trivial. Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep Two near-by countries in eastern europe would be expected to have notable relations. Visits by heads of state and the like are what intergovernmental relations are composed of. DGG (talk) 07:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Expecting" sources is not a substitute for actually finding them. Visits are generally of a news/trivial nature - certainly we'd never think of mentioning them outside this series of nonsense articles, for instance in the subjects' biographies. And anyway, the visit I pointed out is from a Romanian government site, and thus fails the "independent" requirement of
      WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 15:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As most of us very easily were "expecting" sources about two neighboring eastern European countries, only a few seconds g-search brought up many significant secondary sources directly about Romania-Slovenia relations, thus demonstrating handily passing
    WP:NOTABILITY
    .
Slovenia to Develop Bilateral Cooperation
Romania, Slovenia sign sea transportation agreement
Dobro sodelovanje z Romunijo (Slovene)
Romunski predsednik v Sloveniji (Slovene)
Romunija lovi EU in upa na izkušnje Slovenije (Slovene)
Minister dr. Rupel sprejel romunskega zunanjega ministra (Slovene)
Romunski zunanji minister danes na obisku v Sloveniji (Slovene) (There's many more)--Oakshade (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously the two countries have an active relationship. I have added content from the sources found by Oakshade to the article, which are sufficient to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait a minute - a "sea transportation agreement"? A visit no one remembers? Let's not prioritize trivia. This stuff would never appear in the subjects' biographies, or anywhere else; it's news, and pretty minor at that. There is no source discussing "Romania–Slovenia relations" as such, and for someone here to try to infer bits of news as being evidence of notability for this topic flies in the face of
      WP:SYNTH. Without such significant coverage of the relationship, we merely lower our standards to include trivia in this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul Talk 06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • There's a line between newspaper coverage of daily events that mean nothing from an encyclopedic perspective (state visits, symbolic agreements, and the like) and those that do have some meaning beyond the daily news. As usual, articles like this one choose to prioritize the former, because the latter doesn't really exist. And no thought is given, for instance, to how this might fit into existing article structures - no article could link to this one, could it? - Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, meetings between heads of state are more important than cricket matches, which I find extremely boring. But I accept that an article like 1999 Cricket World Cup is valid, because reliable independent sources (daily news stories) discuss each game. I could not imagine that article if it only talked about the broader significance of the tournament and did not mention the individual games and results. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and
    Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep The article's content is valid, and well referenced. Dream Focus 04:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What exactly does it validate? Trivia about visits we'd never think of mentioning in their subjects' biographies, but only do so in this series of nonsense articles? - Biruitorul Talk 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 2 x embassy, state visits and economic ties in the EU. + Danube. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Embassies already mentioned elsewhere; state visits trivial; EU ties mentioned elsewhere; Danube also trivial and its relevance not validated by third-party sources. - Biruitorul Talk 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable intersection. Most of the content of the article describes events in which both countries happened to be involved.
    talk) 11:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete I do not think this article is notable. Kapnisma (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Aymatth2 & DGG. Especially since this draft describes an arguably tangible & notable relationship. -- llywrch (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. CSD G3. Silly, blatant hoax. Common sense dictates that we delete this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common Sense Lobe

Common Sense Lobe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another offering from Planet

reference cited is a more or less empty personal website. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Ta muchly. Must organise my back issues. 195.128.251.188 (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Hera Pheri 4

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

Fails

WP:NFF. No indication that principal photography has commenced. There was initial talk of the film being shot in 2007 but the no development since then on. LeaveSleaves 17:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The most recent source I could find was from February 2009, which stated that "something might happen after June" [58]. No basis for an article at this point. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chow Yei-ching

Chow Yei-ching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Creator of page in question challenging a

WP:PROD in favor of a vote by fellow editors. [email protected] (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep: I would add that I believe the subject is inherently and clearly notable, as an international conglomerateur as well as an awardee of both the Gold Bauhinia Star and the OBE, as well as for the other accomplishments cited in the article. [email protected] (talk) 17:41, 2 May 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. Wizardman 15:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates

AfDs for this article:
Barack Obama Supreme Court candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a

indiscriminate collection of information. "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate." Opening sentence of the article: "Speculation has begun to take shape over potential nominations." Case closed. Keep verifiable speculation on potential nominees' biographical articles until such time a nomination is actually made. Madcoverboy (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Speculation-based. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't refuted anything. The article histories plainly show that no article about Barack Obama's presidential actions predated the official announcement of his candidacy. Likewise, you ignored my other argument that no other article about previous Presidents' nominations has such a mindless laundry list of speculation. Nor does this article even attempt to explain the cited justifications for why any one of these speculative nominees is "in the running". I see no reason why a different standard should suddenly hold now in violation of
WP:RS
. Amusingly enough, the example revision you cite asserting that Obama will not be entering the 2008 race is precisely the reason why Wikipedia should not indulge in the mindless and unsubstantiable speculation of the rest of the equally-uninformed political press. But to answer your rhetorical question about such a scenario: yes, I would have nominated the hypothetically spun-out article about 2008 candidates for deletion back in 2004.
Likewise, that
United States presidential election, 2012 contains a list of speculative candidates does not particularly concern me since the event itself is historically well-demarcated and stable with regards to dates, nominating processes, precedents, electoral college makeup, political parties, etc. There are no such assurances or procedural stability with a Supreme Court candidate nomination: no dates have been set for announcements, there are no certanties with regard to filling the spot, and of course the confirmation process is almost sure to be a rollercoaster with constituencies to be satisficed, surprises in vetting, partisan defections & blocs, legislative maneuvering, etc. There can be no encyclopedia article written about a topic which not only has not occurred but has not even a presumption of well-defined boundaries that can be outlined in advance. If Obama nominates tomorrow, then all my objections are moot. Otherwise, take this embarassment down. Madcoverboy (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Have you not seen
T
02:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
There's a different between having an indiscriminate list citing baseless speculation and a coherent article describing a historical occurrence. To fulfill
WP:RS: "While the reporting of rumors has a news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." There is nothing to verify but for the fact that political pundits are speculating. Let the political pundit spout their gossip, rumours, and speculation elsewhere: we are an encyclopedia that privileges reliable and verifiable information. This article will be written in the future, but it is far too premature and entirely inappropriate at this stage. Madcoverboy (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Some of the points you raise are strong arguments for why this article needs to be cleaned up, but just because you toss in some superlatives does not make your case for deletion any stronger. If a particular reference is truly "baseless speculation" then it should be removed. But some of the references are news reports from reliable media outlets where journalists (not merely pundits) have reported names that have originated with the White House. Kagan, Wood, Sotomayor, Sullivan, Wardlaw, Ward Sears and a few others have been floated by knowledgeable sources and are genuine BHO Supreme Court candidates. This will still have been true even if Obama completes his presidency w/o actually nominating anyone. That said, some of the names in the article clearly don't belong on the list. The references listed for Revesz, Klobuchar, and Minow, for example, seem to be unsourced speculation. And Gregoire's "reference" is a reader comment on a webpage. Those and similarly unsourced names should be purged, but that's hardly a justification for temporarily deleting the whole page. Billyboy01 (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JakeZ, it is not crystal, it has begun already and the article will be updated accordinly as it continues. - Epson291 (talk) 07:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep, part of the historic record. Neutralitytalk 08:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely keep. As you can see from the history of the [George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates] article, it began in 2004 before there was even an open seat on the Court, as a listing of potential candidates to such a seat. That list of potential candidates has been retained in the most recent version of the article, in order provide a historical record of who was previously under consideration. Such lists are very useful for researchers; for example, someone writing about the representation of women among possible nominees by George H.W. Bush versus his son George W. would find such lists invaluable, even though both presidents ultimately had only male judges confirmed for the Court. Or for a debate occurring right now about whether only women candidates for the Court are having their weight assessed with regard to their longevity: a list of possible nominees from George W. would provide a starting point to know who those were and then to compare whether overweight male candidate received similar media treatment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.130.221.86 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Timmeh, Umbralcorax and others. Krakatoa (talk) 04:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, per Timmeh and the
    talk? 09:42, 9 May 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carré d'As IV

AfDs for this article:
Carré d'As IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Although I do not believe the article breaks any guideline or policy I am concerned that the ship has no notability outside the context of its hijacking and recapture. Since that is covered in its own article,

September 16, 2008 incident off Somalia, I do not believe a separate article for the ship is warranted. Unlike many other ships hijacked by Somali pirates, which have their own articles, this boat is a small private yacht that takes about 2 people. I would like to refer to a recent AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tanit (yacht). Similar type of boat, same claim to notability, and with an article already covering what the boat was notable for. The result of that AFD concluded that the ship was not notable enough for its own article (it was the process of merging that led me to the Carré d'As IV article). Plus, the information on the article is a duplication of information found on the action article, so the ship article offers nothing new that the action article doesn't. Cordovao (talk) 17:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep This yacht is as notable as MY Le Ponant, another French yacht which was hijacked by Somali pirates and in which French forces intervened. I suspect someone does not want it known that private yachts are being attacked and captured by pirates. The naming convention mentioned above is awkward, and probably should be changed, as it makes searching for the incident difficult. There is no rule stating that there can not be two articles mentioning the same subject, and as mentioned above, the article does not break any guideline or policy. Pustelnik (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the scale of MY Le Ponant (a 67 passenger, 32 cabin, commercial boat) is sufficiently big for enough notability for its own article, compared to the 2 people private yacht. "There is no rule stating that there can not be two articles mentioning the same subject"; I think common sense is enough. As for the naming convention of the action article, I do not see how that is relevant to this discussion. Plus, the article on the yacht can always be redirected to the article on the action. The article on the yacht does not indeed break any guidelines or policies, but like the article on the Tanit that was recently merged the Carré d'As IV has no notability outside of the events of September 16. Regarding "I suspect someone does not want it known that private yachts are being attacked and captured by pirates", it is because an article is devoted to just that that I do not believe that the article on the yacht is necessary, especially when the yacht article says nothing about the yacht outside the context of the action, and everything on the article is repeated on the action article. In my opinion, the article on the yacht isn't warranted or necessary. Cordovao (talk) 18:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point about the Barbary factor... Peridon (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flambish

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

This article appears to be

WP:N). Google came up with no sources that "flambish" is related to the word "flam" or that it is a word at all, even in Norwegian. And when I Googled "flambish" and "flam" together, it came back with a single hit, which doesn't even mention the two words in the same context. In addition, the two apparent references in the article link to the same page, which doesn't mention "flambish" at all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackofficers

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

The article concerns what appears to be a non notable rock band that lasted less than a year, having merely toured a few clubs. No reference to any records or albums released or even a record contract with a notable (or any) record label. HJMitchell You rang? 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - two notable members (from the
    2 17:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. Significant coverage at Allmusic, and this is an important part of the Butthole Surfers history, with the Jackofficers side-project covered in books such as Strong's The Great Rock Discography ("Like The Melvins before them, Gibby haynes and his LSD army began experimenting with electronica on the late eighties side-project group The Jack Officers, who made unlistenable computer music on some old Apple Macs"), and Jim DeRogatis' Turn on Your Mind. Would probably be better merged into the Butthole Surfers article, though, as this is unlikely to ever be a very large stand-alone article.--Michig (talk) 20:09, 2 May 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. Speedy closing this. This article is totally unsourced, based on false assumptions and misunderstandings surrounding a controversial issue. There is no need to keep this open. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Black Woman Syndrome

Missing Black Woman Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although there may be some merit to this article, it's pretty much a

essay. In addition, a Google search comes back with only eight hits, all of which are from either blogs or Yahoo! Answers. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Web Editor

Easy Web Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Contested prod. Article is about non-notable software, with no reliable sources provided and none found. Only info I could find was mirrored download sites. TNXMan 16:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for helping me improving. I added the reason that I believe makes this editor noticeable: it was the first editor with visual linking and visual editing (I am a longtime fan and I use it from the very beginning, and nothing else was available at that time. Unfortunately it was born in Italy, where there is not Venture Capital or so... It's always the same story - maybe you know that the telephone was invented by the Italian Meucci, who did not have the money... then Bell with $ $ started the business... ). --Zioziozio (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC) — Zioziozio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hum I contest so. As for the information and new references that Zioziozio recently added, it is historically the first visual web editor, at least the only one with verifiable information, within the

Politecnico di Torino archives and ED-Media archives. I propose to keep the article and to remove the external links that could be promo. --Tutankamoon (talk
) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — Tutankamoon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thank you very much Tutankamon, as you noticed I added references, and now I have removed most external links, I just left one (but maybe it is needed to remove it? please help!). Probably it was my fault: I am not a wiki expert and I did not intend to promote anything, I simply used another software page as template as I do not remember all these wiki codes, and I just changed the links, from the other one to this (it seems that somebody has the right to add links, and somebody else not, but well I realize they are probably overwhelmed by bad attempts and the first reaction for a new article with links probably is the "delete" button...). It's really a pity because if a valuable information about the Web history is not on a Web encyclopedia, it will be probably lost. I am not a "power" user so I believe there is a little else I can do. --Zioziozio (talk) 17:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.

talk) 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Grand Duchy of Flandrensis

Grand Duchy of Flandrensis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:07, 2 May 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. One (talk) 07:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo – Panama relations

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

any useful information should be in Foreign relations of Kosovo. no evidence of notable relations otherwise. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it there. You don't need an AFD to merge material. That's what
WP:MAD)- Mgm|(talk) 12:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France–Kosovo relations is a pretty poor argument as that article is still unreferenced and unsourced, still does nothing to assert notability, and was closed not as keep, but as no consensus. You have a week to make anything out of this one, and it should be better than that. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There must be a simple article that we can build upon as relations deepen. --alchaemia (talk) 20:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is
not a crystal ball.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Precisely, which is why there isn't much in the article at the moment. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep Panama is a legitimate county which recognises and has diplomatic relations with the relations with the Republic of Kosovo. So Keep, this article is a stub. No need for deletion.
    talk) 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
A great deal of deleted articles of this type has already shown that the mere existence of relations between two "legitimate" countries does not in and of itself satisfy notability. There needs to be more to it than that. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment by
User:Ijanderson977 was solicited by User:Turkish Flame as shown here. [65] --BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Is that relevant? Ijanderson wasn't necessarily going to agree with Turkish Flame. Bazonka (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ijanderson977, are you familiar with the "significant coverage" requirement of
WP:GNG? - Biruitorul Talk 00:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Why? Jtrainor (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not inherently notable, at least 40 of these X-Y articles have been deleted in recent weeks. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since no reliable sources are in this article that discuss this relationship and i can find none on my own.
    talk) 15:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
cmt just noting that a little canvassing has been going on here. i.e. of alchemia [66] ijanderson1977 [67] and a few others who haven't (so far) chimed in here.
talk) 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Now you're grasping at straws. One of the countries has only existed for a year. There is no argument for "ongoing coverage" here, especially as the one reference in the article is from four months ago and is basically only the start of relations. Fails
WP:NOTNEWS. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep - meets
    WP:N
    , no reason to not treat this as a regular article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 15:55, 8 May 2009
  • Comment There are lots of other articles regarding the national relationships between two or more countries. --
    Sky Attacker 02:26, 10 May 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 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia–Uruguay relations

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

another random combination with no notable relations. non resident embassies. Even the Serbian govt says Economic cooperation between the two countries is insufficiently developed! LibStar (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The King's Christian School

AfDs for this article:
The King's Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable private school. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Includes up to grade 12. It's as notable as any of the other hundreds? of private high schools with articles. The article could use improvement. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not only contains a high school but there are enough sources from which the page can be expanded.
    talk) 16:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep Secondary schools are generally notable Computerjoe's talk 17:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per long-established concensus, high schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notable or not, the content is not verifiable through reliable sources so it fails the most basic and most important of inclusion guidelines. We report verifiability - not truth. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article could be made stub-length to contain only basic (but verifiable) information. Computerjoe's talk 16:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All high schools are considered notable here, precisely to avoid the problems of debating each one individually to weed out a few percent. The sources are adequate for the material--we use an official website for material about an organization. DGG (talk) 21:03, 4 May 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 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–New Zealand relations

Malta–New Zealand relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. non resident embassies. even the NZ govt describes this relationship as warm and based on our islands status! [72] LibStar (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.

talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The Speed Gamers

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

nn website. Losr2300 (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by

WP:CSD#G4 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Proud (John Stanley play)

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

Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Brianga (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Also tagged for speedy deletion reason G4. It's been a few months since the last AFD but the article hasn't improved much even after the play has premiered. Creator has also been reported for a username violation (promotional username).--RadioFan (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article for deletion / PROUD actually contains several third party references including Whatsonstage, QX Magazine, The Stage and even links to direct PROUD references already cited on Wikipedia. The article was originally deleted on the grounds that there was not enough third party citation. Now that the article has been revised with the said citations I am curious what grounds the article is NOW being considered for deletion?

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

The result was delete.

talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Lucifugum

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

Basically fails

assuming good faith, I expect to comment here. Happy to retract nom if non-trivial sources found, for instance, in Russian (a real possibility, though I tragically cannot read Russian). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Keep I created this article around a year ago, according to Wikipedia Rule #5 of Criteria for musicians and ensembles:

"Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)". Lucifugum released 2 albums on major labels (Drakkar and Adipocere/Oaken Shield) and 2 albums on BlackMetal.Com, big indie label with many years history and many releases: http://www.blackmetal.com Resume: 4 albums on labels which correspond respective Wikipedia rules. Lucifugum article is in law. PLEASE REMOVE THIS DELITIION NOTE. p.s. If you're disagree with this: "a cult name in Ukrainian black metal", you can simply remove these words, but NOT the whole article. Lucifugum is a very notable band with many years history and many albums. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)— Black pauk1488 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi, guys! I've made some changes on Lucifugum page. I deleted bio and emotions (cult and bla-bla-bla). There is just line-up and discography there. Just official data. Line-up everybody can see on official releases. These releases everybody can find/buy in many distros all over the world. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, with the current state of that page, it fails with
    loki 17:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Do not delete I've added bio but without "cult status" claims. I suppose now everything's alright with this page.

--Black pauk1488 (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The SPA Black pauk1488 has removed the AfD notice (this is the second time this has happened). They have also "improved" the article by removing the only reliable source that was present in the article. Finally, in edit summaries, they repeat the inaccurate assertion that any of the labels to have released Lucifugum records are major labels; I suspect that they believe the phrase "major label" means that they are important. It does not. All are small independents. The repeated removal of AfD tags, and in the past notability and unreferenced tags, on this article is becoming a little disruptive. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Also, please do not !vote more than once. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Blackmetalbaz, you created the page for Diaboli. 1. This band is not more important and not more known than Lucifugum. 2. Notability of Diaboli has been established just by band bio, (written by band directrly, NOT by reliable source) and by Rockdetector. In this case I ask you: why do these sources ok for Diaboli and not ok for Lucifugum? Why do interview for a very small and very unknown label Sund and Moon is a reference for Diaboli? Why do Lucifugum interviews and Rockdetector bio not ok for Lucifugum page? 3. The situation with labels who released Diaboli albums is the same as with Lucifugum: just indie labels released Diaboli, NOT major. So I ask again: why do you want so much to delete Lucifugum page, if Diaboli page, made by you, the same “not reliable”? It’s not fair. Lucifugum is a very notable band, I insist, this page must be saved. Deletion = crime. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have replied to you specifically on your talk page. This comment is irrelevant to this AfD; please read
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian influence operations in Estonia

Russian influence operations in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is in breach of

Offliner (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Interesting suggestion. I'll think about it before I know how to vote. However, I'd like to point out that this article's topic is about influence, not information. For information warfare, there's an interesting writeup by Diana Jurgelevičiūtė. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about the potential confusion with the
    Estonian Cyberwar. Can you offer an alternative title that would alleviate this confusion risk? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
As I mentioned above, the Estonian KGB feeding this information to the media, does not make a subject notable, and dare I say it, is actually an example of
Dialogue 01:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Factual correction: the so-called "Estonian KGB" (actually a local branch of KGB) ceased to exist when the Soviet Union went belly-up almost two decades ago. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Martintg, please mate, lose the hard on, there's no reason we can't be jovial, is there? --
Dialogue 01:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I strongly protest Russavia's remark, which not only displays his customary incivility, but can also be seen as a form of sexual harassment. (This isn't the first time, either: see [74], where just the other day Russavia referred to Martintg as "our resident Tasmanian Estophile" in the same line as a reference to "two headed Tasmanian fellatio".) Such inappropriate language has no place here. Please review
WP:NPA, and help keep a productive editing environment. - Biruitorul Talk 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I guess this means "keep" and then discuss merging of the content?Biophys (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as a properly sourced article on an important topic on the Northeastern European international politics. I can not support any renaming at this time, as my concerns regarding potential confusion (see above) have not been answered. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You say it is fully sourced, yet you keep removing fact tags placed by another editor and you call it disruption in the edit summary. So no, the article is not properly sourced. --
Dialogue 12:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robley Rex

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

I'm nominating this article as I don't believe that Rex is notable for anything other than having been one of the longest surviving WWI vets, now he has passed away, surely he is no longer notable for this? I realise that nominating a recently deceased man may seem a little cold, but even his volunteer work, while commendable, is hardly notable. Fol de rol troll (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to

talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

"-cides"

Look up -cide#Derived terms or Words derived from "-cide" in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
AfDs for this article:
"-cides" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page is a list of words ending in -cide. Apart from the fact that wikipedia is not a dictionary, the only references are the main page of Wikipedia and a website called fun-with-words. PROD tag was removed on the basis that the creator thought that the page should be moved to a different name (I am not sure about the reasoning behind that either). God Emperor (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the following article, which is an identical copy of "-cides", to the discussion.

List of -cide words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views
)

--bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 2 May 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 15:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brutal death metal

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

Article previously deleted. Basically nominating for the same reasons as the "melodic black metal" article that was recently deleted. The word "brutal" is frequently used as a descriptor in death metal, as a swift Google will amply demonstrate. However, there are no

reliable sources at all to suggest that "brutal death metal" exists as a separate and distinct subgenre. The Purcell cite that was used in the introduction didn't back up the claims being made by the article, and what remains is purely OR synthesis. The most you can say about this supposed subgenre genre is that it is death metal which some consider quite "brutal", which is crap even as a dicdef. There's nothing worth merging either, as once you remove the OR, all you're left with is a POV, unsourced list of bands. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete Death metal is, by default, brutal. Chad Bowar of About.com describes death metal as, "in one word, brutal." Purcell, in her book at p. 16: "In any discussion of Death Metal, one will encounter the term "brutal"." At no point in the book is there any indication that there's a subgenre of death metal known as brutal death metal. Melodic death metal is a legitimate subgenre in contrast precisely because it discards the characteristic brutality of death metal for something more melodic. Purcell (who uses the term Swedish Death Metal instead of melodic) states as much at p. 23: "this new movement emphasizes the harmonies and melodic aspects of traditional metal, rather than the chaotic and brutal sounds of much Death Metal." Consequently, critics and fans commonly use the word brutal as an adjective to distinguish death metal bands from this more popular melodic variety. As a subgenre though, brutal death metal has as much legitimacy as say, "fast speed metal", "melodic glam metal" or, as one editor remarked in the previous AFD, "mellow easy listening". --Bardin (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:UGH. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 3 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie goes to candy mountain

Charlie goes to candy mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This YouTube-based cartoon short is supposedly very popular, according to the article. Yet Google searches fail to confirm this claim. The article does not meet

talk) 12:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

-Hang on, but how come you guys consider it acceptable to have a whole article on EVERY Simpsons or south park episode, despite the fact that some of them may not have 30,000,000 views? Or the stub on the Prime Minster of Lichtenstien, Klaus Tshutscher, despite the fact that 30,000,000 people cannot have heard of him? And anyway, why is it that, while harmless cartoons like Pokemon or Charlie the Unicorn get their articles deleted, more obscene articles- such as "Penis"- are hundreds if not thousands of words long

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Coshocton Redskins football team

2007 Coshocton Redskins football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable high school football team. No references support notability. The following similar article is also part of this nomination:

2008 Coshocton Redskins football team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:58, 2 May 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. Wizardman 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list serves no encyclopedic purpose. It's instead a propoganda tool (and wikipedia

undue weight
. Furthermore, each entry is given a quotes advocating the fringe point of view, making the POV and advocacy issues even worse.

I can see no encyclopedic purpose; instead, it serves as a propoganda device. These lists are common practice of fringe views, but normally, we cover the more notable lists hosted off-wikipedia in an encyclopedic manner (e.g.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
) instead of hosting such lists ourselves.

This may be appropriate fodder for a category, but this list is fatally flawed, and must be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 84.56.38.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -- Not an article, just an a list, and presentation of it is an extreme violation of NPOV's
    WP:UNDUE weight clause, as it shows a list of alleged scientists, most without real credentials or in unrelated fields, and tries to advance an agenda by spearating it from a list of scientist who support the existence of global warning. It's nothing but a POV fork. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I understand the problems associated with a page such as this but I do not think that this is a reason to delete it. I agree with fences and windows that it would be a good idea to list what other theories they also support so that readers can make up their own minds as to whether they wish to believe these people's views. Fences and windows also suggests creating a list of those in support of the assessment but as we all know it wouldn't fit on a 100kb page! I think that it is dangerous to censor such information - if it is all in one place and each viewpoint and person's explanation is listed then I feel that it will allow people to make up their own minds. Saying that I don't expect this page to really change people's opinions either way - deniers will use it to support their view and those who agree will use it to point out what crazy views the deniers have. Dreamguy, remember that all theories are essentially POV statements. Smartse (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For once a notable list! The topic of this list is thrown around often among both people defending and supporting the global warming theory. Many people claim that only X amount of scientists believe in global warming, while others claim that so-and-so is a famous scientist and he's a sceptic. The verifiable sources in this article keep this NPOV while the notability of the specific topic make the fork acceptable. A more specific (and equally notable) list might be "List of climatologists opposing..." but this one is equally valid, if somewhat more vague. ThemFromSpace 19:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful summary of a wide range of view, and useful is a suitable criterion for a list. The people here all have articles with greater detail. This is immensely clearer than the corresponding category, because it doesn't lump them all together. It's not excessive weight on the fringe, considering the many different fringe viewpoints. "Making the controversy seem larger than it is" hardly applies to what will probably be seen historically as the decisive issue of our century. The only thing I'm concerned about is that some of them might not really deserve to be listed here, but that's for the talk page. Basically, I agree with what Atmoz said above. DGG (talk) 22:22, 4 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terror Syndrome

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

Appears to fail

WP:BAND. Has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. No charted single or album. No indication of national or international tour. ttonyb1 (talk) 11:28, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Anne Petrie

Helen Anne Petrie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Possible copyvio of http://hubpages . com/hub/female-apartheid-south-african-painter--------HELEN-ANNE-PETRIE <-this link (spaces added as link is blacklisted). I'm not tagging it for speedy deletion as that link's FAQ also states Do I own a topic? HubPages does not assign ownership of a specific topic to a Hubber. Anyone is free to write on any topic they like. However, by creating a high number of Hubs filled with original, useful content, you will boost your HubPages status and you may become recognized in the community as an expert. so it might not be a copyvio. I'd also like to nominate

N 11:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It was copied from here I think...http://oziwizard.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html
Talk 15:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The user page mentioned by linguist was speedily deleted. ("‎G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://oziwizard.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html") The article must then be a copyright infringement too.
N 09:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
That does seem to be the case. And this article has always been deleted as a G12 violation. However, this Afd discussion is needed so that we can determine the suitability of including even a non-copyrighted bio for this person based upon
WP:BIO. That's why I'd like to see this discussion run its course before all these copies are speedied. I would like to know if there is any source of info for this person. — CactusWriter | needles 06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I would suggest that all three of the copies in user space be deleted and the users blocked as sockpuppets now and then the copy in article space can continue through AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Assault. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Car attack

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

Ideally should be CSD-ed as un-encyclopedic. Should be deleted, or redirected to

N 10:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Vehicular homicide is significantly different from reckless driving.
N 09:48, 3 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cube inscribed in a sphere

Cube inscribed in a sphere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article which makes heavy weather of a result which is basically a one line application of Pythagoras. Also we tend not to have articles which are proof. Salix (talk): 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point it could redirect to Cube#Formulae. --Salix (talk): 17:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Salix says, formula for radius of circumscribed sphere is already given in cube article. Derivation is not sufficiently notable to merit its own article. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:34, 3 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Serbia relations

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

another random combination. non resident embassies, no evidence of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 07:25, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Georgia relations

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

another random combination. non resident embassies. even the Georgia govt describes a minor relationship with minor trade and no bilateral agreements.[81] LibStar (talk) 07:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hsu

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

I am not entirely convinced that this "professional skateboarder" is notable enough in terms of Wikipedia coverage. Recommending deletion for now. JBsupreme (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyvio of [82] --

WP:CSD#G12 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  05:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Rubina Dilaik

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

Copypaste of a forum post 

Greedyhalibut (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete . Redirect created at

Geno Dome. Marasmusine (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Geno Dome (Chrono Trigger)

Geno Dome (Chrono Trigger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Original nominator's rationale was, "No need to create a page detailing one out of dozens of locations in the game- no other locations have articles." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Son

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

Article about an apparently non-notable television writer as defined by the inclusion criteria at

WP:BIO. The only information on this person is short resume-style entries at websites like TV.com and IMDB. There does not appear to be any substantive, indepenednt, reliable sources out in the world about this person. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:04, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Jeary

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

Article seems to completely fail

WP:AUTOBIO violation. It is basically a resume for a motivational speaker, and there does not appear to be much here to hang an article on. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:55, 2 May 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. Wizardman 16:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OHSAA Football Rankings

OHSAA Football Rankings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football rankings for Ohio high schools for 2008 - not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 2 May 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, nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Shakespeare

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

I have no doubt this is a notable topic. However, it's also a high school paper in its present form, not an encyclopedia article. It's been sitting around now for the better part of a year, and does us no credit. When someone's ready to start anew, great, but for now, let's get rid of this essay, which no amount of editing will really "improve" into a fully-developed article. Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John William Waterhouse's Ophelia (1894), looking benevolently at the nominator after he withdrew.
  • Improvements have been made (mainly by reducing what was there), so I withdraw this nomination. Thank you to those who did the work, and my apologies if anyone's time was wasted. - Biruitorul Talk 19:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete as an OR essay. Can be recreated if now based on scholarship. JJL (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per
    WP:NOT#OR. It's clear that the commenters in the previous AfD were entirely too sanguine; this cannot stand in its current form, and no one's seen fit to do anything about it in the seven months since then. Deor (talk) 04:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Withdrawing my "delete" recommendation in the light of Drmies's rewrite. I will, however, never understand how turning a manifestly unsuitable article into a Ship of Theseus is preferable to just nuking it and starting over. I still think that this is an intractable topic for an encyclopedia, so I'm neutral now. Deor (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep--Well, Deor, if you had told me about it, I could have tried! Call me next time. Seriously, this is a tough call since this is an incredibly notable topic, and this was an incredibly poor article. (Not a passing grade in my class either.) Books? Comic Women, Tragic Men: A Study of Gender and Race in Shakespeare by Linda Bamber, Rhetoric, Women, and Politics in Early Modern England by Jennifer Richards and Alison Thorne, Shakespeare and Women by Phyllis Rackin...there is plenty there. I don't think we should delete this, and I've made some cuts to the essay. Drmies (talk) 05:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'd known about the article before today, I'd certainly have told you, Drmies. :-) But where does one draw the line? This topic could be, and no doubt has been, the subject of multiple entire books, each with a different take on it. I'd like to see a suggestion of how it could be treated in an encyclopedic fashion without distorting or
synthesizing the sources; simply rewriting a personal essay in a way that citations can be slapped on it does not make it an encyclopedia article. There are some topics that lend themselves to neutral and concise treatment in an encyclopedia and others that are so broad that only a comprehensive bibliography of relevant books and articles can point readers in the right direction. I fear this is one of the latter. Your cuts have eliminated some OR but have not solved the problem—-it's still as far from an informative article as it was. Deor (talk) 06:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh, min Deor, I absolutely agree with you. It's still crap! But it's less crappy, and perhaps the cutting of crap is more inviting to editors to get to work on it. I think an article such as this should do two things: make some general statements about female characters in Shakespears (BTW, I don't think this is unproblematic--that sophomore essay didn't mention the sonnets) and perhaps their status (admittedly a tricky thing), and give an overview of some of the modern investigations of the topic. I have no doubt that it can be done, though I don't know if I can do it: I'm more of an Old English guy, and Sh. is a bit newfangled. ;) Drmies (talk) 15:51, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Green (professional wrestler)

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

This may have been meant to be an article on a professional wrestler with a lower-level league, but it appears that the article's creator never bothered to complete it. I tried to research material to fill in the piece, but nothing was located that met

talk) 02:13, 2 May 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 speedily deleted (G2) by Canterbury Tail, Non-admin closing to clean up closure by User:Gordonrox24. Deor (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic Training at Fort Benning, Georgia

Basic Training at Fort Benning, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Article already exists at

Fort Benning. No need for this article. gordonrox24 (talk) 02:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. As it stands, the article does not assert notability. If someone wants to rewrite it and add sources, they are welcome to do so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GENESIS (FEA software)

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

No assertion of notability. Looks like product placement to me.

WP Physics} 01:43, 2 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Herr

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

Article is about a car dealership company that does not seem to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out at either

WP:N Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

*Keep - Defended by references, it has received critical acclaim, which qualifies the article as notable. Also, I think that this article has been tagged far too early for deletion. The article is still new and hasn't had enough time to develop yet. I'm seeing a well-referenced article of a notable company. --

talk) 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

**Comment--Sky Attacker has left me a note saying I should change my vote because I upset the balance at this AfD. Perhaps xe's right when xe says, on my talkpage, that "I don't know what I'm doing"--in that case, should I change my vote to keep the balance right? ;) Drmies (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC) **Comment The above user appears to be trying to stir a disruption on Wikipedia. While the first link is not part of the AfD debate (otherwise it would've been posted here) the second link is about a completely different situation that has NOTHING to do with THIS situation whatsoever. Ignore. --

talk) 00:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)***Well, you said I don't know what I'm doing, so I'm jes askin' the good folks for advice... Drmies (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

This is my first attempt at writing for Wikipedia, I struggled with the initial pages, hence the 40 edits. West Herr is a 1200 employee company and is hardly insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh (talk • contribs) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Several citations have been added recently. If the article is deleted, I think it would be nice to userfy it. More coverage may happen in the future... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had seen those citations before commenting here. They appear to be essentially verbatim copies of press releases. Bongomatic 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of West Herr are very humble and very seldom give interviews or report their successes or boast about their contributions. Add to that the fact that our local newspaper the Buffalo News Archives articles to sell them instead of making them public, makes it extremely hard to prove some of the facts about West Herr. Please offer other suggested ways to cit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbleigh (talk • contribs) 01:40, 8 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Memory Alpha

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

I'm sorry my English isn't very good but I feel, that once you cut away the content that is original research or uses primary sources (half of the article is just a captain's log of some memory-alpha user's time spent on that site), there isn't enough to justify an article. This should be merged into Wikia or an article about Trekkies. The question is not whether it can be classified as 'noteworthy', but rather, whether there's enough 'substence'. For instance The New York Times article doesn't even mention memory-alpha at all, and several of the references are to pages on memory-alpha or simply unsourced. 'Hippocrates Noah's archived nomination for featured status can be found on Memory Alpha. There was an unprecedented level of debate associated with the nomination.' does not count as a source. Another example, is the influence that memory-alpha has had on other wikis. Does this get a mention in any of the references, probably not. It's just interesting facts about the site's place in wikia. I don't believe, the content of this page will be any thing more than 'memory-alpha is a star trek wiki that's pretty popular among fans. X Y Z have all noted it as a good resourse.', once you cut thru the things that don't belong on wikipedia. Its nothing personal. I have used the sight many a time myself. Tschravic (talk) 01:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find the level of coverage recieved about this one site to be sufficient to meet the inclusion criteria spelled out in
WP:N. If the article needs stylistic cleanup to be more in line with the MOS or other issues, such as inappropriate original research or NPOV issues, those issues can be cleaned up without deletion. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The question is, will there be anything left of the article once all of the inappropriate informations and unsourced statements are removed. My answer is no. That's why I want to merge it into somewhere else. Tschravic (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish that this article be merged somewhere, then I would recommend that you withdraw this nomination and start a merge proposal on Talk:Memory Alpha. While "merge" is one possible result of an AFD discussion, there's no real way to enforce a "merge" close if the regular editors are dead set against it. A "merge" close is more or less a "keep" close with a strong recommendation to merge. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it has some references, I have used it at least twice, seemed noteable - more noteable than some tiny little places that have their own articles, this article seems well enough written, has alot of information on the topic - as good and as notable as many other wikipedia articles in my humble opinion - for what its worth this reader suggests keep the article - [of course like all articles it can be improved over time] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.145.169 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't readily meet the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DEL#REASON criterion (see summary listing below)

copyright infringement: none; vandalism: none (if you don't count the repeated nominations); spam: none; forks: none; originality/hoaxes: none; lack of sources: none; notability: debatable, but since it was a featured article I'd say it's notable enough to keep; policy breach-biography of living: none; redundancy: none; overcategorization: debatable as "small lacking growth", but how else should it be listed?; Image issues: none; use contrary to policy: none; non-encyclopedic nature: none.

besides which: 6 noms? This should be a no-brainer by now. It's survived 5 rounds: Let it be already.

VulpineLady (talk) 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Five nominations and five keeps? I think people should quit nominating the article. Johnn 7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:48, 6 May 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago-Kent Corporate Law Society

Chicago-Kent Corporate Law Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

College club, with no confirmed notability beyond its campus. Google News searches turn up nothing. Does not meet

talk) 01:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete There are no articles establishing notability. Article is also written from the first person, using "we". Germinscout (talk) 03:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This non-for-profit organization is known amongst corporate law-focused students and professors from ABA accredited law schools. It is an organization of more than 100 people that encourages the expansion of transactional curriculum at law schools. It's Corporate Law Spring Speaker Series has attracted notable experts in the field to speak. In fact, the organization is planning to start a symposium conference next year. Its Blog articles have been quoted from and are featured on several lists. Accordingly, it meets the
    WP:ORG guidelines. 09:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicagokentcls (talk • contribs
    )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark L. Roberts

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

Non notable, probable autobio. A couple of youtube videos and writing for the college paper. Dan D. Ric (talk) 01:06, 2 May 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 redirect to

Novels by Stephen King nomination below. Mgm|(talk) 11:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Novels by Richard Bachman

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

Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Redirect to Stephen King bibliography. I'm going to say that this redirect is uncontroversial enough to speedily close. Malinaccier (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novels by Stephen King

Novels by Stephen King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)

Redundant due to Stephen_King_bibliography Anshuk (talk) 00:46, 2 May 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 obvious hoax/nonsense/Neologism. Salix (talk): 13:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depressive Avio-porcine Respiratory Terrorism Syndrome (DARTS)

Depressive Avio-porcine Respiratory Terrorism Syndrome (DARTS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced Neologism - No hits on Google. Greedyhalibut (talk) 00:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Almost a googlewhack :/ . Either creatorperson misspelled every word in there, or he just made it up. I'll go with the second. flaminglawyer 02:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--is there no speedy category for this kind of nonsense? Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obvious
    swine flu joke. Bart133 t c @ 08:15, 2 May 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webnode

Webnode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
History of Webnode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete)
(View AfD)

Looks like a dime-a-dozen hosting service, only referenced to the website itself. Delete (or restore redirect to web hosting service). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - Not notable, written as an advert. I'm trying to rewrite but so much of this is promotional... Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I deleted the history article as a copyvio. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 2 May 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

STV News at Six. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The Real MacKay

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

Video blog website which shows no evidence of notability required by

WP:WEB. I42 (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

I am also nominating the following sub-page:

List of The Real MacKay episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ [83]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_2&oldid=1142643863"