Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 12 September 14 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. The album was released, and the album written, quite some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it.

(non-admin closure) jp×g 04:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Now That's What I Call Music! 32 (U.S. series)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that album has not been released yet. It will be released in November. Until then it sets to the

Discography of Now That's What I Call Music! Because the album has not be released yet. When it's October the AfD Notice will removed Ricky3374 (talk) 01:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

That's not how AFDs work. It was already set as a redirect, so there was no need to change it. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spatial Fusion Server

Spatial Fusion Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The creaor contested the prod. I can't find

talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burrola

Alex Burrola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet criteria at

United States House of Representatives elections, 2002 page, which shows his 71%-26% loss. OCNative (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

List of Half-Life universe characters. A merge has been performed. Tone 20:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Isaac Kleiner

Isaac Kleiner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No assertion of

original research, and all of them are trivial. --EEMIV (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Stuckist artists. JForget 23:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arfius Arf

Arfius Arf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of references. Google search found only blogs, user sites, and sources insufficient to meet wikpedia

notability guidelines. Sargentprivate (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was keep. no one other then the nom suggest deletion JForget 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jef Van Campen

Jef Van Campen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can you provide some of those secondary sources (even in Dutch?) please? I can't find anything that seems like a major reliable outlet mentioning his name. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But the references don't appear to be major ones. They are made in passing only. For instance the Nieuwsblad article just mentions in passing that Jef Van Campen gave away one of his paintings in a raffle. I still don't see any significant coverage meeting
WP:ARTIST. Do you have anything more substantial? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
To be more specific, is there anything that shows he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? Or that he is widely cited by his peers or successors? Or that he is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique? Or that he has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews? Or that his work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. But that appears to be an autobiography according to this link: [7]. That doesn't sound like an independent book. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And before I go to sleep, a few more : from one of his appearances for RWE in Brussels : [[8]], Rotterdam: [[9]], UK: [[10]]. He sometimes also teaches his art : [[11]], [[12]] and [[13]]. I suggest you engage with an admin who understands dutch, or/and art and the region before final judging the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.225.24.201 (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sources given in this discussion make a case for notability, and more are likely to be found due to the language barrier between us and his target audience. ThemFromSpace 01:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but thoroughly rewrite to make it more realistic: the list of "solo exhibitions" is very long, but most of these are not "solo exhibitions" at all. E.g. Lineart is an art fair, other ones include regional salons and many company art exhibitions. Exhibitions in galerie Van Campen are not really noteworthy either, assuming that the gallery is run by the daughter of the artist. Considering that none of the awards he has received are of any note, and that he has apparently not had any museum exhibitions yet, this is a weak keep, thanks mainly to the book (unless it can be shown that BAI does publishing-on-demand as well, which is not clear from their website). But the current article is truly promotional, not neutral, so a rewrite is necessary.
    Fram (talk) 07:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep. My next door neighbor happens to be Dutch so I asked him to translate some of the Dutch sources, and this painter

certainly seems notable from what I read. 68.45.109.136 (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - This is a notable and highly regarded painter in Belgium. JoJan (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Lyme

Harry Lyme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:N
Non-notable fictional character

WP:BOP
No sources at all, let alone any establishing notability

WP:O Orphan article Yamara ✉ 23:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. clear consensus JForget 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of panels making life or death decisions

List of panels making life or death decisions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original article is a rambling

POV pushing. Has some good references which could be included in other related articles, but this just does not stand up as an encyclopedia article. Leuko (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: regarding article re-write - basically a republication of the single original article from which it is sourced. This version is no more encyclopedic. Leuko (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - The title is overly general. If the content warrants an article, it would appropriately be call "Death panel". However, the content is not cohesive and borders on
    synth. While "death panel" currently directs to Political positions of Sarah Palin#Health care, I'm not sure "List of panels making life or death decisions" is a likely search term for the content found there. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Well, yes, the
    WP:TIND. I am not synthesizing anything, but have presented a reliable English source which connects the dots between various worldwide death panels. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete with No redirect This seems like
    original research, a thinly-veiled POV political statement, and a potential magnet for nasty controversy. I do not see any compelling reason that the collection of "panels" captured by this list is a topic notable in and of itself...I would need multiple reliable sources to justify this before I would recommend a keep. I see no compelling reason to redirect to Palin--it's a long search term that no one is going to type in anyway. Cazort (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Having individually-cited facts in reliable sources doesn't mean something isn't original research. The term "Death panel" is a
    WP:Neologism that has a very narrow use in a particular ideology of American politics, and has only started being used recently. This page's title references a broad, inclusive topic that is much broader than the way in which people are using the term "death panel". The juxtaposition of the death-penalty issue (which shows absolutely no sourceable connection to the topic in hand...for example this source is cited: [17] and seems totally off-topic with many of the others, or this source: [18] discusses an agency's lack of approval for drugs...) Original Research is often in the juxtaposition and synthesis of material--which is why I'm objecting here. Cazort (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment its been pointed out that the Foreign Policy article sourced does cover this subject in this general a manner. having noted that, i still think our article is OR. the FP article has a very different tone to it than our article. but, this reference should stand somewhere, perhaps the sarah palin policy section, to show the public debate around the idea. my thanks to who pointed this out below, and a mea culpa for not checking the references first! i hope that doesnt show me as having undue bias. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OR often isn't so much about sourcing of individual facts. In this case, it's about collecting sourced or sourceable material into one place in a way that is particularly unnatural and is not backed up by sources. So, the pieces may be sourceable, but the whole is not. For example, as I pointed out above, there is a lack of sources justifying the comparison between the theoretical "death panels" and the death penalty, or between "death panels" and the material cited about the drug approval process (which doesn't refer to the main topic of this article at all). Cazort (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete appears to be a POV attempt at a political statement. I can't imagine how this could be built up without original research or contentious definitions of life and death. ThemFromSpace 01:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV isn't a proper argument for AFD. The article contains no original research, and I fail to understand what POV this supposedly reflects. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reason for a redirect for a term no one will search for. One article in one magazine took Palin's "death panel" charge as the springboard for thinking about groups of people making life-or-death decisions. That story itself referred only to "something akin to death panels", but, even if it had been more in keeping with anon IP 209's desires, one such story wouldn't mean that we need to have a separate Wikipedia article about it. JamesMLane t c 02:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, simply not true, the article, entitled "Real Life Death Panels" explores the whole spectrum of death panels worldwide, including what it calls "literal death panels." The Reuters source also discusses actual death panels in California.[19] -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete for NPOV, soapboxing, and WP:OR. Everything that a WP article should not be!
Of course the irony is that the advanced care directives that Palin was so against funding would have removed the need for many thousands of death panels. These panels being the formal and informal meetings of doctors and relatives and sometimes lawyers and judges, that have no choice but to get together to decide the fate of people who have NOT made their preferences regarding treatment at the end of life known and who are not able to make their preferences known. Having the patient think in advance what could happen and give clear guidance to their doctors for their future treatment is surely the best way to avoid these unhappy panels being formed in the first place.Hauskalainen (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I enlarged upon my reasons for my opinions above on my talk page; I'm sorry you didn't like them. -- The Anome (talk) 12:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research

AfDs for this article:
National Endowment for Alzheimer's Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization, self-written spam piece, contested prod. No media coverage noted in Google News - only a listed in a couple of obits. Leuko (talk) 22:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]


  • Tentative Delete per FisherQueen. I would have expected an organisation of this nature to return far more Google hits. I would also be happy to change my opinion if notability could be established.-gadfium 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No press coverage (other than death notices request donations), only one reference on Google scholar. The Saskatchewan Alzheimer's Society has more presence on Google scholar, and that only represents one lightly populated Canadian province. Also, the organization's own website fails to note any press coverage or research they've supported. Pburka (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also found very few sources. 5 google news hits, all obituaries requesting solicitations to the organization. It can be dangerous when an organization has an official-sounding name to assume that it's legit. It is quite possible this is actually a scam! At any rate, it is at the very best, a totally non-notable charity. Cazort (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Delete per FisherQueen and gadfium.   —
    talk|contribs) 04:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikon D3000

Nikon D3000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another camera, nothing special about it, thus fails

WP Physics} 21:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

It does NOT fail the general notability guideline. Raysonho (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a rationale focusing on the article itself; criticizing the nominator does little good. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please no personal attacks - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't fail notability, then it should be easy to add sources. Right now this is nothing more than vanity page.
WP Physics
}
If you now say that it is unreferenced, then you have used the wrong template and used the wrong reasoning for nominating the article for deletion. A simple google search will give you lots of hits for D3000. So much for the Barnstars. Raysonho (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Headbomb made a mistake.Ret.Prof (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful page about a new product without much available information on the web.scott.medling (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: More sources will become available as time goes on, as this is a relatively new camera. Besides, there are articles for many other cameras.
    talk) 13:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of counties in New York. JForget 00:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York county name etymologies

List of New York county name etymologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant and unsourced version of

NYer 20:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Included {{
NYer 20:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Rey Games Hernandez

Alberto Rey Games Hernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Leuko (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Interesting that nobody challenges the words in
    WP:V issues but this has more to do with the "Subject Matter" than violating Rules. Let me remind WP that ALBERTO R. GAMES HERNANDEZ is not only a UNITED STATES CITIZEN but also SHED BLOOD building NAVY VESSELS for the Country. I believe an Exception should apply and this page allowed to stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs
    )

"A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." Just because I'm related by blood does NOT place me in conflict with this rule. I'm certain that there are contibutors, related to or not, which contribute to Wikipedia.

However, if there is one person IN VIOLATION of Wikipedia's behavioral rules it is you. Please read

WP:GAME Unfortunately, most people that could write about Mr. Alberto R. Games Hernandez, Cuba's 1962 National Champion, probably are not within the capacity to write about him in Wikipedia. So, I'll leave it up to you; instead of fighting me so violently on this, lend me a hand and see how this Hero can be honored. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs
)

  • I'm not fighting you violently, or even fighting you at all; in fact, the only person getting all riled up is you. And as far as not finding a definition that stipulates "someone close to the subject is creating an article about that subject", um...did you not read the section on
    close relationships
    ?
But you know what? I'm tired of continually explaining this to you. You don't get it because you don't want to get it. So let's just see what other users have to say. (By the way, just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm
gaming the system.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
LOOK METROSEXUAL, first, COI is not a reason for DELETING an article. Second, the rules state that "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." INTERESTINGLY, you are the ONLY ONE attacking me on
WP:COI, when this is something that can be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agames (talk • contribs
)
Then include me, though I don't plan on "attacking" you either. The COI guidelines suggest that you shouldn't be involved with an article about your father. This conflict of interest you have also colors any comments you make in this deletion discussion. While we might trust that an uninvolved editor might wish the article to remain in the encyclopedia because it is
notable enough to merit inclusion, it is reasonable to assume that you want the article to remain because you want to promote your father. That's a reasonable thing to do, noble in fact, but unfortunately it is not compatible with the aims of Wikipedia. Your aggressive behavior only undermines your arguments in this deletion discussion. I suggest that you base your arguments on policy and common sense rather than attacking editors who disagree with you. -- Atama頭 09:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Davfs2

Davfs2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find

talk) 01:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • @Ironholds -- it certainly does. Subversion is a notable and widely used version control system today. Plus see other refs. I added for example. --Mokhov (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tothwolf -- the references have been found earlier. I suggest to also add them to article when you mention them here, just like I just did. It would help the article tremendously, or, if not tremendously, it may improve it to an acceptable keep level. I added 7 of them to the article. You can add other noteworthy ones as well as help expanding the article. Thanks :-) --Mokhov (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, sources given establish that it exists, not that it is notable. Minor mentions do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Subversion mention in the books is far from "minor". Some contain entire sections on how to install and configure it for Apache and why. --Mokhov (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
      WP:COMP {{WikiProject Computing}} banner template to a number of articles that Miami33139 prodded as part of a mass-prod of software articles. They have gone on to prod, AfD, and revert all sorts of my edits. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Merge into WebDAV (or even into a new article about WebDAV-based filesystems).
The general topic of WebDAV-based file systems is important enough that Wikipedia should cover them, but articles about the individual file systems would be short and repetitive. So we should create a section of WebDAV (or even a new article) that discusses WebDAV-based filesystems, both the one built in to Mac OS X and those for Linux: davfs2 (the most important, AFAICT), fusedav, and wdfs. (We would keep davfs2 as a redirect, of course.) I'm afraid I'm too busy to do this myself; any volunteers? CWC 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to merge. This sounds good to me. There is enough coverage to justify brief inclusion of this product as part of another, more generic, article. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - G7. ϢereSpielChequers 21:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syed ziaur rahman

Syed ziaur rahman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is an autobiography written by the person itself (see the creator's username). The notability is questionable. The article is written more like to promote his own works, "achievements" and his life. Goes against in a certain way

WP:YOURSELF Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 19:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Author blanked, which isn't really permitted during an AfD, but it also means it can be speedied as G7. So nominated.Hairhorn (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted this per G7. ϢereSpielChequers 21:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer.im

Cancer.im (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails

WP:WEB from what I can tell. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy delete as a recreation of an article deleted following a deletion discussion, that failed to address reasons for deletion.  Skomorokh  23:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bradden Inman

AfDs for this article:
talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails notability at WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven McLachlan

AfDs for this article:
Steven McLachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven McLachlan. Article was recreated with no improvements on the issues raised in that AFD, so I tagged as G4 here. G4 tag was removed by an IP with no explanation here. Right now, I'm assuming that the IP and the article's creator are not the same user, which is why I'm bringing it here. MuZemike 18:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, looking at the search results, there are a lot of false positives, and I don't think any of the gNews results match this specific person. I also was unable to find anything about this person charting still as with the last AFD. I also get discogs and directory entries in a regular search, but nothing of which I can find with provides significant coverage or reliable (As usual, I may have overlooked something.) MuZemike 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Webb (historian)

James Webb (historian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Two references on page are a dead link and a book printed on a "personal imprint" - effectively Self-Published. Simonm223 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that site is one of the myriad sites which mirror wikipedia content.
talk) 18:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
It is. http://www.bookrags.com/Harrow_School
talk) 18:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah ok. Well in that case, keep as per Ikip Omegastar (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wheel Weiser Conari

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable publishing house. Only two references are for writer's desk references and would confirm only existence of magazine and publishing guidelines, no second-party commentary. Simonm223 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep. samuel weiser is a major metaphysical publishing house, and conari is notable as well. i dont think the article name is accurate, though. looking up samuel weiser should get many solid hits. ill try to fix shortly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page has six active redirects pointing to it, and a total of 67 Articles linking to it. It needs clean up and references, not deletion. Here's a Publishers Weekly article to start with, and here's their old entry in Jeff Herman's Guide to Book Publishers via Google Books. Probably took less time to do that research than it took to create the AfD, and that's aside from the 27 pages found with the News Sources link in the AfD itself. Also, according to their web site the company name is still "Red Wheel/Weiser, LLC" despite the Conari acquisition, so I agree with Mercurywoodrose that the name is inaccurate, and it should probably be moved. Geoff Capp (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i had to truncate my response above, as i have a life outside WP, with sudden interruptions. there are approx. 80 references to samuel weiser on WP, mostly in the reference section of metaphysical articles. nuff said, except i should have remembered to say "rename"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no problem finding sources. Most of it is in Publishers Weekly. One of the companies making it up goes back to 1957 according to the company website. I agree with the move; it seems to be referred to mainly as "Red Wheel/Weiser". Cazort (talk) 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reverted to disambiguation page. As the page has now been reverted to a disambiguation page and nobody presented any evidence that the band merits an article, there isn't anything left to discuss here. If anyone wants to show the band are actually notable, I suggest starting a new article at a different title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rise

The Rise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet notability guideline WP:MUSIC Ph4zon (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lads, come back when you've got somewhere. Like having a complete line-up, having recordings on the market (not self-issued CDs with hand-written labels), and being referred to in outside reliable sources. Till then, good luck with your degrees. Peridon (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make mine Revert following the revelations below... Peridon (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously. Possibly a speedy candidate since it seems to be mostly stuff made up in school. Eusebeus (talk) 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy revert to this version, which was a disambiguation page. Unknown bands (as per all above) don't get to usurp disambiguation pages. Even if this band were notable, they would have to have a qualifier after their name to distinguish them from The Rise (band), an unrelated band. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy revert per Metropolitan90. Replacing the info wasn't a good idea. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've performed the said speedy revert, which was an excellent idea.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodsucking Zombies From Outer Space

Bloodsucking Zombies From Outer Space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable

reliable sources. Unable to find any mentions or reviews, only coverage appears to be in social networking sites and last.fm type sites. TNXMan 16:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • If there are other pages that need attention, they can be dealt with individually. However, the state of other articles
    has no effect on this article. TNXMan 19:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I just try to explain. Try to listen. Most bands of this genre are not so popular to ALL world. But they are famous to this group of interested people.

By the way ALL psychobilly genre has few thousand fans only of ALL world. If there is page about genre - it can be examples of the bands. Most of bands are "non-notable" to other world. Let's stay page about genre without examples of bands? This band is popular into this genre. They crowd the consert halls - speaking about __this__genre and __their__fans. You know the rules of Wiki better and it's your decision, i just would like to be sure you're really understand what are you doing now. Small'fans'genre has small'popular (to all world) bands. Before writing i read many pages about other bands of this genre. And it's wrong: to stay the articles about really non-notable bands. --Notabene1 (talk) 21:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Evacuate the Dancefloor (album). \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous (Cascada song)

AfDs for this article:
Dangerous (Cascada song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable single per

WP:NSONGS, and almost no information (actually, only written information is about the music video). All previous Cascada singles have charted, and are consequently notable, but this one has not. Article has been prodded before (and the tag was removed by the creator a while ago), and even though there's a "major edit" template on it, I don't believe we should take it into consideration, because last time it was placed on top of the article, no "major edits" were made. Victão Lopes I hear you... 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

In that case,
WP:CRYSTAL is also requesting it to be deleted. Victão Lopes I hear you... 15:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • That does not appear to be a reliable source. talkingbirds 21:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please only vote once in an Articles for deletion discussion. Even if this is a planned single, it does not pass
    WP:NSONGS for lack of third-party coverage. talkingbirds 01:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
well as it is a confirmed release it will do when it charts in just over a weeks time, so its pointless deleting the article just for it to be recreated after a week. Mister sparky (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're quite correct, but just imagine what would become of Wikipedia if people start creating articles based on a future notability... Victão Lopes I hear you... 19:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep added links from other sources including the CD single on Amazon. I believe they are waiting for the record company to finalize release date before making it available for pre-order. 77.100.60.38 (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The release date is now on Amazon and the single is available for pre-order. Surely there is now enough information and sources to stop this being deleted. 77.100.60.38 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viancey

Viancey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Seemingly not notable enough for an article. If the thing he is most famous for is appearing in a single advert then this is not enough. His IMDB entry has almost nothing about his activities, only a bio that was submitted by himself or an agent. The other references are the sort of promotional details you would expect from the agents of an aspiring act. They do not demonstrate any notability. As a musician he has yet to release a record. DanielRigal (talk) 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can pay to create your page on imdb[23], which is clearly the case here. And I have a feeling either Viancey himself or his publicist wrote this Wikipedia page--Coasttocoast (talk) 08:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is clearly in favour of the view that the mentions of this website in reliable sources are just that - mentions - as opposed to any in-depth coverage (or the sources are themselves not good enough for RS status). There were also a number of

WP:ITSNOTABLE Keep votes which were discarded. When reference to policy was made, a clear community decision to delete was indicated. There is the possibility that some reference could be made to the one incident in 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, but this would have to be better sourced and in my opinion there is not enough here even for a merge at the moment. Black Kite 13:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Zombietime

Zombietime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a blogger with no notability for an article of its own. Sole claims to fame are being one of 11 blogs blocked by a government for posting images of Muhammed, and expressing an opinion on a memorial design and asserting that a news story was a hoax despite all evidence to the contrary. The mentions in conservative blogs and so forth are trivial, and generally aren't mentions of zombietime itself but the general controversy "zombie" was a part of. Article also previously made claims that trivial mentions in conservative-slanted books (where hundreds if not thousands of such mentions are made) and getting one trivial "award" by a group that's not notable enough for a Wikipedia article was the proof of notability. I've done extensive pruning of article to try to lessen the severe POV of the article, but earlier minor such edits were reverted en masse. This page seems to be merely a place where people with a political axe to grind promote a minor axe-grinder who shares their views. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I will also note that the nominator is largely responsible for removing about half of the article, and from an initial read-through it's not clear to me whether he removed any reliable 3rd party sources, but it's worth a look. —Ynhockey (Talk) 00:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will not that your claims that my statement was "blatantly incorrect"' only works if you cut off most of the sentence that I actually said, as you did. It appears you either didn't bother reading my comments or are misrepresenting them. But if you agree that that's what he/she is most notable for, then you must admit he/she's not notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete the claims to fame are tenuous at best, the sources on the page fall well short of the bar. There is no analysis, just passing mentions. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — the site is regarded as an important source by RS third parties. That makes an article about it in Wikipedia valuable. If there are third parties critising it, but all means include that so people can make up their own mind... but removing an article on a notable source of information would damage and not advance the project. Oboler (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I'll make several points, basically going through DreamGuy's message of "15:03, 13 September 2009" point by point. See also my recent comments at Talk:Zombietime.
  • The article is not about a blog, nor about a blogger. It is about a website carrying photojournalism which (1) made a big impact amongst conservative (and libertarian?) bloggers and their readers, and (2) had a notable impact outside the blogosphere. (The blog/website distinction is not obvious, and the fact that 'zombie' now has a blog hosted at that website further blurs that distinction. But 'zomblog' did not start until April 2008, well after 'zombietime' became notable.)
  • What makes zombietime an essential part of any good encyclopedic coverage of blogs (there's that tricky distinction again) is the impact the site had on and through conservative blogs starting in 2004. At that time, coverage of blogs and related websites in newspapers and other
    WP:RSes
    was quite scant; AFAIK, there are no first-class secondary sources describing zombietime's impact. So we can only list instances of zombietime having an impact outside the blogosphere. (OK, we could list instances of conservative bloggers saying how important the website was, but I say that would not be encyclopedic.)
  • And zombietime did have an impact outside blogs.
  • The controversy which forced a redesign of the Flight 93 memorial basically started at zombietime. (Once again, we have no RSes demonstrating zombietime's role in the dispute. Like others who have edited the article, I am aware of zombietime's impact here because I followed the dispute at the time. (It struck me as an interesting early case of bloggers affecting 'real-world' politics.)
  • A 'zombietime' photoessay forced the San Francisco Chronicle to (try to) defend itself against charges of bias.
  • Another 'zombietime' photoessay arguing that Human Rights Watch propagated a hoax about Israel attacking an ambulance helped create a furor that forced HRW to (try to) defend its reporting
  • The
    Weblog Awards
    are the only awards that create any significant 'buzz' amongst political and science bloggers and their readers. Again, AFAIK they get little if any mainstream media coverage, but anyone who follows those blogs will know about them. (We should have an article about the 'webbies'. I for one would have created it if I knew of any usable RSes about them.) Winning a 'webbie' is a non-trivial accomplishment especially for a website that is not a blog.
  • I'm not claiming "that trivial mentions in conservative-slanted books" is "proof of notability" (these quotes are from DreamGuy, above). AFAIK, no-one has made that claim. I'd say that any such claim is wrong, and that the use of zombietime's photos in
    Unhinged
     is not worth mentioning in the article. (OTOH, I am claiming that winning a webbie is not "trivial", even if we don't yet have an article about those awards.)
  • It was I who "reverted en masse" DreamGuy's "earlier minor such edits". I did so because IMO they were (1) far from "minor", (2) violated our rules and (3) damaged the article.
  • I'm here to improve our coverage of zombietime, not promote it.
  • I'm sorry for using the word "blogosphere" here. It's ugly, but convenient. Cheers, CWC 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your idea of "improving" the article so far has been to include clearly promotional language and slanted information, and your concept of what our rules say is entirely different from what are poloicies actually are. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction: Hmm. I say that
WP:EL allows links to YouTube channels which do not carry copyright-infringing videos; DreamGuy disagrees
. I think my understanding of the project's rules is fairly good (within limits: image licensing is not one of my strengths), and I'm open to advice, corrections and trout-slaps.
I do not think I've "include[d] clearly promotional language and slanted information" in this article; I make an effort to not do that. If(when?) I slip up, I welcome rewrites ... but not blind reverts, please. CWC 02:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP protects people, not necessarily websites. As I said on AN/I, the fact that this somewhat obviously right wing website lacks any sources which characterize it as such should send
WP:N alarm bells ringing. Protonk (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh dear oh dear. Unless zombie is an AI (in which case zombietime is really notable!), BLP protects him or her.
And here's a source calling zombietime "right wing".
Cheers, CWC 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP protects people, not works. I have a much lower threshold for referring to a book as right wing than I do the author. Assuming that BLP extends from the author to the creation is both wrong and dangerous, because BLP is a powerful tool to suppress criticism. Protonk (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any proof of REAL news coverage, or do you just mean other far right sources tried to use the site to advance their editorial cause? Please cite actual news stories from reliable mainstream news sources separate from political posturing if you make that claim. DreamGuy (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Croatalus wrote nothing about links. 2. Our article on the far right strongly implies that they are conspiracy-minded racists ... which it should, because they are. 3. Zombie explictly states that "no 'conspiracy' is necessary to explain" the Ambulance reports. CWC 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zombietime is not really famous for expressing far right opinions, anyway -- Zombietime is famous for the photos snapped at left-wing events held at the Bay Area... AnonMoos (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zombietime is not a broad celebrity like Lindsay Lohan or whatever, but within Zombietime's chosen field of endeavor, Zombietime is reasonbly well-known (similar to tens of thousands of other people with biographies on Wikipedia), as I explained in my previous message of 15:16, 13 September 2009 above. AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it should be easy to show plenty of reliable sources that cover the subject in significant detail (rather than some controversy where the subject was only minimally involved). Protonk (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found two columns (one from the San Francisco Chronicle reader's representative and one from The Guardian reader's representative) that focus extensively on two separate zombietime photoessays. The one from the Chronicle which is linked above by CWC) discusses the photo taken by the Chronicle at an anti-war rally, and zombie's challenge to the context missing from the photo. ([27]) The Guardian column is a response to zombie's ambulance photoessay and the Guardian's coverage of the issue. ([28]) Both of these columns alone justify retention of the article, as they cover two separate events, and they offer significant discussion of the subject in mainstream, reliable sources. Horologium (talk) 00:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those cover the photo controversy and not the site. Protonk (talk) 00:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Controversies (note the plural), and both issues are specific to issues raised by zombie, on zombietime. Without the photoessays, there would have been no controversies, and that doesn't address the impact of zombie's coverage of the Flight 93 dispute. Horologium (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source of those controversies is largely immaterial. The fact remains that the coverage of the subject is minimal and tangential. Protonk (talk) 01:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source of the controversies is the subject. You can't separate them, because without the subject, there would have been no controversies. It's not tangential at all. Horologium (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also covering the same material covered in a reliable source does not mean that reliable sources actually cover the WEBSITE. Replace the website name with a person's name. If it said "John Doe found out that..." or "John Doe reported that..." and then it makes no effort to explain who John Doe is, or why he is important, and makes no further comment on John Doe, then there isn't anything there to build an article around. The coverage still is not about the website, its about something the website reported about. Again, lets find something where the website itself is the subject of the article, NOT where the website is mentioned a single time in passing somewhere in the article. --Jayron32 01:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-arbitrary section break

  • Delete - Despite the number of sources, the most I've lookedat don't seem to give any detailed or significant information about the website, and it would therefore seem to be non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 07:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All but the last two of the preceding !votes were made before I found a scholarly paper (and added it to the article)
Stephen D. Cooper. A Concise History of the Fauxtography Blogstorm in the 2006 Lebanon War, American Communication Journal, Vol 9, Issue 2, Summer 2007
As the title suggests, it's primarily about the controversy about coverage of the 2006 Lebanon War. The next biggest topic is an analysis of two of zombies essays. (BTW, I wouldn't call that paper "concise".)
In terms of
WP:GNG
, this is "more than a trivial mention" (first bullet point), reliable (second point), a secondary source but only one (third point), and independent of the subject (fourth point). I contend that this paper, in addition to playing a role in 2 widely-reported controversies and winning the blogosphere's equivalent of an Oscar, establishes notability.
(I also found this criticism of the coverage of the
Mactel
kerfuffle. Tilt.)
Does anyone want to change their !vote? CWC 08:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment on your source - the professor at Marshall specializes in blogs and web media, which is the topic of his book. He discusses several blogs in his book, because that's what he studies. I don't know that that makes any of the blogs he discusses particularly more noteworthy than any of the others.
I'm also not convinced that this blog played more than a very minor role in the two "widely-reported controversies" you mentioned. The zombietime article lists three controversies: The Flight 93 National Memorial, The Mohammed Image Archive, and the 2006 Lebanon War/Red Cross ambulance incident. The description of the first of these controversies states that "similar claims were made by a variety of blogs and news outlets". The description of the second states that "zombietime was one of 11 blogs listed on a Muslim hacker forum". Neither of these strikes me as being particularly unique or noteworthy, or any reason to single out this blog above any of the other blogs or bloggers that complained about the memorial or posted the Mohammed images online (or both). The only true "claim to fame" that I can seem to find for this blog is related to the 2006 Lebanon War and the controversies therein. Given that, I'd rather see it merged into the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies article as ChrisO suggested earlier, or deleted (as the topical material is pretty redundant between the two). ← George [talk] 09:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think the list of pages that link to this one is pretty telling. (Spoiler alert! Only one article links to this one - the 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies article) ← George [talk] 09:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the blog posts which led to the F93 memorial redesign, so I happen to know that zombie started that ball rolling. But sourcing this would require citing lots of third-party blog posts (ugh) and that would unbalance the article (bigger ugh). And yet the memorial is an interesting early example of New Media affecting a government project. Architectural Record's (rather good, IMO) report was quite right to single out zombietime, but I say a claim based on z being singled out would be
WP:OR
.
Flight 93 National Memorial should cite that Arch. Rec. item and link to zombietime. It now does both.. CWC 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it's a good source, and thanks for updating that other article. I'm just not sure that the coverage of zombie related to the memorial (one paragraph in one source) is sufficient to warrant the article. For what it's worth, I think you've changed my mind from delete to weak delete. I wouldn't personally be opposed to keeping the article and trying to clean it up, though I'm still not convinced that it should be kept either. ← George [talk] 00:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the scholarly paper cited above, its reliability is high, but the mentions are still kind of trivial. The paper itself amounts to 43 pages of computer screen text (on my computer) and the entirety of the coverage of the Zombietime Website in that paper amounts to two paragraphs of original text, and a quote of another paragraph's worth of material from the Zombietime's website itself. This is certainly better than anything else presented so far, but I still don't see this as enough. --Jayron32 12:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I count eight paragraphs of original text focused on zombietime, plus another eight (depending how you count bulleted lists) or so of quotes from zombie. Clearly, while the focus of the paper is the "Blogstorm" (Cooper's word, AFAIK), zombies essays are the next biggest 'topic'. Unless
WP:GNG has changed since I last read it, this is a perfectly good source ... but only one. CWC 00:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, I was looking for refs of the website not the author. Re-looking at it with the name "Zombie" as a search term does turn up more coverage. Still, it's coverage of Zombie's coverage of another incident Again, better than anything else we have so far, and I am getting closer to changing my vote, but I would need to see more stuff like this... --Jayron32 01:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, I think you misunderstand what notability requires. I could probably find 15 cites, mentions or quotes of my own comments or works in reliable sources. That would not make me notable, though. Mentions or citations are not enough to establish notability - we need material that actually covers the article subject in non-trivial detail, but unfortunately we have very little of that here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Actually
    I like it but still advocate deletion. Clearly does not meet criteria one, I'm guessing you missed where it says that it must be the subject of published works. That doesn't include being mentioned in passing. I really don't understand your criteria 3 claim, who is redistributing content of the web site? Sure, some news sources quote Zombietime but that's a far cry from saying that what they're published is being redistributed. -- Atama頭 18:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • (to Atama, after E/C with ChrisO) Actually, it does meet criteria 1 for
    WP:WEB does not require discussions of the site's history or stucture; only the content, which is what all of the fuss is about. And for what it's worth, I have no stake in this article; not a single word of it was written by me, and I have no connection to zombie. Horologium (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 21:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last rodeo (Brooks & Dunn album)

AfDs for this article:
The last rodeo (Brooks & Dunn album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources, possible hoax Caldorwards4 (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. per

WP:CSD#A7. I see no significant assertion of any type of notability so I really don't see a reason to keep it open especially as the user has re-created the article at least 3 times. I've left them a note about that, also. Rjd0060 (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Dead air Show

Dead air Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been created (and deleted) 3 times, under the name Nick and Rob. Unless more reliable sources can be provided, this would not seem to meet notability guidelines. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 13:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Delete and salt. Let this run through though so any recreations can be g4'd.--Terrillja talk 13:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (

talk) 15:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Princeton (band)

Princeton (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a not notable band, as no notable sources are provided. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited the New York Times. --Rikkyc (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm willing to withdraw the nomination, as the article was introduced into Mainspace lacking reliable sources, but has since been improved. Cheers! --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balcony nightclub

Balcony nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

New notable sources are slow in being added, after a NPP CSD was traded for an AfD to give the editor time to provide additional sources. There is a reference to an additional Lonely Planet article, but it is not available online for easy verification. Since the nightclub is no longer in business, I'm not sure this one source will be sufficient. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 12:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No hyperlink to a source for "easy verification" is not grounds to delete an article. Many sources are from books, periodicals and government sources that were published long before Al Gore invented the internet. Besides, the Lonely Planet piece is available online. As a matter of fact, the nominator linked to at above in this AfD in the "books" link.[30]--Oakshade (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To earn the right to lecture me, you should take a stand with a "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." We're supposed to assume good faith, which in this case, might mean checking the edit history of the article to see what led to this discussion. Believe it or not, I'm completely aware of the value of books, since I'm actually a book editor. The Lonely Planet piece, as displayed online, is a paid travel listing, as are virtually all of the sources provided. I was attempting to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, by explaining that I was willing to concede that there might be a full article about this nightclub in Lonely Planet, which apparently there is not. These discussions would be a lot smoother, and more people might participate, if every venture onto these boards did not end up with a half-cocked lecture, mostly irrelevant to the article at hand.--OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After that lecture, my comment stands. Don't know how I feel about this article so no "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" at the moment. That's perfectly allowed. --Oakshade (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's better if people don't vote to keep but only question your nomination. I think you should be given a chance to formulate your arguments more clearly, since this nightclub is a marginal case. I for one remain unconvinced that it is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely incorrect. This is what the guidelines for AfD say, exactly: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy."
Nothing in the AfD guidelines mentions lectures to nominators. It asks us to make recommendations, sustained by arguments. It also asks how each individual article meets or doesn't meet a policy. It mentions nowhere that the AfD is a chance for editors to sit on the sidelines and take pot shots at other editors who have actually contributed to the artice in question. In regards to more fully explaining my rationale, that would be more easily accomplished by simply asking: "Would you mind providng more information for the nomination?"--OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not voting yet, and we aren't lecturing. I'm asking for more information while at the same time informing other readers of this AfD what is available in terms of sourcing. What we don't want is people voting keep because of these weak-ass sources that were not discounted by the nominator. Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where you "asked" for anything? Anyway, if you have any more "feedback" for me, how about you leave it on my talk page. If you have any questions for me, feel free to post them here. Otherwise, I "vote" to let this debate procede, with someone actually weighing in on the notability. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are news sources and other book sources. Being closed is irrelevant. AfD is not to push for the addition of sources, that is better left to tags like {{
    onesource}}. Abductive (reasoning) 18:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
After investigating the "sources"... the nom still stands. The "sources" are still all paid entries to travel magazines, and none of them can be counted on to confer notability to a closed nightclub, whose main claim to fame seems to have been serving six shots of alcohol to a barfly in front of security. There are more than one "Balcony nightclubs" in the world, and checking the sources, reveals that the "Balcony nightclub" for which most of the non-superficial sources have an entry, refer to a nightclub in Wellington for drag queens in the 70's, not this particular "Balcony nightclub," which was opened in the 90s. There are no entries of famous musical acts which performed, no indication that this was anything more than a local hangout. None of the "famous people" mentioned... seem to actually be all that famous. One athlete appears to have gotten into a barfight once, with some local media attention [31]. Is this enough to confer notability? I am still not convinced. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources, and exactly what they say about the nightclub:
1)[32]: "There’s other great night spots too – Baja, a lounge bar, the Calypso Tavern and The Balcony nightclub at the Coolangatta hotel."
2) [33]: "The Balcony nightclub at the hotel is a party hotspot, as is the two-storey Calypso Tavern on Griffith Street, and lounge bar Baja."
3) (Lonely Planet) "Balcony+nightclub"+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=%22Balcony%20nightclub%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false "...and the Balcony nightclub attracts some of the biggest acts in the music industry."
  • Delete Lacks the kind of in-depth references needed to establish notability per WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. You would anticipate promotional material either in print or online articles, but these are not independent of the subject. Bleakcomb (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the sources rise to the level of notability. This club was rather ordinary. Abductive (reasoning) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just another local bar/club that is popular with the locals and not notable. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roxanne Kernohan

Roxanne Kernohan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress who has only had a few minor roles, nothing of any significance. magnius (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 07:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 11:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 but can you please add some information to the article because it is borderline speedy for lack of content. JForget 22:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seithigal

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject that the article has not meet the requirements of notability, it fails

WP:CORP. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. It's even covered by the BBC in addition to other Indian news outlets. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Wan (Card Game)

Twenty Wan (Card Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, potential spoof article based on misheard name Twenty One, incomplete article, maybe a very localised variant of a game welsh (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the
    list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, tedder (talk) 06:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 11:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This should get merged into Card game and the stuff about making tea and spinning a web removed. Originated in Northside of Dublin? Really? apparently The game was first documented in the 90's but no documents are provided. As far as I know 21 is just a card game played all over the world with a variety of rules. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In a shedding game, players start with a hand of cards, and the object of the game is to be the first player to discard all cards from one's hand. Games of this type exist across the world with various names.
and a re-direct from twenty wan and any other pages of a similar type.--Alchemist Jack (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the proof of this is where?
I also just realized this article was created by
WP:COI. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

Libyan Second Division 2008/2009. Nothing is referenced, so the article ought to just be redirected. NW (Talk) 00:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Libyan Second Division 2008-09 Fixtures & Results

AfDs for this article:
Libyan Second Division 2008-09 Fixtures & Results (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per

WP:NOTSTATS. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly's and testimonials sufc/swfc

AfDs for this article:
Friendly's and testimonials sufc/swfc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not

notable. Any significant friendly derby matches (an oxymoron, surely?) should be detailed at Steel City derby. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Autoput 1 (Serbia)

Autoput 1 (Serbia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination: I removed a {{

talk) 18:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 10:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dion Betts

Dion Betts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability has not been established. What has this person done to be notable? He published books. So what? What is notable about them and about him? This has been waiting for 12 months for an answer and that's more than long enough. GetDumb 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The ask.com review is the one I was referring to above.
  2. With regard to the autism-society references, the impression I got when I saw it was that this was the a-soc printing up a press release that they had received from Betts.
  3. With regard to the therapeuticreources.com and papsa-web.org mentions, it verifies that he is "is Assistant to the Superintendent for Instructional Support at South Western School District in Hanover, PA." - Although it shows his qualification and job, I don't think that it demonstrates that the contribution he has made is necessarily notable enough to be included in an article (I don't mean his own article - I mean an associated one that the details could be merged into)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was already speedily deleted for no substantive content. Grutness...wha? 22:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by percentage of population over 65 years of age

List of countries by percentage of population over 65 years of age (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You neglected to mention the "list" is empty. Abductive (reasoning) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Since the article was created today, I would normally give the creator time to improve it, but its very title suggests
    listcruft. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitami Woome

AfDs for this article:
Kitami Woome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable individual - only sources I can find are here and facebook. Please also consider

Cameron Scott (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with these articles is that one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is
    Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth... If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This is Infinant once again, my articles are NOT a scam at all. I am simply bringing light to the village of Abua in Rivers State Nigeria; The Royal House of Woome, ruling family of this village; and His Excellency Prince Kitami Woome. I have already stated that there are NO written, or electronic refrences that prove this. Our tradition in Abua, as in many other African Kingdoms have been oral documentation for centuries. If any of you that want to delete my articles want, you can fly to Rivers State Nigeria go to the city of Port Harcourt, and from there go to Abua, which is about 10 miles away. The people of the village are very friendly and welcoming. When there you will find that the articles I put up are all true to every word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.20.4 (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We understand why you cannot give
      verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Your articles may be true, but they cannot be verified, so they do not pass that threshold. "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." There is no more to discuss. JohnCD (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial credit reporting

Commercial credit reporting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod (although not by the creator) over a non-notable essay about a subject with questionable notability to begin with. I would userfy it, but more than one editor worked on it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep One simply has to click on the google books link above to see the great notability of this topic. The nomination thus fails
    our deletion policy. The fact that the prod was contested should have been a good clue that the topic required further work and discussion before bringing it here. The nominator has not engaged in discussion on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I've seen your history, Colonel, and with all due respect, people aren't always going to do whatever you want. I have no problem with the article being userfied, but I don't feel it belongs in the mainspace (not in it's current form, anyway). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On average, we might expect 23 of those 165 readers to have reached the article via the random link. This is fine as this feature is often used by editors trawling the project for articles to work upon. How did you come to the article? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nobody is discussing if the article should be kept or deleted. Whether or not its userfied or "incubated" or whatever is not the point. I would get back to the nominator's concerns about the subject and the article being notable enough. I think something should be done with this information, either merged into an appropriate article or worked on so it meets
    WP:MoS. It also desperately needs sources. – sampi (talk•contrib•email) 13:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultras White Knights

Ultras White Knights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization with no reliable sourcing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to NBL Australia.

talk) 07:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

NBL Hall of Fame

NBL Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sure if significant, also written very, very poorly. Only sources are broken links to the NBL Homepage Purplebackpack89 (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D Kamlo

D Kamlo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This rapper had an unfortunate fate, but he just doesn't seem to pass

WP:MUSIC, especially since all the Ghits I found link to the same YouTube video. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy .

talk) 08:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Kitami Woome

Kitami Woome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I doubt the authenticity of this entry. There are no mention of this person in any of the usual sources. The only mention I can find is a Facebook page. Tags constantly removed without explanation or improvement. Wperdue (talk) 06:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. per withdrawn nomination - well not that speedy since it lasted the seven-day period.JForget 22:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse

Bethel Church, Mansfield Woodhouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Sources have been added and cited, article has been changed to reflect this. - o0pandora0o (talk) 15:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no RS for the statements in this article, it appears to lack notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 04:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw: congrats to Cirt for excellent rewrite and sourcing. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per nominator.
    Off2riorob (talk) 09:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

*Delete. per nom. Even if it is kept (which it should not be) the article needs to be stubbed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • Keep. I have proposed a new edit with RS on the discussion page. Sources are older newspaper articles that are archived on perhaps a non-RS, but articles themselves are genuine. This has been discussed at [34], where user Blueboar suggested: You can cite the newspaper article directly without linking to rickross.com. I can change Sources to not link to Rick Ross' site, if this is acceptable.
edited to add: If it is deleted, it might actually be fine, because at least then I won't have to worry about current church members coming in and engaging in editing wars, deleting all relevant information and replacing with bland, benign statements. - o0pandora0o (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for the moment. The main problem has been verifying that RS newspaper reports not available online except as archives at possibly non-RS sources are actually genuine. There have been a couple of breakthroughs already, verifying a few as accurate (thus Jezhotwell's concerns about no RS sources has been answered, at least in part). If all the sources alleged are accurate (and "alleged" here means not yet confirmed, but with no established reason to doubt other than that the archiving sources are anti-cult), there are at least seven RS sources available. Deletion is premature because verifying sources cannot be done by sitting at a computer alone, but by going to find physical copies.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. This is clearly a poorly cited attack article with notibility issues and is in need of stubbing as a BLP protection. There is only one editor addding anything to the article and they have a declared conflict of interest in the story. There have been no breakthroughs as Vsevolodkrolikov claims and there are no wikipedia reliable sources at all. I recommend deletion at the earliest possible convenience.
    Off2riorob (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
People should go to the talkpage to find out the truth of rob's suggestion that no RS sources have been established. An editor has scanned in copies of the newspaper to show its authenticity.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scans, yes please have a look at them, imo they are very poor as regards a reliable source, especially as they are from a person with a declared conflict of interest.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yes, scanners can be affected by the user's point of view.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even read the story, never mind add comments from the scans.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I wish you had told me that. I will scan another article and at a larger resolution so you can see it better. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have scanned another article for you. This one is waay shorter. :) But still accurate. From "A Follower's Confession" on Rick Ross, I give you A nice large clear scan of the article. If you can't read that, please use This site to help you use Windows Magnifier to enlarge it enough to see. - o0pandora0o (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Click at the top of the page here and find sources for this article, nothing! and find books, nothing! and find scholar..nothing! Whatever happened at this church, it was not widely reported and it has not continued to be reported, as such the article is not notable. There seem to have been reports in very limited sources for a limited period of time but the coverage has not continued.
    Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
There is no way this article satisfies notability...
Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
"Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
it is quite simply a poorly cited attack article.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
rob is presuming that in the ongoing confirmation of sources that nothing can be found. Given that he insists that nothing has been found despite the evidence so far provided doesn't (I'm sorry to have to say this) suggest a co-operative attitude. That an editor cannot be bothered to cross reference scans and the archived material is not an issue for wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you overly personal remarks, I won't demean myself by replying to them.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I will however state my points one more time.. This article is an attack piece written by editors with a clear declared conflict of interest. It is weakly cited, even with a few scans. It is weakly notable, those are my opinions.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Who are the other editors with a COI? (pandora has been very open, and has accepted all consensus).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am in the process of doing a full rewrite. Cirt (talk) 17:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some preliminary work (please see this version for a start) - will be back to do some more work on the article later. Cirt (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More work done: (see this version). Cirt (talk) 05:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Oustanding base built by Cirt. Clearly there is enough there to be an article. - Sinneed (talk) 03:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is interesting. British MP Alan Meale called for the group to be placed on a register of controversial religious groups and cults [37]. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


There are no actual facts in this article - I live in Mansfield Woodhouse & have attended Bethel Church for over 28 years. I know the ministers and the church extremely well. Point 1 .The church was not founded by either John Hibbert or Jean Spademan. The church was here long before the before mentioned even lived in the area. Point 2. The Section on Founders therefore has no foundation to even be in the article. Jean Spademan who is deceased has never "ruled" the church & neither has John Hibbert or neither does he. The article & newspapers articles are written by people who have never put a foot into Bethel church & in a "press like way" have destorted & fabricated stories. In fact most of the people commenting on this article seem to be at the other side of the atlantic ocean and probably would not know where Mansfield Woodhouse is. Point 3. Section on England - no actual facts here again - all church members do not give 10% of their earnings, church members are not pressured into giving anything and all offerings are free will and private as in most churches Point 4. Section on Connecticut - not actual facts here again Point 5. Section on British M.P. and Analysis both are generalising on articles they have read, once again no facts

If there can't be a non-biased section on Bethel Church Mansfield Woodhouse, for example on the village history, history of the church building, what Bethel Church goers actually believe, community projects, outreaches (currently to children in Zambia) then the whole article should be deleted. Any doubters please come and see for yourself, all are welcome. [member of the church] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.31.240 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:V. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apisosism

Apisosism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Name of a putative form of agnosticism, but unfortunately the claimed Greek etymology is completely bogus, and the Google search "apisosism -wikipedia -wikimedia" turns up exactly one hit. I gave User:Muffinz525 a month to tie up the loose ends, and he failed to even attempt to do so. AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete without predjudice since the article creator was given an ample amount of time to improve the article. ArcAngel (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Yoninah (talk) 10:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Old Rectory , Chidham

The Old Rectory , Chidham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No refs, no indencations of notability, and an internet search comes up with nothing Abce2|This isnot a test 03:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote changed after having merged it as I had suggested, essentially by adding the photo. With 418000 grade II listed buildings we cannot have articles on all of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Grade II listed buildings are notable per se (this has been applied many times re articles about primary schools in listed buildings). It would be easy to add a few more words from the ref I've just added.
    talk) 15:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix fire apparatus

Phoenix fire apparatus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A complete list of the fire equipment used in Phoenix? Fails

WP:INDISCRIMINATE by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

The result was speedy keep per SK reason 2.3. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LG15: The Last

AfDs for this article:
LG15: The Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A web-series that won a web-series competition called "The show is yours" related competition. The competition got some third-party coverage on digital blog sources, but after the competition was over, it only managed a to get coverage in one digital blog, from thereafter there was no further coverage. So the show that won the competition only managed a one line mention in ref 6. Note refs 1, 3, 4, and 5 are the only independent 3rd party sources about the competition (don't mention the article name) suggesting it could be merged elsewhere. Ref 6 is the only one that mentions the article name.

The show ran it's 10 week course from Jan 2009-March 2009 but never got any additional 3rd part coverage apart from one mention in ref 6. The very few 3rd party sources were all published between 5th Jan 2009 - 28th Jan 2009 making it an obvious

one off event
.

In summary, the competition to the run up of the show got a little coverage, but the result of the competition itself never got anymore interest (note 1 source). Seeing as the winning show finished 2 months ago, any new additional coverage seems very unlikely. So delete for being a

Otterathome (talk) 01:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Note - article is currently being edited, to see which references the nomination is referring to, please check the history before the new edits were made.--
Otterathome (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • "The show ran for ten weeks, followed by a twelve-video finale called "Quietus," which ended on July 28, 2009" so the article is wrong?--
    Otterathome (talk) 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Here is some reading material before editing this AfD again, Otter.
Feel free to address why everything we said in support last month was suddenly invalidated while we were tied up in your other frivolous nominations.
In addition, as usual, your entire representation of the matter is skewed, full of omissions and unexplained decisions on your part:
      • You decided Tubefilter is not an independent 3rd party source of information; given that tubefilter is one of the leading news sources for this kind of content, I would like a detailed explanation for your personal opinion that Tubefilter is irrelevant as a reference.
      • You have decided that certain references do not count. To have done that, you must have checked all references. If you checked all references, you know full well that the winner of TSIY was only announced on January 26th, and that The Last was only determined as the actual executing contestant on February 2nd. As such, including in the nomination that only reference 6 includes the article name, implying that it shows the lack of prominence of the show, while several other references could not possibly have included the show's name because they were written before a winner was determined, is a clear attempt to spin the facts and manipulate the community - or, to put it in Wikipedia terms: Another sign of Bad Faith.
      • Reference 1: "EQAL launched a contest to integrate a fan series into canon, which produced LG15: The Last."
        Reference 3: "LG15: The Last (episodes 1-33)", "LG15: The Last takes the concept of the LG15 series ..." and countless others.
        The claim that "Ref 6 is the only one that mentions the article name." is a blatant lie and should not be tolerated.
      • In addition, given that the follow-up competition, The Show Is Yours 2, starts its submission period in two weeks, your assertion that it is unlikely there is any more press to come is bogus at the least. Any outlet reporting on TSIY2 will certainly look back at how TSIY1 turned out, and thus automatically report on The Last.
      • To address your question above: It was pretended the show was over for effect by its creators, but there is currently another episode in the works. Nobody got around to updating the page because you keep tying up everyone in frivolous deletion discussions. I'll fix it in a moment if no one has yet.
So, let's summarize:
Claim that only 1 source mentions the article name: Blatant lie.
Implication that all sources could have mentioned the article name: Bogus, several sources were written before the winner was determined.
Claim that only 4 sources are independent 3rd party sources: Unexplained personal opinion.
Claim that no additional coverage is to be expected: Bogus, EQAL's projects frequently appear on web show news sites, TSIY appeared there, so there's a high probability TSIY2 will be picked up by news, which, in turn, will lead to further coverage of TSIY and The Last.
Claim the show is over: False.
I guess just the facts didn't cut it. Oh well. We're used to the spin by now. Add to that that, once more, he is trying to discredit a participant's contribution by brushing him off and implying that what he says doesn't matter because Otter decided it was off topic, and the attempt to keep people off the discussion by trying to impose mandatory reading on them, and you can see that this is just a re-run of countless other Otter-AfDs we've had in the last month.
Nomination is false and deliberately misleading on multiple accounts, nominator is not neutral, nomination is frivolous, nominator is the only one arguing for deletion.
Can I have a speedy keep already?
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 17:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you didn't notice
Otterathome (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
We are not discussing to keep revision X from Y days ago. We are discussing whether to keep the current revision, so I will argue from the current revision. If you are unable to argue for deletion now that the page was updated, feel free to retract your nomination. Otherwise, I suggest you update your nomination, clarify what references you were really talking about, remove outdated information and re-write it from a neutral point of view.
Besides, why would I hide my comment if you made the mistake of writing a nomination lamenting the quality of sources that would break once more sources are added? It is not my duty to ensure your argument stays coherent.
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I already noted the added references added were a wiki and another trivial mention, so it still fails all the guidelines/policies originally mentioned. Editors can easily see what references I was referring to via the history of the article so there is no need to update it. I suggested you hide your comment because you failed to notice the ref numbers had changed. So you ended up responding to my comments on the original revision with the new revision where the ref numbers that I was referring to were changed.--
Otterathome (talk) 19:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
So link the revision? Why are you so scared about being open and up front about what revision your nomination is based on? Even in your new note at the top you kept it ambiguous.
Also, if the current page "still fails all the guidelines/policies originally mentioned", then you should have no problem updating and phrasing your argumentation in a way that is revision-independent.
In addition, your own note shows clearly the major flaw in this nomination: The reason given for why the nomination makes no sense anymore is "article is currently being edited". This is Wikipedia. The article in question is nominated for deletion. What did you expect? That people stopped touching the page and happily waited until you're done with this week's AfD? If your nomination relies so heavily on a particular set of references that the fact that people edit Wikipedia breaks it, that's a clear sign it doesn't apply to the general case.
We are not here to debate whether the page should have been deleted 5, 10, 15 or 20 revisions ago. We are here to discuss whether the page or topic in itself fails the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. So if your nomination only applies to one particular, outdated revision, it's time to retract it.
~ Renegade - 80.171.53.32 (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Editing an article which is nominated for deletion doesn't invalidate the nomination. And I already said, the two new references, 1 is a wiki and the other is another one off mention. So the nomination still applies. Are you ever going to deal with issue at hand or just question my motives and how perfect the nomination is?--
Otterathome (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I have "dealt" with the issue at hand - I have already shown that your nomination is grossly inaccurate, based on unverifiable conclusions drawn from personal opinions, far from reality, asking physically impossible things and does not apply to the page in general, but only a singular, outdated revision.
I have nothing to do here. You are the one who has to prove that anything you said in your nomination is a) actually true and b) applies to the page in general, and not just a random revision from sometime yesterday morning.
You keep insisting that what you say applies anyway. So go ahead. Prove it. Show it. Write down how. I am a participant in a deletion discussion. I am formally asking you, the nominator, to clarify how your nomination applies to the page in general, rather than just a single, outdated revision.
Are you going to give me a clear answer or not?
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can find help at
Otterathome (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Try to insult me all you want, the fact stands: If I have to use the page history to find the page your nomination applies to, it doesn't apply to the page being discussed.
As such, it's invalid.
In addition, even going back and looking at the outdated, irrelevant set of references would not remove all your personal opinions about PR future, your demands for the sources to break the laws of physics, or your false characterization of the state of the series from the nomination. Even if your references were correct (which they aren't), your nomination would stay blatantly false and inapplicable to the page as it is.
You yourself admitted your nomination as it stands is wrong. Just do the right thing and retract it already.
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you don't want to use the page history feature, then you won't be able to participate in this discussion.--
Otterathome (talk) 11:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep, and recommend that nominator Otterathome be banned from editing lonelygirl15 related articles: This was just up for AFD a few weeks ago, and result was KEEP. Nominator apparently dislikes anything related to lonelygirl15 and keeps nominating related articles for deletion, despite just being warned not to do that again for Jackson Davis, where he did the same exact thing. There was also an ANI recently discussing the nominator where at least one editor recommended a topic ban for him/her. --Milowent (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just jumping in here before Otter pastes his boilerplate WP:NOTAGAIN remark:
WP:NOTAGAIN
directly, clearly and unambiguously states "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute [...] when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination". As such, despite claims to the contrary, the fact that Otter just recently tried to both delete and merge away this exact page is indeed a valid argumentation against this nomination.
~ Renegade - 80.171.97.160 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Just for clarification, I'm not unduly personifying the opposition, just living in reality - Otter is the only one arguing for deletion, so if anyone would post bogus WP:NOTAGAIN links, it would be him.
That doesn't seem very relevant to this nomination.--
Otterathome (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Wilderness

Project Wilderness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by creator. No

guidelines for inclusion. A google news search didn't turn up much. tedder (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete per Blanchardb. However, if article is improved to the point where notability is established, then I will change my !vote accordingly. ArcAngel (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. This organization is only a few months old, and already it has a Wikipedia page? Seems like it should accomplish something before it attains notability. On the other hand, I'm surprised at how quickly (3 days) this article has traveled from start-up to deletion. Most articles are put up with far less information, and are expanded as more editors log in. Yoninah (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doesn't cite any coverage in
    notability, and I can't find any. Hut 8.5 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. lack of consensus on

WP:ORG JForget 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable charity with no

reliable sources listed and none found outside of press releases and social networking sites. TNXMan 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment It was previously deleted for being written like an advertisement and I recreated it with less of an advertising spin and included information on their lobbying practices. It is a notable charity within a niche community but I think that with the recent attempts to add it to mesothelioma, something odd is going on. I'll remain neutral on this. Boston2austin (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- it is a notable charity, per comment above, (or it has been, but this is orthogonal to what's happening to the meso article) --Mokhov (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 6 September 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 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment and Edit to article. Google book pages or anything with an ISBN aren't automatic keepers; they have to meet the same standards as any other
reliable source. The above links provide little more than a paragraph of coverage of this subject, hardly the stuff of "significant coverage", but if they are going to be considered as reliable sources or evidence of notability, then the content they contain should definitely should be included as I did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesothelioma_Applied_Research_Foundation&diff=313523093&oldid=311097860
. 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Conquering Cancer: Progress in 2003 covers Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (abbreviated MARF) in significant detail. It is not solely a paragraph long. This article from the Star Tribune (see here for proof that this abstract is about this foundation) is much longer than a pargraph, so it means that the organization has received "significant coverage". Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Flowanda on this one -- Cunard, it's better next time to add the said references directly into the article by yourself. I have added the other two after Flowanda from your list and added some meta info at as well. --Mokhov (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flowanda and Mokhov, thanks for adding the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: flagged the article for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete all. This was relisted recently, but it seems to me that consensus has been pretty clearly established. Sourcing is insufficient for an article here at this time. GlassCobra 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aggtown

Aggtown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable group.

WP:MUSIC I cannot find any reliable sources. There are lots of links on the page, but they are all to sites where anyone can post music. Some songs are 'charted' but it is from SoundClick a site for self-promotion, not a national/significant chart. Clubmarx (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I am also nominating the following related pages as these are Aggtown albums/song articles all created by the same person, today:
Single Greats 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Our Town: Definitive Hits,Vol II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Doomsday(song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I agree with your nomination for these...perhaps they should be merged instead?

  • Clubmarx, how can Aggtown's OFFICIAL website be unreliable? To verify biographical information, I checked out all profiles claimed to be Aggtown's as well as emailing the webmaster of the official website. I've checked all the links as well and see nothing unreliable about this the Aggtown Wiki claims. Every song and album, as well as chart listings, is 100% accurate. User above claims that SoundClick is not a national/significant chart, yet several significant artists who have been signed by distribution labels are listed on SoundClick. Also, TuneCore, Inc., the label of Aggtown, also distributes music for Jay-Z, Nine Inch Nails and Ziggy Marley. Techno_Expert (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.211.15 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See
      WP:CHARTS. TuneCore may have major names on it, but being on TuneCore does not make a band notable. TuneCore is not a record label anyway. Clubmarx (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • According to
    WP:MUSIC
    , #5 declares that the label (in this case, TuneCore & UMGD) are notable. Major names = notable.
  • KEEP, meets and succeeds notability per
    WP:CHARTS. This artist DOES meet requirement #5, which is satisfied by the artist's current label(s). TuneCore is a partner of Universal Music Group Distribution[1], both of which have a list of notable artists (mentioned above and on the Wiki). TuneCore also awards music certifications[2]-- one of the primary purposes of a record label; therefore, the validity is proven. Additionally, TuneCore releases more albums/singles in single day than any other label distributes in a full year[3]. I find this very notable. Please note that TuneCore also MUST approve all music distributed...it isn't just a self-serve distributor. Aggtown can be found on iTunes and any other major music merchant, and if you examine the artist details, you will see that the record label is indeed listed (on all sites, and where not listed you can contact the site to retrieve the label's name). Here is an example: http://www.lala.com/#album/2306124484406495274
    . Aggtown has also released two or more albums.
Only ONE criterion must be met. See
WP:MUSIC
. Aggtown fulfills #5 of this requirement.
Quick question for everyone...why do people keep ignoring the fact that only ONE criteria must be met? Failure to notice leads to confusion. It is obvious that #5 of
WP:CHARTS argument. I would like to inform everyone that not every artist appears on those charts...especially independent artists (which I think is unfair to exclude). Techno Expert (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
As far as third-party, reliable sources, I do believe iTunes, eMusic, DJTUNES, etc qualifies. It may be advised to send these companies queries to determine the exact label for Aggtown.
    • Recommendation: Aggtown biographical information be removed or downsized due to lack of third-party biographical sources; however, the Discography has been verified via iTunes etc along with the SoundClick charts (which are independent and non-notable but not listed on non-notable of
      WP:CHARTS
      -- it is obvious that Aggtown has released two or more albums on an independent label. This label may need verification however. See comments below.


    • Comment: It seems this band was never signed to any label; distributing music on a music upload site is not a record label. Clubmarx (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: TuneCore is not a music upload site. It is a distribution service that has partnered with Universal Music Group Distribution to deliver music. Also, I believe that in one of the reference articles it was discussed that TuneCore would soon be managing licensing etc....essentially the functions of a label. I may need clarification on the definitions of a music label. Are you aware that according to DJTUNES and various other stores, Aggtown uses a label by the name Aggtown Records (NOT TuneCore) in addition to TuneCore's services? To determine if DJTUNES was another distributor like TuneCore, I tried to register as my "own" label but was told that all labels undergo review and must receive approval from the DJTUNES administrators prior to selling releases for their artists. Obviously, Aggtown Records received approval because they are listed as the record label (not TuneCore). I've noticed that in some stores, TuneCore/Aggtown Records is listed as the label but in others it's just Aggtown Records. I believe that this means that Aggtown Records is the label and TuneCore is the distributor. I tried to find information about the Aggtown Records label but could find very little, so I'm not sure if they're a certified label or not. But as I mentioned about DJTUNES, I was told that ALL labels undergo critical review and must receive approval; thus, I believe Aggtown is signed to a label by the name Aggtown Records. I will be contacting the music group to determine if their label is certified or not. Techno Expert (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although TuneCore is a music distribution service, would it not be considered a major netlabel? This is where it falls into gray area, because if it could be considered a major netlabel then that would mean it is a notable independent label, especially with its list of notable clients. If TuneCore does not qualify, then the argument shifts to Aggtown Records. This may well possibly be a independent label but I am anaware of any prominent clients aside from Aggtown. Techno Expert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


CONCLUDED: I have left all comments and debates above intact to avoid vandalism claims. After spending the majority of today researching Aggtown and Aggtown Records and all this mess I've been dragging out, I've come to an agreement with the comments and claims of

WP:MUSIC that I think Wikipedia should review and improve. From my recent communications with Aggtown's manager, it appears that they will be terminating music production by the end of this year so that their lead DJ can start a solo career. This indicates that future Aggtown inclusion to Wikipedia will be unlikely. I will continue to monitor Aggtown to determine if a future Wiki entry would be valid; however, for now it is invalid and should be removed from Wikipedia. I must say that this process has been an adventure, although I am a little disappointed that all my hard work and research for the Wiki article has gone to waste. I want to thank Clubmarx and Esradekan
for your feedback and contributions to this debate.

Recommendation: DELETE

Techno Expert (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails
    WP:MUSIC, including #5, as all releases are on minor/vanity-ish labels. Yilloslime TC 21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ http://new.umusic.com/News.aspx?NewsId=787
  2. ^ http://blog.tunecore.com/2009/02/tunecore-announces-new-sales-awards.html
  3. ^ see bottom of http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/07-09-2009/0005057255&EDATE=
Techno Expert (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Believer (Common album)

The Believer (Common album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now, I'm a big fan of Common, but this article pretty much violates

WP:CRYSTAL. Although the external link does state an album like this coming out soon (as do several other Google hits I found), none of them really say anything more than that: no track listing, no indication of when "soon" is. It's just too early to have this article. (The article even states 2010 as the recording date, which is a crystal violation in itself.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

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

consensus falls towards deleting the article. NW (Talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Golan Yosef

Golan Yosef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ENT, mainly passing mentions in third party coverage. [41]. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
And the fact also pointed out by a source that he is currently doing a new film is also enough for establishing his article.--Judo112 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 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, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
This is a no consensus article afd..--Judo112 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Kaiser

Cameron Kaiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet

notability criteria Paul1337 (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 6 September 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 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jonah Hex#Recurring villains and supporting cast. Tone 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah Black

Tallulah Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails

WP:N. Sources are one that merely mention the character, one that only mentions the character as part of a review of a comic containing her and things like DCU Guide and Comicbookdb, which mention all DC universe people in some way and aren't really indicative of notability. Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep That's why its just a stub right now. Up until now I wouldn't have created this article However she's been recurring character within the current Jonah Hex series for a number of years now. In the Six Gun War, the story arc the series is in the middle of, Johan Hex and Tallulah Black are have become lovers, making it pretty clear that she's going to have many more appearances in the future. She's a main supporting character on a series published by a major comic book company. There's more than enough justification for her to have at least a stub and that's why I started it. Stephen Day (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, I have added a reference link to an interview with the character's creator Jimmy Palmiotti in which its mentioned that Tallulah Black is Jonah Hex's main love interest in the current Jonah Hex ongoing series. Like I said, she's a main supporting character of a series published by DC Comics, a major comic book publishing company. Stephen Day (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Merge it with Jonah Hex until there is better information. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would be acceptable to me. :) Stephen Day (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Done, except for changing Tallulah Black into a redirect to Jonah Hex. I wsn't sure I was supposed to do that until after the AfD is done. Stephen Day (talk) 01:45, 10 September 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 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

34th century (Hebrew)

34th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

33rd century (Hebrew)

33rd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32nd century (Hebrew)

32nd century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31st century (Hebrew)

31st century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There are so many different issues here, so many differening votes and courses of action to take. Some want the empty ones deleted, others want them all merged; it's too difficult to actually judge what the consensus is because there are too many differing opinions. Clearly there needs to be some policy discussion surrounding the general notability of these articles, but it would be reckless to act on a half-baked consensus to delete so many articles. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

30th century (Hebrew)

30th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also consider:

--RDBury (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous discussion I mentioned the possibility of doing an article along the lines of "Outline of Jewish history". But it seems like most of what would go in these articles would recapitulate events in the Bible and there is already a
Timeline of the Bible article.--RDBury (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Merge into one great article per Ikip. Yoninah (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' Vote altered - see below-- As I commented on the 37th century CFD, I do not think that any one is seriously using this dating system. Jews who do not want to acknowledge the existence of Christ use CE and BCE for AD and BC. In any event, I am far from clear that this is other than a 2nd millenium AD construct. If it were, I would have expected to find soemthing other than regnal years in the Bible. However, I am not an expert here, and may need to be corrected. I would not oppose having a single article on the Hebrew dating system, probably with a table for converting Hebrew dates to those of other systems, but I must oppose any category system based upon Hebrew centuries. I fear that we also need to delete a lot of articles on Hebrew years, having just sampled one that consisted of a comaparative calendar according to the Hebrew and standard (Gregorian) dating systems. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with the suggestion of mass deletion of the entire series, should I place AfD templates on those, directing here? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I thought the previous discussion was supposed to be about all of the articles but here we are again.--RDBury (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. LOL. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. These articles don't say anything, but if they began to list events that happened by Herbew dates, that would be duplicative of the listings by Gregorian calendar. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I originally queried one of the similarly named articles. My reasoning is basically that this would be effectively a duplication of the current Gregorian calendar pages. I originally left a message at WikiProject Judaism (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism/Archive_23#Hebrew_Centuries_and_Hebrew_Years), but apart from the page's creator, no one else commented. I feel that any content that would be placed on these pages which do not exist in the Gregorian Calendar pages should be incorporated (e.g. in the 1st century (Hebrew), it mentions September 25, 3760 BC — First day of the Hebrew calendar (the creation) - yet this is not included in the September 25 article. I feel they should be put into the main calendar pages, with the relevant Anno Mundi date appended. Also, most of these articles have no, or little, content - and a lot of the events present aren't connected with Judaism, but with the Near East (e.g. 2nd century (Hebrew)). A look through the 58 articles currently existing show a total of 22 events (excluding non-Judaism-connected ones), 51 births/deaths. (incidently, I ignore Pharoah Djoser in 12th century, as his article shows no Judiac connection, but including Christianity beginning in 38thC) - 29 articles have no content at all (6thC, 22nd-36thC, 41st-53rdC) -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles with content and delete the empty ones (i.e., turn empty blue links into redlinks). To the extent that there is content, I don't see any reason that an article should be deleted. Articles like 1st century in Roman Britain are an acceptable project because they encourage research on a particular aspect of a world history. I suppose that these could be renamed "3rd century BCE in Jewish history" or "16th century in Judaism", but does it really matter if the one-hundred year period described is from 200-299 AD or 240-339 AD? I understand the argument that, for the sake of consistency, we should go by the "common era" (what the hell, I call it BC and AD and don't worry about PC). One of the great things about Wikipedia, however, is that we don't worry about consistency (such as in a method of citing an article) as much as we do about gathering accurate information and encouraging others to do so as well. Wikipedia doesn't pretend to be a primary source (though it's generally the first place people will check to get the most uptodate info), and it isn't very strict on a uniform system. My view is that if someone is making a project out of the history of the Jewish people, or if someone is consulting that project because they have an interest in that subject, the format, including name, is the least of my worries. It could be 30th century Hebrew or "10th century BC in Jewish history", see also "9th century BC". I'd leave it to the persons working on the article. Mandsford (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a whole lot of content on most of the articles so I think putting/merging it as a single article or articles per group of 10 centuries would do the trick. Hopefully more events would be added. Maybe each century article could be left as a redirect if necessary - 37th century would be restored and put as a redirect as well with the history contributions restored as well. I just don't see all the centuries kept individually unless many events are added which can be quite a research task. JForget 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, some of the articles have content, but it all exists elsewhere where people are more likely to find it. As I said earlier, there might be some value is some kind of summary article, but this isn't the way to organize it.--RDBury (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all articles with content and delete the empty ones. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones with content, and redirect the rest to whatever. May want some of this later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and add content for the ones possible. There will certainly be something for everything since at least the 9th century BCE- it should be pretty easier to do. Even for the earlier ones, there were more events in each of them in the OT than are listed here. its just an incomplete group of articles and the solution is to complete it. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical issue -- Many of the articles do not bear an AFD tag and so cannot be dealt with in this AFD process. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply -- None of the articles above about 20th century, have any substantive content. Those that do merely list dates of birth and death of patriarchs and ante-diluvians, gving the authority as "according to Vulgate", i.e. the Latin Bible. If we need to have some dating of this kind at all, I would suggest that we use something like Bishop Ussher's compilation, despite its deviation from what Jewish dating, but I see little merit in the use of any of this for persons from David onwards, for whom there is robust historical dating, as a result of biblical regnal dates being correlated with the conclusions of secular history. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the question of how to get these articles rolled into a single AfD at the help desk but have gotten no response. We've already had this debate with the 37th century article and to have it a third time would be silly. I really don't see the point of continuing with this AfD if it's only going to deal with some of the articles.--RDBury (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked above - should I put AfD notices on all of the other articles? I will do so tomorrow if others agree that this would be appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me, but I have no idea if it's considered proper etiquette or whether it will be binding at this stage or even if this kind of thing has come up before.--RDBury (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant to reply to this earlier, and forgot!
    Wikipedia:Afd#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion says that you nominate the first one, and then add a note on the AfD discussion page (i.e. here) to list the others to be considered. - It should be done at the start or near the start of the debate, before most of the discussion, which in this case was done - so, no you don't need to put an AfD notice on the other pages, only on the first one. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 07:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I raised this because the issue of untagged articles comes up periodically on CFD. No doubt the closing Admin will note this discussion, and act accordingly, relisting any items he (or she) considers inadequately disucssed. It sounds as if I was wrong anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rest can always be nominated when this AfD is closed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the best idea is to put equivalent dates in other calendars in Gregorian century, decade, etc. articles, so people know what you're talking about in those calendars. Would anyone agree? — Rickyrab | Talk 03:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, some of the editors appear to prefer keeping and adding material to the Hebrew century articles, which is also cool. — Rickyrab | Talk 03:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 1st century article discusses the Julian calendar century in terms of cultures that do not share that calendar (Han dynasty, Buddhism reaches China, etc). This is suitable for speaking of a period of time, throughout the world. The only question is, and I offer no opinion either way, is the Hebrew calendar a notable distinction from the Julian? I suggest (at the risk of adding details to the AfD that more properly belong on Talk pages) that if the answer is yes, that it is also suitable that the Hebrew articles keep a summary of the events detailed in the Julian, and prominent links to the Julian, and as much of a Hebrew perspective (details that would be undue weight in Julian) as possible. 1st century (Hebrew) and other of the existing articles do this already, but I suspect there is much more information that can be added. Anarchangel (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all No disrespect intended, but if its for historical value it should be listed under a commonly accepted date, and if it is for information on Judaism specifically it should go into a more appropriate article. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As mentioned above, there are numerous Hebrew year articles as well, for example 5606 (Hebrew year). These seem to have about the same issues as the articles in the current discussion and perhaps they should be the subject of another AfD review, but after this one has run it's course.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RDBury (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39th century (Hebrew)

39th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

38th century (Hebrew)

38th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

36th century (Hebrew)

36th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nominator agreed to userfy the article .

talk) 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Eie-manager

Eie-manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about unremarkable web based file manager software for which I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources in a Google search, a Google news search and Google books search. Please note an objection (dated last April) to deleting the article on the talk page. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close. Discussion about the Hebrew century articles has been centralized to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew). Cunard (talk) 03:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

35th century (Hebrew)

35th century (Hebrew) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No discernible content, speedy declined. Should be deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/37th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/30th century (Hebrew) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Move to Gypsum concrete. — Jake Wartenberg 19:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gyp-Crete

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Product advertisement Sandcherry (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is hardly an advertisement. In addition, Gyp-Crete is an industry standard and unique construction material, of which there is no commonly used generic alternative term. "Gyp-Crete" is the term used. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. Gyp-Crete has become an industry term for any gypsum concrete, not just the trademarked product. Industry professionals search for the term "gyp-crete" when they are looking for information on gypsum concrete. Content was added to the article to note this information. Nlghills (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. Gyp-Crete is the accepted, and honestly the only, term for this product type ... no matter what the actual manufacturer is. To be clear, nobody in the construction industry ever uses the term 'gypsum concrete'. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nlghills's revison makes this less of a product advertisement for Maxxon's Gyp-Crete and more of a generic article about gyp-crete (gypsum concete). Removing the sentence "Gyp-Crete is installed only by companies approved by Maxxon Corporation" is suggested as gyp-crete is installed by others.Sandcherry (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 00:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I've got experience working in the construction industry going back more than 20 years and I can tell you that it is more than "notable". This type of product is frequently used in multi-story multiple family dwellings. I have no connection whatsoever to the manufacturer of this product and have no particular axe to grind but deleting this article makes about as much sense as deleting the articles on
caulk or duct tape. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
If you can provide
reliable sources for Gyp-Crete, I will withdraw my delete vote. My searches above have not returned any significant results. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You did a couple of google news searches. Is google really the arbiter of all things "notable?" Please. --Gebl Gebl Gebl (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google is not, but it is a good indicator of what is notable. This topic is not an obscure one or a non-English one, so there should be sources if it is notable. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to keep and rename to gypsum concrete per the multiple, nontrivial sources found by Whpq. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to gypsum concrete and describe the material independent of the product/brand. Articles such as [43] and [44] refer to it by material name rather than by a brand name. As well, building codes all refer to the material in that way. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding those sources! Cunard (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this approach makes more sense to me, I change my vote from Keep to Rename to gypsum concrete. However, I see nothing wrong with adding a statement like "Gypcrete is an industry term for gypsum concrete and also a trademark (Gyp-Crete TM) of Maxxon Corporation" provided a reliable source documenting gypcrete as an industry term is cited.Sandcherry (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charmaine Chen

Charmaine Chen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability is asserted by the award she won, so
reliable sources about this topic. The sole reference in the article is a press release from Monash University, which the subject attended. Cunard (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Delete. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I don't understand the deletion rationale. If the award involved is notable, as the nominator indicates, and is given by the university, then the university's announcement of the award is a reliable source. Institutional statements regarding their own activities are generaly acceptable sources so long as they're not supporting self-serving claims. Walden College announcing the name of its valedictorian is an acceptable source. Walden College announcing that its incoming freshman class has a higher percentage of high school valedictorians than any other college is not an acceptable source. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An award from a university does not establish notability. However, it asserts notability, so A7 does not apply. See Protonk (talk · contribs)'s explanation to me at a current AfD.

    Institutional sources verify information, but they do not count as reliable sources that establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Xtra

CBS Xtra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot confirm the existence of CBS Xtra after doing a Google News Archive search and a Google search. This is not a blatant hoax, so {{

db-vandalism}} does not apply. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

  • I can't see how this is
    pure vandalism, but the misused reference appears to indicate that the editor either inserted the wrong link or was trying to perpetrate a hoax. Anyhow, if the consensus is to speedy delete, I wouldn't object to it. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Sidner

Sara Sidner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources for this BLP. Not wikified. Willking1979 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears neutral to me. Willking1979 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Note:RElisted for final time. --JForget 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is notable about Sara Sidner? That she left CNN? The article doesn't meet WP:Notability. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW Tone 10:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H1Z1 zombism hoax

H1Z1 zombism hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely nonnotable web hoax without the required independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage demonstrating why this is significant enough to have an article. Was prodded, but deprodded by article creator, who tries to justify article's lack of sources for saying some guy in Mexico put the site up but took it down again. Hoping we can snow delete this. DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gadhavi boarding

Gadhavi boarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's often difficult with places in the subcontinent to show notability through Google, but I can't find much that indicates any notability for this hostel. Unless it's pretty special as far as boarding places go, it's almost certainly not going to reach notability standards. "Gadhavi boarding" +Bhavnagar returns virtually no ghits, and ""Shri Krishnakumarsinhji Charan Chatralaya"" only returns the nominated article. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Thank to recent improvements in the article JForget 22:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Cox

Doug Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails

talk) 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 13:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Comedy

Total Drama Comedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL. No indications from any reliable sources of this upcoming (2011) television series. Prod denied. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_13&oldid=1142643073"