< 2 December	4 December >

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest high school gyms in the United States[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am a firm believer of rescuing articles, but I believe that this is a biased article that was only created for Indiana schools, under the guise of United States schools. I also don't see any use for this article. This article also doesn't have any sources that would give information on any other state articles. I just can't see it working out as a page. I even considered moving it to an Indiana title, but even then it doesn't include any other states and isn't inclusive of a wide area. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The USA Today article that is the main source here expressly states that "Indiana is home to nine of the USA's 10 largest high school gyms" -- which is a fascinating fact -- and lists the top 10. Few sources are more authoritative on high school sports than USA Today. Hence the article is reliably sourced and covers a notable topic. On a side note, it's possible that this AfD hasn't been completely formed, since there seems to be no notice of the AfD on the article page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this nom still appeared to be malformed, I've tried to fix it by adding a notice to the article and also adding this to the list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 3.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Needs more references to conform with WP:V, however, this topic is encyclopedic. Location (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have more than one reliable source available so someone must care about it. Polarpanda (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have absolutely no idea how this is biased toward Indiana. It is a perfectly legitimate topic, and it just happens that Indiana has the largest gyms. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any compelling reason to delete this article. Not crossing any neutrality. Deganveranx (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason to delete but I should like to see significantly more prose to put this list in context. TerriersFan (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 05:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Baby Anne[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. No non-trivial mention in a Google search. Article's only source is the self-published own site. Damiens.rf 23:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage here and here can be incorporated into the article. One of her songs, "Probe", reached the Billboard Hot Dance Maxi-Singles Sales chart in 2002.[1] Also, two of her releases were on System Recordings,[2] a label which appears to have several notable acts on its roster. One of her albums, Mixtress, reached number 12 on the Billboard Top Electronic Albums chart in 2004,[3] and has an Allmusic review here. On the whole, there exists enough information to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 00:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Suficient coverage exists to demonstrate notability.--Michig (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. This nomination is a waste of everyones' time. WP:BEFORE would have avoided it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Gongshow. Joe Chill (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a suggestion -- if the nom is agreeable at this point to this closing as a snow keep (given that all others are unanimous that it is a keep), that might perhaps save some people some time.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - charting a song would seem to confer notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 by Malik Shabazz. NAC. Warrah (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murghawi[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A disputed PROD. There are no reliable sources to back up any of these assertions and a Google search for this word plus the word "duck" reveals absolutely nothing; I suspect this is some kind of hoax. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sun (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF. I can not find any in-depth coverage. Gongshow ^Talk 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find any way that it qualifies under WP:MOVIE. I did find a link to it being played at a feminine film festival, but it didn't really indicate if the festival was significant, and even still it doesn't appear to meet enough criteria to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video spokesperson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have the strong feeling that this topic fails the WP:GNG Polarpanda (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable sources demonstrating any significant use of this term independent from "spokesperson"; frankly, there is nothing here not covered by Spokesperson and I can't see any reason to suggest merging or redirecting. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, but also check edit history and note that original article was a WP:Coatrack for spam links for a certain company [4]. Once the linkspam was reverted with warnings on WP:COI and WP:SPAM, the creator lost interest. MuffledThud (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing I can find that would confer notability. It strikes me as a content fork for someone to include spam for their own ends. I agree with Accounting4Taste, there is nothing here that merits its own article. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novelos Therapeutics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined speedy (I have no idea why, many companies have rights to pharma compounds, but that doesn't make them "important or significant"). Most of the Ghits I come up with are directory-type listings or regurgitation of company press releases, not amounting to the significant coverage required by WP:N and WP:CORP. NB article was created by editor with WP:COI, now blocked for spamming. ukexpat (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. WP:SOAP 7 22:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I understood declining the speedy, A7 isn't about an article being notable, but asserting that it's notable. The article does so, if weakly. But it certainly falls short of actually being notable; I made a real effort to find sources, but I can't find anything but press releases. I suppose that it's worth mentioning that the article is part of a coordinated effort to promote this company on the web, per WP:COIN#Novelos. -- Atama頭 23:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find only press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 11:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a lot of Google hits (some of which are promotional attempts) but no evidence of notability per WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - their drugs are still in trials. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete according to the National Cancer Institute:

NOV-002 is manufactured by Novelos Therapeutics

A stabilized formulation of disodium glutathione disulfide (GSSG; oxidized glutathione) and cisplatin (1000:1) with potential chemoprotective and immunomodulating activities. Mimicking endogenous GSSG, glutathione disulfide NOV-002 acts as a competitive substrate for gamma-glutamyl-transpeptidase (GGT), which may result in the S-glutathionylation of proteins, predominantly actin, a redox stress on endoplasmic reticulum (ER), and ER stress-induced apoptosis; S-glutathionylation may be stimulated by reactive oxygen species (ROS) liberated by a glutathione disulfide NOV-002-induced increase in GGT activity. Glutathione disulfide NOV-002 may also induce phosphorylation of proteins such as ERK and p38, two kinases that play critical regulatory roles in cell proliferation and apoptosis. The cisplatin component of this agent does not provide an effective therapeutic concentration of cisplatin in vivo. Check for active clinical trials or closed clinical trials using this agent. (NCI Thesaurus)

Synonym: oxidized glutathione NOV-002

Foreign brand name: Glutoxim

Code name: NOV-002

source: http://www.cancer.gov/drugdictionary/?CdrID=494994 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.245.42 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC) (Note: — 4.238.245.42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]

Er...so? Plenty of companies make products but that doesn't mean they fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. – ukexpat (talk) 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete

Dr John Bell et al,

To be eligible in meeting wikipedia standards in addition to being part of the National Cancer Institute reference. NOV-002 manufactured by Novelos is making the Media and that substantiates a second criteria for Wikipedia listing:

Vernay Mills of Miami Florida her breast cancer was cured made the Channel 7 FOX news story on Television.

Medical Reports: Targets Tumors

http://www.wsvn.com/features/articles/medicalreports/MI137669/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.241.68 (talk) 16:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC) (Note: — 4.238.241.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )[reply]

Delete - can't find anything that merits notability under WP:CORP. Lots of promotional stuff, but not enough reliable, third-party stuff to merit inclusion, in my opinion. As a side note, it's probably a conflict of interest (doesn't really matter though, since I don't think it's notable enough to warrant inclusion). Cocytus [»talk«] 22:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Fulfills three Wikipedia notability requirements:

1. Company manufactures certain medications that might be a breakthrough in cures for certain types of cancer.
2. Media has noticed.
3. Their lead medication is in the National Cancer Institute dot Gov Dictionary.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.238.245.77 (talk • contribs) (Note: — 4.238.245.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. )

Comment: You may wish to re-read WP:N or WP:ORG. 7 03:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Three 4.238.24x.xxx SPA accounts are geographically located near the address of the company that is the subject of this article. 7 03:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in response to the IP's last statements, point 1 runs afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, since (as you state) it might be a breakthrough, point 2 is subjective, and in my opinion (and the opinions of others, as based on this AfD) the threshold for notability has not been met. I really do hope these drugs ending being a major breakthrough in cancer treatment, that would be great, but the point here is to discuss the merits of the article, and under our current policies, I feel I have no choice but to vote delete. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockerball April Championships[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Strong delete. Absolute rubbish. Adds no value and certainly does not comply with WP:Notability. No citations. Could even be a hoax. --Jack | ^{talk page} 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a hoax. Has citations. I dispute the "Absolute rubbish" above. Nominator does not st[at]e how it "certainly does not comply with WP:Notability". ~~burden of proof on nominator~~ --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd still like to see proof that it fails notability--RockerballAustralia (talk) 04:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Rockerball was deleted three years ago and has been recreated (see new AFD here btw). Googling produces hits on a video-- that's it. I'd say that the creator has a COI, too. Mangoe (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to my user space so it improved and appropriate sources (offline or online) found --RockerballAustralia (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find any reliable third party sources discussing this sport. Although the article seems to have been created in good faith it is just not notable yet. Mah favourite (talk) 07:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 cryptids. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High-finned sperm whale[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to cover a non-notable topic. It contains only one reference, which is to a fringe source. A google search does not reveal a sufficient body of reliable sources addressing this topic to establish notability; in fact, this editor can find none at all at this time. Since the topic has apparently not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", it does not meet the general notability guideline and is a good candidate for deletion. From another viewpoint, the article covers a relatively minor aspect of a fringe topic, and is therefore on its face non-notable, and also possibly an instance of WP:Undue weight. Locke9k (talk) 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 22:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Shows up in five different books on a Gbooks search. Difficult to tell without knowing how extensive the coverage is, but without further information I'd guess that this just scrapes it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found the same thing Chris did. It could be merged into to the main article for the species, but I think it is more appropriate (and actually less undue weight, if that makes sense) as a stand-alone article. LadyofShalott 22:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I also saw these books, the are all cryptozoological books as far as I can see. These do not qualify as independent reliable sources on a cryptozoological topic, particularly given its fringe nature. Merely appearing in any books doesn't seem sufficient to establish notability; what is needed is significant mention in books or other sources that are reliable and independent of the topic. Given this distinction, do you believe that any of the books shown are reliable, independent sources for this purpose? If you can point out a few and I can find significant coverage of the topic in those books, I will happily withdraw the nomination. Locke9k (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of cryptids, where it is already listed. Zero academic sources, no news sources, passing mention in one sentence of one book and covered in reasonable detail in one other book. Not enough for a stand-alone article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per TimVickers' argument, or simply Delete. Notability really seems to be a problem with this topic; as far as I can tell, it hasn't been addressed in print outside of brief mentions in cryptozoological literature. ClovisPt (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to List of cryptids. Some mentions in some fringe books doesn't give this (fictional) animal notability. p.s. One of those books is a Wikipedia mirror. Fences&Windows 02:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. New open sources project that hasn't been mentioned in any reliable sources. Fences&Windows 18:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Novell Forge Password Management Servlets[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and unsourced. No sources found for "Password Management Servlets" (in quotes) on google news, books, or scholar. Miami33139 (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Splitvt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and article is unsourced. Google books shows some hits for potential sources as uncovered by User:Cyclopia, but that coverage is trivial. Books mention it in dictionary style definitions, one or two give usage examples. Another mentions it as a source of potential hack vectors. None of these things confer notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seven days have passed since this listing and no sources have come forward, not to mention the many many months that have gone by since the article was first created. JBsupreme (talk) 06:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McElwain[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references. Article has been around since 2006 or earlier. Bejinhan Talk 04:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Bejinhan Talk 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Miami33139 (talk) 05:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Since when do we delete articles for presently being unsourced? If the attempt is to send other editors fishing for sources it is a misuse of the AfD circuit. You must demonstrate that you have attempted some work yourself, per WP:BEFORE. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is not to send other editors running for references. The reason why I AFDed it is because I think that the article has been given enough chance and time and yet still fail to meet certain criteria. Bejinhan Talk 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted some work myself. My attempt failed. How might I demonstrate that I attempted? -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about deleting on notability grounds? I think that the bar has gone up since the first AFD. Polarpanda (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible. Bejinhan Talk 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of sources is grounds for improvement, not deletion. Ghits shows sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked among the ghits. I didn't find reliable sources. Have you looked among the ghits? If so, where are the reliable sources? If not, please look for them. -- Hoary (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To judge from what we read in the article, McElwain has a fascinating set of interests, and from my (rather than Wikipedia's) PoV he is hugely more noteworthy than are many people (reality show participants etc etc) that do get articles. However, I can find no sources, and I see no credible promise to get sources. If an article can't be sourced after a certain time, it goes. This one's had that time; it goes. ¶ I'll happily change my mind if sources are added; notify me on my talk page if I don't seem to have noticed. -- Hoary (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources, no real assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable. MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrus Rõuk[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Person doesn't seem to satisfy neither WP:BIO nor WP:CREATIVE. Staberinde (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and expand: Hmm, according to this he's been in a bunch of art shows, etc. and had stuff in collections. He apparently also has a published book of poetry. I don't know if they're notable though. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that too, while he definitely has been active person, I don't think that any information there is sufficient for qualifying by WP:CREATIVE.--Staberinde (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem sufficiently notable...Modernist (talk) 19:20, 13 November 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 02:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The "Expand by Language" template is on the article. If nobody here is willing to translate ask someone from the Estonian Wikipedia to do so. -- allen四names 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless somebody definitively says that foreign language sources have been evaluated and found lacking, this article should stay. We dont delete on suspicion, and there are many links to Estonian sources which to my untrained eye seem to RS. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't say "definitely" because I haven't read through those sources in Estonian Wikipedia that are not online, but generally 2nd, 3rd, 4th seem to be simple reviews of his poetry book. 5th talks shortly about subject's and Aivar Rumvolt's discussion evening about recently deceased Urmas Mikku. So not much notability in these. 1st and 6th seem to be talking about that how he was expelled from Estonian State Institute of Arts for his poem, but even if we consider it notable this would still go under WP:BLP1E. I would generally be very hesitant to use Estonian Wikipedia as argument for notability, because generally its inclusion standards seem lower than here(for understandable reasons), also I personally haven't found any equivalents of WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:BLP there.--Staberinde (talk) 11:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to meet our notability standards. Orderinchaos 04:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ignorance. Looming (journal) is the most notable publication in Estonia. Valid source. Notability undoubtable 87,000 google hits. Needs expansion. Starzynka (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else please confirm Starzynka's claim about google hits? I personally get only 3,090, and if I add "-wikipedia" it falls to 1,520 [5]. Also even if we consider event that is sourced with Looming notable it would still fall under WP:BLP1E.--Staberinde (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Doesn't meet our BLP or notability standards. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 13:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but need to expand I don't think that just because an article has a foreign subject, it's not necessarily notable as others have pointed out. But, nevertheless, article is in need of considerable expansion. Anubis3 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: needs to be expanded, this man seems to be sufficiently notable (at least for me :P) MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 20:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - there may not be lots of English sources, but that does not make him non-notable. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 14:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proxy Networks[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable company. Recreation of twice-speedied article by single-issue user. I have been unable to find significant third-party coverage of this company. The references given in the article are press releases or trivial mentions. Haakon (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It appears to be a autopromo. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply: The article is not an autopromo. I am trying to put up a page for this company. A similar company, LogMeIn has a page on Wikipedia, and they are of the exact same status. Many of their links are to their own webpage, as well. It is very unclear why this very reputable company is being denied an entry. There is no need or reason to just delete the page when I am trying very hard to satisfy the requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamalade515 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- My opinion: This article should stay. It seems that the vast majority of its competitors are on Wikipedia, among them Webex, GoToMeeting (which I use and endorse), DimDim (even better), etc. I've heard of this company and though the language could be improved, it's no worse than the other companies'. This article would be a work-in-process, as is the spirit of Wikipedia. -- Nedenchase (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC) — Nedenchase (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This is not a valid keep reason. The question is whether the article passes the general notability guideline, and I cannot see that it does. Haakon (talk) 08:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fits the profile: provides remote desktop software and remote collaboration software for helpdesk technicians, network administrators and IT managers. I couldn't find anything other than press releases announcing routine transactions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 14:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MKS Integrity[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion for non-notable software product. Article by single-issue user who states he made the article "on request from industry thought leader" [6]. I cannot find any third-party coverage of this product, only press releases. Haakon (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think it needs to be rewritten, removing autopromo sentences. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a software product from MKS Inc. that provides application lifecycle management (ALM) capabilities spanning requirements management, software change and configuration management, test management and release management disciplines. In other words, another non-consumer software package apparently related to the process of supervising computer programmers. I see no general interest sources, nor much apart from press releases and routine announcements, and no claims of particular technical importance either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the notability indication Cynof Gavuf 08:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to prove notability. The company may be notable (see [7]), but not this product. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Community (TV series)#Cast and characters. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Winger[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability independent of the subject. Single third-party source doesn't mention character's surname; commentary is sparing for actor (actor article being best target for that information) or for the show itself. I suppose a redirect would be okay, as a likely search term. But this content merely regurgitates plot. --EEMIV (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I see no reason why this character should have his own WP page. Best belongs on the "Community" page. Angryapathy (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see no reason why this character shouldn't have his own WP page being that the show is so successful. It is a starting point for expanding a list of characters. It is a misconception that there is a WP policy against developing a TV show's articles in such a way. For example, The Office had separate articles for its characters by its very first season and so did 30 Rock. Anubis3 (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joel McHale Mandsford (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge to either McHale's article, or the show article. There's not one shred of evidence that this character is notable in a real-world way. I tried dealing with this by redirecting, but was reverted with a snarky edit summary. So the only solution, I guess, is to actually delete it and merge the content. UA 02:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Talk:Community (TV series) page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep or Merge with McHale's article, or the show article. Ikip (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Community (TV series)#Cast and characters. Doesn't really seem appropriate to put it into the article on McHale - it's about the show, not him as an actor. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the cast list. The fictional bio doesn't meet WP:N so it should not have an article treating this subject directly. Them From Space 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Jeff Winger is fastly becoming an important character in television and this article will only get better. SChaos1701 (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As a whole, participants in this discussion have not come to a conclusion over whether he is notable per WP:PROF. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Zeitlin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined. No external sources in article, can't find coverage outside of research area in reliable sources Cynof Gavuf 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an emeritus professor at a proper university, which satisfies WP:ACADEMIC - The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society. The article needs major surgery, of course. andy (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Major highest level" refers to presidents and chancellors of universities, not just retired faculty. So he clearly does not satisfy this criterion of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creating in proper form. This is not an article, it is an excerpt from a resume. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
changing to Keep. Article is now a proper stub. Subject seems sufficiently notable. Thanks to whoever did the work. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's now an article. Do you change your mind about your vote? --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. Less work to rewrite it than to discuss it, but so easy to nominate for deletion. Then who comes back and recreates it? He's an academic, well-known, not a video game character. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I for one am tired of all the trivia on Wikipedia. This article was a mess but now is a proper stub. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to close this one. The nominator's assertions are either not criteria for deletion or false; the professor appears to be, from google searches, a fairly well-known archaeologist. The article needs sourced. Maybe if there were fewer editors discussing this, someone could find time to source the article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't see any reason to close this early, as notability has not been clearly established. The title of Professor Emeritus simply means that the subject continues to do some teaching and/or research after retirement - it is not "a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post". Phil Bridger (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, professor is, and to be a professor emeritus, you have to be a professor first. Notability must be asserted, and it is, as he is a well known Mesoamerican archaeologist. If he were from a better known university this debate would probably not be happening. Look at a google search on him. The article just needs references. But, I'm too busy fighting to keep the article right now to be able to spend any time referencing it. This is a waste of good editing time. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see how this one passes PROF. Using GS, I see an h-index of 6, with the highest cited at 19. No other indication of notability that I can see. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used." So, post a link to your h-index search and assert its validity. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of evidence that he passes WP:PROF. The citation record isn't strong enough to convince me that he passes criterion #1 of WP:PROF and I don't see anything else. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an act of futility if you're not a character from some tv show no scientist have ever heard of. He's a leading American expert in mesoamerica, yet his article will be deleted. Why? Because of his h-index, which Nomoskedasticity hasn't even linked to, or established the validity of? A single criterion for to delete a researcher by a group of editors who don't know or care about Mesoamerican archaeology. This is why experts leave wikipedia: they're not cartoons, or anime, so they're not wanted. I gotta quit, too. This is absurd. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The h-index is not a reason for deleting. It could be a reason for keeping, if it were large enough to show evidence that his expertise has had some impact, but it isn't. The reason for deleting is that there is no clear reason to keep. "He's a leading expert" needs to be justified somehow; without evidence it's not much help. Here's my evidence: I searched Google scholar for "mesoamerica" and his name didn't appear in the first 100 hits, so I'm not at all convinced that he really is a leading expert in the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I searched google scholar for mesoamerica trade and he was a reference in 4 of the first 20 resources (I only checked 6 of the first 20). I could find extremely notable scientists who don't get hits in the first 100 of the broadest possible search you can enter for him. He's an expert in his field, not in the entire aspect of Mesoamerica which includes not just archeology, but geology, history, settlement, botany. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment. Does not make it on GS cites so delete unless other evidence emerges. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

did you by any chance look at the GS results, [8]? I see about 80 items, including references to him. And since he was born in 1935, so GS will not even cover most of his career. some things Google S does, and some things it does not cover. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did, but, as noted by others, cites are very low. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. The citability is not high, and there is no evidence in the record of passing any other criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability given at all. Weak Keep in the light of DGG's comments, and I greatly respect DGG's judgement. NBeale (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google search referred to above shows him the author of a standard review in one of the Cambridge Histories, "The Paleoindian and Archaic Cultures of Mesoamerica" in The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas, Volume 2 Part 1 (Mesoamerica) (2000) by Robert N. Zeitlin and Judith Francis Zeitlin. Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1017/CHOL9780521351652.003. A search in WorldCat shows at least 5 books. Including the GS search, that's enough to show he was regarded as an authority in his subject. Emeritus Professor is only rarely given to other than full professors; Brandeis is a moderately important research university. I am considerably more willing to accept their standards for who is notable in the academic world than that of the editors here. DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt the folks at Brandeis who decided to make him emeritus professor had notability on their minds. 160.39.212.108 (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Being Emeritus in the US has nothing to do with standards; it just means you're retired. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the record, ive added external link to his position at brandeis and his contribution to a major work on menoamerican history. 50 google scholar hits, 700 for his full name + anthropology on google. im sorry, this is one of the silliest debates ive seen yet on WP. I know, ill get a job at Nintendo, and create a Pokemon called Zeitlino, THEN he'll be notable. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DGG makes some good points. The article needs some more meat, but it appears the subject is indeed notable, the proper references just need to be found. Click23 (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments from DGG, Click23, Mercurywoodrose et al. Meets notability criteria for contributions to his field. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullabaloo and all he cites.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per DGG - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per he's not notable. The field of anthropology gets fewer citations than others, but this guy has been around for decades and has only 19, 12, 9, 9, 7, 4, 4, 4, 2, 2. I'll bet I can find a case with a similar citation record that DGG voted to delete. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep h-index arguments not validated. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

h-index arguments are believed by quite a few editors, and articles get deleted because of them. Therefore they are valid, by consensus. In any case, I did not make an h-index argument here, I made a this-guy-is-a-underachiever argument. He-has-contributed-less-than-the-average-professor-at-his-career-level. He's-not-notable. Abductive (reasoning) 07:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments remain unsupported by evidence, therefore not validated. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My evidence is that this topic does not pass the WP:PROF guideline. Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Lithorien (talk) 13:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the above argument of "contributed-less-than-the-average-professor-at-his-career-level" is about right. The man is already retired, so his record can be viewed in toto. WoS shows his most-cited work (16 citations) is a 1982 paper in American Antiquity. The citation list is 16, 10, 10, 9, 4, 3, 1, 0, 0, ... (using "Author=(Zeitlin R*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(ANTHROPOLOGY OR HISTORY OR ARCHAEOLOGY) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") for an h-index of only 4 and a total citation count of only around 50. Even for an arguably lower-citation field, these numbers seem really low to qualify for notability when considered over an entire academics career of decades. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Lithorien. 160.39.212.108 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This may well become notable, but at the moment it isn't. Ged UK 10:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bully Stop[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sorry for the delay completing the nomination - my internet connection died just as I was about to send it. Anyway, I prodded this and the author objected on the talk page, so I'll take it as contested. This article is about a mobile phone application which is meant to stop bullying by mobile, which is a worthy cause, but we don't put articles in Wikipedia based on worthiness. No sign of notability, zero coverage on GNews/Ghits other than the Wikipedia article. I stopped short of speedy deletion because there's a slight claim through: 1) Apparently being endorsed by Trinity College Dublin's Anti Bullying Centre, and 2) a claim that it's the first mobile network-independent anti-bullying application. However, I can't verify either of these claims, and even if they are verified, I think it's too trivial to pass notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails basic criteria of being notable by non-trivial third party sources. Miami33139 (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TonycVmad (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC) In reply to Chris Neville-Smith. I have changed my description for Bully Stop, I have removed the reference to Trinity College Dublin Anti Bullying Centre, because you say you have no way of verifying this. I have contact TCD for them to edit the page, I have been told this will happen.[reply]

With regard to your "No sign of notability," comment, surely an application that is the world's first that help children from being cyber-bullied is notable.

I trust the page will left as is.

With regard to your "zero coverage on GNews/Ghits " comment, the application is new, it will take time before it's picked up.

With regard to your "I think it's too trivial to pass notability" comment. Again, surley an application that help children from being bullied is not trivial, bullying and cyber-bullying via mobile phones, is by no means trivial.

Firstly, you need to read Wikipedia's guidelines on notability if you haven't done so already. Articles are judged as notable or not depending on how much coverage they have received in reliable independent third-party sources, and the fact that a product is new doesn't change that. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and does not include articles simply because someone speculates it might be notable in the future. They have the be notable now, and things that become notable later get an article then and not before.

Claiming that something is the world's first x can count in favour for notability, but at the very least, that claim has to be verified by reliable independent sources (and even that might not be enough if there's zero third-party non-trivial coverage). Yes, the subject of cyber-bullying is notable, but that doesn't mean any piece of software designed to stop it is notable too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just an ad. The only actual source is ad copy from the manufacturer. Mangoe (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Most of the sources are blogs and dead links, making it not notable enough and lacking credit for an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have added some better references and removed some blogs. There are references on NBC, Fox News, The Independent, Channel 4, CTV, The Mirror, The Sun and AskMen. There are more references in print material such as TimeOut, ITV, FHM The Daily Express etc. would you like me to find them? I didn't think they would be as useful as they are not accessible from the internet, but I can try and dig them up. I have left on some of the blogs as they are notable blogs within the seduction community, and for the technical aspect of seduction mainstream media tends not to cover it. GrowYourGame, Seduction Chronicles and Thundercat are the blogs, and for the events I have included the reference to the event such as 21 Convention and Real Man Conference, is that an issue? I have improved the tone of this article as well, but please let me know if there are still objections to it. DRosin (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- saw the dead links now and have updated them DRosin (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very notable within seduction community, voted number 1 recently. I also can't find any dead links. Ace4545 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ace4545 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sadly, keep DRosin's edits make clear that this guy does have significant coverage in normally reliable sources. Ray^Talk 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Delete He is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There are sources that are not considered reliable sources, like the blogs of Seduction Chronicles, Thundercat, ripped YouTube videos, Bristol Lair, and it has some dead links. It seems like Ace4545 is a sock-puppet because all his edits were as of Nov 25 in the hope saving this article. Where is the source of being #1? #1 of what? Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handrem (talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Strongly delete I have no idea who this guy is but it seems like a self-proclaimed seduction expert. Not notable enough and lacking reliable sources. Guys like Mystery and Neil Strauss are well-known, but not this self-proclaimed person. Coaster7 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Delete I'm pretty active in the seduction community and this guys is not really well-known in the small seduction community. Like pointed above, the sources are not credible with interviews (not credible reliable source, must be at least secondary) and blogs claiming some fame. Camera123456 (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Ray. It is unfortunate that the seduction community is on Wikipedia, but from my dabbling I have heard of this guy a lot and the sources seem fine. begrudgingly keep. Actually surprised the coverage these guys get with the independent, nbc, bbc etc. 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 137.73.68.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strongly Keep After looking at this, Adam Lyons is especially notable in the UK where he has been featured/interviewed in national publications like The News of The World, Daily Mirror, The Sun and FHM in his role as a dating coach (rather than as part of the "seduction community"). He is also a regular contributor to AskMen.com. Most recently in the media; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2702053/Taking-girls-to-HMV-helps-get-them-into-bed.html (was a full page in the biggest selling newspaper in the UK). Are the people calling for deletion doing so because they are competitors, or because they are wanting to make wikipedia better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukphysicsgeek (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ukphysicsgeek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Endorse closure I was contacted via e-mail to assist in restoring this article. Attempts to save this article have even more made this article misuse sources and crossing WP:NPOV. The claim of being #1 (of what?) references to an article that has nothing do with it and cannot be verified. The seduction community is such a small niche and does not constitute any significance. Blogs do not count as significant, even if they are considered well-known within a small niche. Outsiders cannot verify this and thus is not reliable. The article relies a lot on these sources and the events coverage is not sufficient either (organized by small unknown organizations). If these events were organized by companies that can be looked up on Wikipedia or some other reliable source, that would advocate more as a reliable source. Plus it seems that more sock puppets are trying to influence the decision making here. All the blogs, websites, and sock and sleeper accounts (per Handrem) do not add up to sufficient Wikipedia reliable source material to overcome the AfD deletion resions. I fail to see notability in this person. In addition, the article reads like a PR-esque bio, not exactly of encyclopedic quality. Xandrus (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it should be noted that Ace4545 could be a sock puppet as the user was created only recently. Also Handrem, Coaster7 and Camera123456 are currently being investigated for being sock puppets of each other, as is Xandrus. UKphysicsgeek seems to be an obvious sock puppet too. That aside, can someone explain how being on Fox, NBC, Channel 4, The Independent, FHM, and Timeout is not an indication of notability? I have tried to minimize using blogs in the references, but I think they add some good context. Thundercat's, Seduction Chronicles and Bristol Lair are some of the main blogs within the seduction community, and Bristol Lair and Thundercat's are mentioned in Neil Strauss's book The Game. In my opinion there is enough for this article to be kept, but if others feel strongly that the few blog sources have a negative impact then we should just change them. I really don't think this article is worth deleting, though obviously I am bias because I created it. I think it is interesting that the only user who has contributed who has no obvious interest in this article, Ray, voted to keep it. Anyway, if you think I should remove the blog references, please let me know, I think the Talk page on this would be appropriate so we don't distract from the main bit. DRosin (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lyons has a reasonable amount of traditional media coverage, has a strong web presence and seems to be relevant to the seduction community. I'm not sure whether the blogs should be cited at all and the article could still use work, but I believe he is sufficiently notable. Shockeroo (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have been studying the seduction community for the past 12 months and there is considerable evidence of notability: the Fox, NBC, Channel 4, The Independent, FHM, and Timeout features as indicated above. These are established companies with world-wide coverage, and verifying with them is possible, and should be actioned. Adam Lyons has a significant web present also. The seduction community (the blogs, websites, forums, training seminars, pick-up artists etc) make pronouncements about this or that pick up artists as being number 1 or number 2, but in the absence of any clear criteria or ranking system, or formal body overseeing the rankings, it's just opinion and I can see why it ill fits the encyclopaedia criteria as being noteworthy/verifiable. However, references to blogs, and other offending sources can be removed/replaced to fit with policy. There is work to be done here to make the article come up to standard, but it appears that the article creator is happy to do this and should be given the time to do so. Several of the comments suggesting deletion are clearly written by individuals with motive to secure deletion in their own interest rather than that of wikipedia or its neutral users - myself included. Overall, the article clearly needs work, paying close attention to the wikipedia criteria, so that it reads like a proper encyclopaedia entry about a note-worthy subject. Deletion is clearly not the correct option here. I am not sure how I am supposed to reference my comment. My name is Stephen Turner, I work in higher education surrounded by encyclopaedias, academic writing etc, so I think I know what I am talking about. See sense, get the article creator to improve the article, don't delete it. 28 November 2009. Time 13.07—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.249.235 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 86.25.249.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep! Adam is the most well known and the best pickup artist. His fame says it all that he needs to be on Wikipedia. With all the sources and interviews he has done he should be on Wikipedia. He is the real deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.130.188 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 166.205.130.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Comment Wikipedia is built on having good faith and neutral point of view with no conflict of interests. However, with all these anonymous and sock puppet accounts being made to endorse to keep this article makes one question the interest of the author on the article. I have even stated on the talk page on March 14, 2009 of the article that sourcing needs to be updated and changing the POV. Handrem (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like there are sockpuppetry accusations on both sides, but regardless I do not think the 'interest of the author' (or anyone else here) is even relevant, what actually matters is if Adam Lyons warrants a wikipedia entry based on notability criteria, etc. I agree there are problems with the article, but that means it needs work - not deleting. Shockeroo (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability has been established with almost three references from reliable sources, and nearly a dozen from others. It appears that most of the content is sourced as per WP:BLP. These accusations of sockpuppetry must be resolved before closure of this AfD. If there's meatpuppetry involved, all the worse for the closing admin! Josh Parris 09:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed the article as it stands at the moment, and have no reason to change my opinion. Josh Parris 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed the article as it stands at the moment, and I believe that it meets the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO. In past a version of the article it was asserted that he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, and I suspect that eventually a citation will make its way back in supporting this. Whilst a short bio that might not expand, in my opinion it meets the criteria of WP:BIO, including WP:NPOV, !WP:OR and WP:V. The notability might be near the tipping point, but I don't think it's on it. This guy has had entire articles written about him, in reliable sources - that's so much more than so many of the biographies that come across AfD. My opinion that the article continues to merit retention stands, in spite of a smaller reference list. I'd like to acknowledge the work of Quantpole in tightening the article up, and of Shockeroo in earlier edits that substantially improved the article. Josh Parris 11:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Seems quite notable, and the citations are wide ranging reliable sources. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I rule out the sources from within the community out of hand, as unreliable mutual PR. I doubt the sources from even the normally RSs in this case, as either ironical, or disguised PR, or written as reports of what he claims for himself. Reference 1/ reports on it ironically, as does 2/ & 12/ .--even FOX regards him as a joke. The nature of the reporting in the others is similar. . 3/ describes him accurately, as a "self-titled attraction expert"--in other words they are reporting his claims, not giving them their authority as valid. 6/ does not support the claims in the article. 4/ 5/ 8/ & 11/ are tabloids, not in my opinion RSs on topics they find titillating. Being a seduction expert may be notable, saying you are is not. He is not "regarded as Europe's leading expert on attraction in the seduction community", as the article reads; he rather gives interviews in which he claims he is--that is the most sources demonstrate. If the Wikipedia community does regard him as notable,, needs to be clearly indicated--at present it reads as an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I re-examined the question, in view of the very major improvements in the article. See below.[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Delete I agree with DGG. Most sources are not RS since the person in question is involved in the articles with no in-depth research on the person himself. Self-proclaiming being an expert does not constitute to any notability and the unreliable sources show this. ThaLux (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regards to the sockpuppets, I think it is useful to note that the following users have been blocked for being sockpuppets of each other: Handrem, Coaster7, Camera123456, Xandrus, ThaLux and 54Boofie. 54Boofie is the user that requested RHaworth to consider this article for deletion, while the rest have been votestacking as you can see here. I think DGG raises some interesting points though. I agree that the sources from the community are unreliable. I think dismissing the reporting because it is ironic is a step too far though. Any reporting of the seduction community by mainstream media is usually ironic. Take a look at an interview with Erik von Markovik who is notable:

http://www.venusianarts.com/mystery-on-jimmy-kimmel-live/

Also if you view his interview with Conan O'Brian, the whole interview is a joke. Fox does take Adam Lyons light-heartedly as you say, but I think that is to be expected because Fox is a very conservative news station and while dating could fit the bill I think seduction and the concept of pickup is a topic that is comfortable to deal with only in a joking way, especially if you consider the Fox stereotype of the right-wing, Christian, pro-life and pro-marriage etc. I think with this in mind the references still stand. I think that it is the fact that he is in the mainstream media- NBC, Fox, Channel 4 etc. that matters and not the light-hearted treatment of seduction because the treatment is because of the topic and not the person if that makes sense. Reference 5 is interesting, because you are right in that it techinically is published in a tabloid format, but it is not a tabloid. The Independent is a very well respected newspaper, if a little left-leaning. As a comparison The Times is also published in a tabloid format, though they prefer to call it compact to distance them from real tabloids. He has been featured in a bunch of other sources like FHM, Timeout and ITV but they are not online and would take some digging up to find. Anyway I will have another look at the references and see if I can improve them, especially the distinction between claiming to be the best and being recognised as the best. I think reference 1, although reporting it light-heartedly, does actually mention him as:

Considered America’s No. 1 seducer, 28-year-old Lyons is coming to the Magic City to help you and others hook up. He won that title at something called the Pick Up Artists Summit in case you were wondering.

I think the irony is there, but I don't think it is sufficient to dismiss the article, though that is just my personal opinion.

Anyway does anyone think it would be wise to delete the votes from the accounts that are currently blocked for being sockpuppets? DRosin (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with DGG over most of the sources, but the independent one ([9]) is specifically about him, in depth, and isn't a puff piece. The article needs a heck of a lot of clean up, but I believe it is possible. Quantpole (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

95% of that articles is a report of what he says about himself, as either a direct or an indirect quote. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's quite that bad, but I understand your point, and you are correct above when you say that his claims need to be phrased as such. I still think there is enough coverage to meet the notability requirements though. Quantpole (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's worth pointing out that half the notes here are written by one DRosin, a business partner of the guy in question. Have a look at the COI section on DRosin's talk page. WoodenBuddha (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bizarrely I have to keep repeating this to WoodenBuddha, but I am not a business partner of Adam Lyons. I have never even met him, sadly. Do have a look on my talk page for one of the more interesting exchanges on Wikipedia though. DRosin (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm an inclusionist - if there's any way to justify keeping an article on Wikipedia, I'd love to keep it. But looking at all the sources presented, there's just not enough reliable sources in the article to prove its claims to notability. Maybe in the future there will be enough coverage, but as of this moment, there isn't. See DGG's comments above. Lithorien (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Moved from keep. Looking at the sources again, lots of self promotion, not as yet notable, the multiple socks attempting to influence the decision are a worry. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck through two comments above before the relisting tag. The user WoodenBuddha violated Wikipedia by posting a bunch of photos and personal information about some guy so it was removed by an Oversighter, so the COI section is no longer there. I am honestly getting a little tired of all the sockpuppetry and harassment going on regarding this article, I don't really see why it is evoking such a response. Regarding the concerns about the references not being not enough, I will see if I can find some more, I know there is an FHM article and an ITV television thing, but I haven't found them online. This is probably flogging a dead horse, and I realise the relist tag is intended to create new discussion and not have the article creator rant on, but I believe the references are sufficient to show notability. The Independent, Channel 4, CTV, Fox and NBC are references I would point to regarding this. I realise that pointing to other articles that are like-for-like is not a sufficient argument, but if you look at Owen Cook, and Ross Jeffries before I added some references, they were particularly poorly sourced.

Also interesting, though not really relevant to the outcome of this AfD is that the user that requested this AfD on RHaworth's talk page has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of all the accounts marked on this AfD. Anyway, enough of my flogging, I will leave a comment if I find some new references DRosin (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to keep commenting, but I have added two more references- FHM and New York Daily News. DRosin (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think there are problems with the article, but I think the sources are sufficient to prove notability. If it is kept there are some sections which need the tone cleaning up, and I think the technique section could be removed, I agree with DGG over seduction community sources. All in all I don't think it merits deleting though.128.86.179.113 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 128.86.179.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I have updated the article. I have tried to improve the tone and have added a reference for a CBS television spot. DRosin (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I was asked to reconsider based on the reference, but a spot appearance on a show does not make for notability or increase it. The article is striped down considerably. Unfortunately, when the peacockery was removed, there wasn't much left: and even the remaining content is not supported: The amount of media arttention is called "surprising extent" without a source for that conclusion. There is no evidence except his repeated say-so for the first sentence after the lede, that "Voted least likely to ever get a girlfriend in school by his classmates when he was 15"-- nor for any of the first 3 paragraphs--just him repeating his own early bio as oiving a basis for his ideas points. There is no evidence whatsoever that the material in the section on the formula is even worth inclusion. The source used for it is just like the others: a report of his own words about himself. I reviewed the sources: whether or not in direct quotes, the principal content of most of the sources is essentially identical, a good sign of being based upon PR. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done a pretty significant editing of the article now trying to take on DGG's comments. I think it should be beared in mind that any coverage of members of the seduction community has aspects which are self-promotion and aspects which are not taking the subject seriously. Mystery's appearance on Conan O'Brian is an example of this. Mystery promoted his company, and Conan O'Brian made fun of Mystery. I think disregarding sources based on promotion and irony can be taken too far. Lyons has been featured in NBC, CBS, Channel 4, The Independent as the article states, and I would agree that the article didn't prove notability if the references from The Mirror and The Sun were the only sources on the article, but the article as it stands has a wide variety of sources from mainstream media that are both independent and reliable. DRosin (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep Made some edits tonight. Definitely notable to my mind - regular media coverage, strong web presence (particularly his position at askmen.com), the Independant piece is a very good indicator and is referred to by The Mirror as "Britain's top dating expert". The article is useful - from time to time various people will want to look him up. Shockeroo (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the 'Techniques and contributions' section is a bit dodgy and may want removing entirely if it can't be brought up to scratch. While that would leave the article somewhat sparse that might not be a bad thing; I believe Lyons is definitely worthy of an article, but perhaps not a big one. Shockeroo (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Shockeroo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I have decided to tag this account, 16 edits this year, 12 of them to this topic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — **Hello, sorry, what does this mean? I'm afraid I have made an excessive number of edits as I am rather clumsy, most of them are fixing minor errors with whatever I'd just done. Aside from my 'votes' in each of the two deletion debates, I made some effort to improve the article and documented the entirity of this on the discussion page, and then commented on it here also. I am familiar Lyons so this is an topic is of interest to me and easy for me to work on. Shockeroo (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I don't see why the section 'Techniques and contributions' is considered encyclopedic. The formula for attraction is not based any scientific data. The term entourage game is coined by himself but not sourced. That leaves the biography which is questionable considering the sourcing (see DGG comments). Deganveranx (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tried to trim out the most egregious stuff, and leave what is only reasonably sourced. I've taken out the 'techniques' section and some other claims. Quantpole (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was asked to reconsider, and I admit to being surprised at the current article. The article has now been so well edited that I think it should stand, if only as a model for how to do other similar articles. (I assume Quantpole -- a relatively new but apparently reliable editor-- will take some responsibility for keep it so) Everything there meets WP:V, the tone is suitable, and perhaps he is sufficiently notable in his field. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adam Lyons passes WP:BIO as evinced by the sources in the article. See this article from CTV, this article from The New York Daily News, and this article from The Independent. Notability is fully established. Cleanup/tone issues that existed at the beginning of the AfD have now been addressed. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lexophilia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious neologism; article even states "...The term, a neologism and unofficial word of the English language...". Has no references and 3 [citation needed] tags. Delete it, and quick! [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per neologism, lack of notability, relying on one source only, and a way to promote one internet site by definining one word that looks more like a dictionary entry (see talk). The article have survived this far just by accident. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WINAD (Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not for dictionary entries used to hide spam) - Mgm|^(talk) 19:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obvious and blatant neologism, not much notability. I get the feeling it's an attempt to promote the word or the website, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef of a non-notable neologism acting as a coatrack to promote a website. Nancy ^talk 12:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial Intuition[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant neologism. One source, which is an SPS. One sentence. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 18:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I have a say because I haven't been involved in this article, but I understand the underlying stuff, because of profession. I would recommend delete per WP:N and WP:NEO. I have now read the home page artificial-intuition.com in order to understand what Artificial Intuition might be, and it simply doesn't describe what it is. It is a WP:NEO without any meaning, except an imagined alternative to Artificial Intelligence, and the site is a private research org. Any google hits will most likely get pages that links to that private research org. If it once upon a time explains what Artificial Intuition is, f.ex. a fuzzy-based heuristic system directed towards fast execution of effectors based on sensor input (a typical AI application), then it might be recreated in that hypothetical future. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rursus--you should always to feel free to participate in deletion discussion even if you haven't been involved in an article. I would guess that it the typical case (though some of us try to fix it up once we see an article at AfD). Thanks for contributing.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. Reference given does not confer notability and do not count as reliable source.

~~Part of a spam campaign~~ see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Nov_1#expressor_software

Article was ~~created~~ Hijacked by an WP:SPA account (Consultant for expressor software), with no other edits other than related to Expressor software. Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLARIFICATION: article was created by an active editor, User:J mareeswaran, who's been around for years. It seems to have been seized on by a spammer; but the article's creator is not to be blamed. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make matters simpler, I have reverted the article to the state it was in before Casey began his spamming campaign. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ive struck and clarified to fit this version--Hu12 (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the expressor page on December 1 to address the issues raised about objectivity and notability in the AfD of 11/24 -- and modeled my edits very closely on the existing Wikipedia pages of two of the company's competitors, Talend and Informatica, neither of which has been marked AfD. In fact, since I noticed that Talend was using the exact same market description as Informatica, and expressor is a competitor of both companies, I used the same language on the expressor page. My intent was not to spam, but to provide an objective description of this organization, similar to the pages created for this purpose by other similar organizations. It appears in this thread that "non-notable software" has been raised as a reason for the most recent AfD notice, because the "reference given does not confer notability and do not count as reliable sources." FYI, the references included in my edits of 12/1 were several of the leading independent, objective industry analyst firms such as Gartner, Bloor Research and 451 Group, who evaluate companies such as expressor and Talend and Informatica, as well as news coverage of expressor by leading, objective trade magazines, such as Computerworld. After reading the notability guidelines for corporate entries, I concluded these references were acceptable examples of "independent coverage." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sccasey (talk • contribs) 22:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a data integration suite that enables collaborative, role-based team development, business rule reuse and end-to-end project lifecycle management. In other words, something that has to do with supervising computer programmers. I found only routine financial announcements in general interest publications. The ones I looked at read like they were rehashing press releases. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerdis' comments are inaccurate. expressor is a private company -- it does not issue "routine financial announcements" and it has not been covered in "general interest" publications. The coverage references cited in my edits of 12/1 were all in independent, objective, technical publications or made by independent, objective technical industry analysts, and contained significant, in-depth research and analysis, not "re-hashing of press releases." Again, I will cite the independent, secondary sources of Gartner and Computerworld, among others.Sccasey

Go ahead and remove this Other than gartner's magic quadrant(which is a paid report anyway) there is no significant reference to expressor anywhere else. Is it possible to create a tool which will modify all WIKIpedia internal references of expressor to the following external link http://it.toolbox.com/wiki/index.php/Expressor_software ? J mareeswaran (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

restore 12/1 version J Mareeswaran is wrong -- on both counts. First, Gartner's Magic Quadrant is NOT a paid report. For proof, I cite this year's Magic Quadrant for companies in the same market as expressor -- it includes a vendor who trumpets the fact that it is not a Gartner client. I challenge J Mareeswaran to back up his claim with more than an offhand comment/opinion. Regarding references, again, check those I included in my edits of 12/1. They are all significant sources of authority within the admittedly obscure world of ETL/data integration.(24.147.28.111 (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand argument story[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced original research, an exposition of n idea under a nonnnotable (deleted) software product, Dramatica PRO. Possible WP:COI. Twri (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - element of a non-notable theory on which non-notable software by non-notable writers is based. If and when an actual article about this theory is created, part of this could go into such an article; but after four years, it hasn't happened yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BLP per consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Jasso[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I just declined an A7 speedy on this bio of a author/professor but I have doubts that he passes WP:BIO either as a writer or an academic. Nancy ^talk 17:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – article fails to provide independent references of substance - they are mostly Press Releases. Only one very minor GNews. GHits lack substance. ttonyb (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Delete per nom. There is some interesting stuff here but no real evidence of notability I'm afraid. NBeale (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thanks for your comment. Perhaps you could explain what's required to achieve "real evidence of notability." Following Wikipedia's criteria for notability within academics, awards are emphasized as a measure of whether or not an academic is "notable." Sean Jasso was awarded the Brother Mel Anderson, FSC Alumni Award for Excellence in Academics at the La Salle Academic Awards Ceremony on September 24, 2009. BDS2006 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per the criteria, "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level." The award is not "highly prestigious" or "at a national or international level." The award appears to be given by a local high school/college prep that Jasso attended. ttonyb (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GS cites for WP:Prof #1. Seems to be professional puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete. Article is chock-full of WP:PUFF that mostly cannot be substantiated, for example "Jasso is known for his trans-disciplinary approach to political and management theories, known as Jassonian theory" – the only Google hit for "Jassonian theory" is this WP page, so nobody else seems to know about it. That may be because his book is actually just a print-version of his thesis. (Abstracts are almost identical.) Zero peer-reviewed scholarly papers in both Wos and GS gives an undisputed h-index of 0. The article is almost all just naked WP:PUFF touting his consulting business and his thesis. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, a high school alumni award?? Beyond that -- it's quite a feat to get an academic position with such a thin record. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the other deletes. Joe Chill (talk) 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 14:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biltmore, North Barrington[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unreferenced non notable geographic area WuhWuzDat 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The term "neighborhood" is misleading, it seems to be more of a country club subdivision. Apparently its one of two such subdivisions that make up all of North Barrington.[10] Biltmore was built in 1926. It's undoubtedly an important part of the history of North Barrington, perhaps the most notable part. But do we really need seperate articles on both developments, considering the town they make up has a population under 3,000? Probably not... this could all go in the North Barrington article. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete If it is not really a neighborhood, it must be sourced to be kept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into North Barrington, Illinois. Section of a sub-3000-population village; no indication it could ever meet WP:LOCAL criteria. --Closeapple (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke (2009 film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this 13-minute short film has any notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam for this non-notable short subject. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of awards, film festival showings, or involvement of any famous people. Fails inclusion criteria for films. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NF. MuffledThud (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn

BENDEL[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD removed by article creator. The article is supposed to be about a region in Nigeria and it talks about many things, including Bendel Nationalism, United Bendel liberation Front, and the Bendel Union. I could not find sources for any of these. Salih (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs cleanup (and a move to 'Bendel'), not deletion. I checked and there is a former state called Bendel in Nigeria, whose capital was Benin City. The maps on States of Nigeria illustrate it. It was divided in 1991 between the states of Edo and Delta. The topic is clearly notable, and it's dangerous to assume that the lack of ready sources means a lack of overall notability when dealing with internal politics in African countries. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Article does not meet naming conventions, but is certainly notable. It certainly needs a lot of cleanup; citations and copy editing are just two of many areas that need to be addressed; but I don't feel that this is an appropriate reason to delete. Merge the appropriate content to the already-existing Bendel stub, which is of appropriate naming convention, and perform cleanup on the way. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per comments by User:Sam Blacketer. I think merge to Bendel is appropriate. Salih (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BLP per consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Ko[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: This model is pretty but this article has no encyclopedic value. Marokwitz (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notable accomplishments in the fashion industry. Dumaka (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NBeale (talk) 18:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this model. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sadly. I'm sure it will diappoint her. Perhaps one day ... --Epeefleche (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No comments/discussion for inclusion. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naperville Central vs. Naperville North football game[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely non-notable U.S. high school football rivalry. Prod tag removed, so the article is put here. Warrah (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, the massive image reinforces the lack of notability. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete along with corresponding image File:NickLinne.jpg. It's about a sports game that happens yearly at this high school. Nuke it and call it done. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 21:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No demonstration that this high school football rivalry has any notability in an encyclopedice sense. The article cites no reliable, third-party sources that have written about the rivalry. The only citations are to other Wikipedia articles, which is circular. We can't rely on other wikipedia articles as a verifiable sources. BTW, I reduced the image size to avoid eye-strain for others. Cbl62 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Worth a mention in Naperville Central High School, since it appears this is written by an NCHS student, but no merge, no redirect. Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should know better. Mentioning information elsewhere requires attribution to be retained. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know better than to write stuff like "You should know better". That said, I'll add Delete. Creating a redirect is the same as keeping an article, because the history is still retained. Some things really are worth no more than a mention, including this rivalry that is notable only to the residents of Naperville. No merge, no redirect, no further comment. Mandsford (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's two high schools in a city, they're going to have a rivalry. There's no way around it. This isn't that special in the least. Nate • (chatter) 06:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Van Aken[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete: This is a promotional article with little encyclopedic value. This designer is not sufficiently notable . Marokwitz (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, this article was created by User:Sank1976 and I am highly suspicious that it's an autobiography. I proposed deletion in the past and it was contested by another editor (not the article creator). PDCook (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There are reliable sources, but the coverage is not significant enough to make her notable. If the article is kept, I would prefer a redirect to the name of her fashion line.--Michael White^T·C 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BLP per consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avery Clifton[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy was declined. Subject does not meet the notability requirements of WP:ATHLETE; has never competed professionally or at the highest level of amateur sports (olympic games, etc). Tan | 39 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete What admin in their right mind declined the speedy? I'm going to take a look. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Two Kansas state titles" is an assertion of notability, so declining speedy deletion seems reasonable. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the content in the article, the subject does not meet notability guidelines per WP:ATHLETE. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the admin that declined speedy deletion as it did meet the criteria. However the article does not meet our inclusion standards and should be deleted. Slowly. Rettetast (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ill will at all to the speedy decline; I would have done the same thing. I noted it in this nomination as a procedural note. Tan | 39 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ATHLETE. Warrah (talk) 04:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and probably WP:COI. Sluggo | Talk 22:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 16:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ravia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a pure hoax. There is such a person as Kim Ravia but she isn't an actress or singer. She's just a regular person who put this article up as a joke. Kimrav1988 (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a speedy deletion of the article, as you (the creator) have explicitly asked for it to be deleted. In future, if you create an article which no one else has worked on, and you want it deleted, just put ((db-self)) at the top of the article, which will request speedy deletion on the grounds that the only contributor to the article requests deletion. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solus Software and Systems[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have attempted to find reliable sources documenting notability for this company, but have only turned up copies of press releases about an "award" given by another firm and announced with a press release. I can't find any reliable source news reports of the award, or any other mention of this company. If some reliable sources exist to establish notability please add them to the article. If not, then this company may not yet be ready for a Wikipedia article, and should be deleted at this time. The original author of the article responded to a PROD by adding a few additional sources, which were all press release style and many made no mention of Solus at all. It appears that it may simply be too early to have an article about Solus until they establish themselves in a notable fashion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:COMPANY. Only coverage i have been able to find is the Frost & Sullivan award press release in a reuters article which has been reproduced elsewhere. I wasn't able to find independent coverage in Indian financial newspapers like The Economic Times, Business Line and Mint. --Sodabottle (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Company does not seem to be lare enoug to be notable, nor are their products innovative enough to deserve a WP article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think its ok if the administrator deletes the same as even though they claim innovation, there has been no significant media coverage of the same. I'll reconsider an article on the same only if there is significant coverage in important financial media. Ashwin.sri (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another non-notable tech business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish American mobsters[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Redundant, already 2 categories, and a main article Lizard with two tails (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Lizard with two tails[reply]
Keep. Useful list. well sourced. Redundancy is a given on Wikipedia. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See WP:CLN for the reasons to have both categories and lists. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Encyclopedic list. Joe Chill (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No good reason offered for deletion. The "categories are the only way to go" argument has about run out of steam, and the article about Jewish-American organized crime was due a spinout. It's a sourced article with a good start to it. Mandsford (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is well sourced, and the notability between the intersection of Jewish Americans and mobsters is evidenced in the references. Them From Space 06:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced and encyclopedic list. Also per UnitedStatesian, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not redundant to the main article, but an encyclopedic adjunct to it. Thoroughly sourced. --Orlady (talk) 01:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing is still a concern, I'm willing to userfy for a List of Texas gangs article with reliable sources. Secret ^account 14:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dallas gangs[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the linked gangs are Dallas gangs, no evidence that ~~any~~ many of the others are either -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of the gangs on the list:

Cuzz Tx. - no article
B-Dogg Tx. - redirect to Blood Tx.
Blood Tx. - no article
Damu Brotherhood - redirect to Blood Tx.
Whitehouse Crips - no article
DFW (Down For Whatever) - no article
Ski Mask - no article
RDB (Representin' Da Blue) - no article
HRVA (Highland Road Village Apartments) - no article
Black P. Stones - Primarily a Chicago gang, not a Dallas one
Mara Salvatrucha - North/Central American gang - not Dallas
Norteños - Californian gang, not Dallas
Sureños - Californian gang, not Dallas
Niños Locos - no article
Cholo-3 - no article
Brown Pride - no article
La Eme - no article
Chola-3 - no article
Ku Klux Klan - not a Dallas "gang" - mainly in strength 1910-1930
K3 - no article
Aryan Nation - not a Dallas "gang"
Aryan Brotherhood - not a Dallas "gang"
F.A.M (Famous Asian Mafia) - no article
Asian Boyz (gang) - Californian gang, not Dallas
TRG (Tiny Raskal Gang) - no article
DK (Dallas Koreans) - no article
WP - no article
Western Park G's (B.G/O.G) - no article
Siblings - no article
Alpha Brotherhood - no article

As the ones which do have articles are not North Texas gangs, let alone Dallas ones, I suspect that several of the others are not North Texas or Dallas ones. I do not feel that this article should be present in Wikipedia, as it is totally inaccurate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom Polarpanda (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is original research at best. I do not believe that this will meet notability guidelines, and I do not see that it provides any useful information. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure OR. With sourcing it would be fine, but there is none. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't really know much about gangs in Dallas or anywhere else, but the article is completely unreferenced, and PhantomSteve's argument is compelling. If someone wants to recreate with references showing actual evidence of gangs in Dallas, fine. LadyofShalott 17:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely red linked list consisting mostly of OR and synthesis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current lack of an article for a gang, doesn't mean it isn't notable. I searched Google news for gang names, and "Texas", and found the Brown Pride gang is quite notable. [11] The list needs some work, but AFD is not cleanup. I'm going to do some work on it now, going down the entire list, and eliminate any gang that gets no media coverage at all. Dream Focus 20:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished going through the entire list. Those with news articles on Google news, got kept, the rest wiped out. The article is of encyclopedic value. The news references for every time one of the gangs is mentioned in the news, should be in the gang article. Working on that now. Dream Focus 21:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it's salvageable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I love the intro, " Only those receiving news coverage in the state of Texas, should be listed", but no citations to any news coverage. It might work as part of a (sourced) article about crime in Dallas. Mandsford (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of them, as I have said, and found news articles covering them. I just thought adding a link to various newspapers mentioning them whenever they committed a crime, didn't look that great. If they get news coverage, an article can exist for them elsewhere, the list just doing what a Wikipedia list should do, it not needing references. WP:LIST Dream Focus 10:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal feeling is that unless an newspaper article has significant coverage of a specific gang (and identifies it as a Dallas gang), it would not be enough of a reference. If the mention is basically along the lines of "A couple were robbed at knifepoint by members of the ABC Gang, a well-known Hispanic gang in downtown Dallas." then it would not be sufficient. I would expect to see an article which gives details of the gang's history and so on. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think any without an article need to have at least one reference. If there is an article, and it identifies the group as a gand in Texas, fine, but there should be a reference somewhere either in an article or the list itself. LadyofShalott 15:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dream Focus and his clean up. Racepacket (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the clean up of dream focus, nice job! Nominator could have discussed the problems with the list, and modified the list per WP:PRESERVE instead of nomination for deletion. Ikip (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although I agree that DreamFocus did a good job, the "TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL 2003 GANG SURVEY" is just a survey form, not the results of the survey. Questions 24 and 25 of that survey asks "Do you see influence from any of the following nationally-based gang nations in your jurisdiction?" and "Do you see influence from any of the following Security Threat Groups (STGs), or prison gangs, in your jurisdiction?", and this list appears to be the basis for DreamFocus's list - I can't find the results of the survey results, or other indications that these national gangs/STGs/prison gangs are actually active in Texas (let alone Dallas) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they'd ask unless they were in that state, they asking everyone which of these are in their jurisdiction. They don't list every gang there is on there, just the ones seen in Texas. Perhaps I misread things. Also, other things on the list were confirmed with Google news search. Anything that needs to be added or removed in the article, can be discussed there. There are enough conformable gangs, based on news articles, to warrant a list. Dream Focus 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the talk page, there is no indication why those specific names were included on the survey. It might be that the author was interested in charting specifically those gangs, perhaps across a wider area. Also without the results it is impossible to know if in fact the results were all in the negative - every respondant may have simply said 'No, I never heard of those guys'. Also the survey itself explains that the definition of what constitutes a gang is rather broad, and the definition of what constitutes gang membership equally broad. Having read through a great deal of news items and pdfs on the subject of gangs it seems to me to be impossible to provide verifiable sources showing that most of these gangs have anything to do with texas, and in fact the entire list may be elevating those gangs to a status they don't actually possess. Weakopedia (talk) 07:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also couldn't find the results of the survey. As most of the alleged gangs themselves are not notable a list of notoriety seems superfluous. Weakopedia (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New source found Searching for the results of the survey, I found a place that searches all .pdf. http://www.pdfgeni.com/book/texas-syndicate-pdf.html Entering in the name of any gang, and "Texas" shows information about them, some from credible government sites. Some gangs are mentioned in the article http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/2001gangrept.pdf Look at the section titled Gang Nation. The search through .pdf files for Texas Gangs http://www.pdfgeni.com/book/Texas-gangs-pdf.html shows many promising results. Dream Focus 19:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a couple of the results there, but had problems with the PDFs not showing properly. I also did Google Searches on all the gangs on the current list. I did a search using the search term "gang name" texas gang, and none of the gangs showed significant results on Google News Archive/Google Scholar/Google Books. They either had no hits at all, or the hits were not about gangs in Texas (e.g. "blah blah in Texas....... <gang name> in Florida..."). I am afraid that I am not convinced that sufficient reliable sources are available for this article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list just Dallas gangs, or are those same gangs found throughout Texas? Perhaps a rename to List of gangs found in Texas. Or is it different in various cities? Dream Focus 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, I would suggest moving it to List of Texas gangs or similar, as it would be more accurate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the clean up of dream focus. See Wikipedia:Editing policy. WP:IMPROVE "Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect." and "Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required" and "Try to fix problems: preserve information" This article stills needs more independent references. Some of the external links may be able to be converted into references. Citizen-of-wiki (talk) 03:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the external links cannot be made into useable references and should probably be replaced or deleted. This is shown on the talk page. Weakopedia (talk) 08:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on the talk page about the links. Also added links on the talk page, showing news coverage of some of the gangs, and discussions there. Dallas's newspaper won't let anyone read their full articles without paying for it, but other newspapers in Texas are searchable. Dream Focus 09:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Sale Project[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

8 google hits for band name + "buzz" (member's name) Polarpanda (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no significant coverage for this band; appears to fail WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 19:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Genocide in Human History[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

blatant POV violation Omegastar (talk) 15:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nominator's concern on POV. Warrah (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV. Does this mean that some examples of genocide are "better" than others? Mandsford (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on POV violation. This isn't neutral and any article singling one event out as the worst genocide ever can't be made in something NPOV either. I hope WP:SNOW and WP:BEANS get invoked here soon, because there's no snowball's chance in hell this is going to survive based on that one flaw. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highly dubious failing proper sourcing and POV. User has a history of making egregiously biased edits. Perhaps someone should take a look at his history and report him at ANI. Talk page warnings have been ignored in the past. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable, though the 2 quotes from historians do deserve to be sourced as references in an article, if not already.(but not using this reference, as its not reliable.) and yes, if the creator has a history like this, someone needs to get involved.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW as worse POV ever. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean it up. Articles be rewritten. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsalvageable POV. Edward321 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: POV. Joe Chill (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20 Mule-Team Delete: This is pretty much a WP:BULLSHIT case. RGTraynor 03:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, WP:SNOW, 2 minute school project film. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How Much Do Wydown Students Know About Geography[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and unsourced film. School project? Searching Google or IMDB turns up nothing. None of the "stars" have IMDB pages either. PDCook (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I forgot to mention that this was a failed PROD. PDCook (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably a homework assignment for a class. A two-minute documentary notable enough for WP? Only if it was by Jim Jarmusch or Michael Moore. No examples of notability. Angryapathy (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - It looks like it was someone's homework. And I can't believe that we're having to waste time discussing whether this should stay or not. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate it for speedy. PDCook (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kemparaju[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person. Original author has deleted CSD twice, requesting speedy delete. Click23 (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 The SPA who created this article has the same name as the article's topic. This just is a case of someone putting their own name on WP to pretend to be notable and famous. Angryapathy (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-Ads[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly written, full of external links (instead of wikilinks), no refs, orphan, doesn't tell what a micro-ad actually is, just what some examples are. Not needed, dictionary definition. Plural instead of singular. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a case of WP:NEO. I do not see widespread acceptance of this term as a description of Google's ad-words. Non-notable term. Angryapathy (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not only a non-notable neologism, this also reads like spam from someone promoting an advertising service or consultancy, and touts the alleged innovative benefits: . What makes them attractive is the ease at which you can set up an ad and have it posted.....had the benefit of leveling the playing field for all.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 BLP per consensus. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giles Pilgrim Morris[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer who seems to be a professional musician but no evidence of passing WP:MUSICBIO. Has obviously performed extensively, but does not show why he is notable (WP:NOTINHERITED) independent of particular venues. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has this page been deleted before? The creating editor seems to have changed the name in the intro and AfD template (now reverted) to "Christopher Malcolm Isobel".

No notability demonstrated
Conflict of interest - User:Pilgrimmorris created the page. Shem (talk) 13:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No examples of notability demonstrated. Angryapathy (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one review in a local Scottish paper of a small-scale concert in which he was one of the soloists (added to article). But I'm afraid that's not enough to establish notability in the Wikipedia sense. In the case of classical singers, the absence multiple non-trivial coverage can be off-set by performances in leading roles with notable opera companies; performances as a soloist with major orchestras or ensembles, winning a major singing competition, or having two or more recordings as a soloist with a notable classical music label. I have not been able to find evidence for any of these. He has appeared on one recording, but only as a member of the Purcell Singers (not as a soloist). Voceditenore (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --Klein zach 04:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Game[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WIkipedia is not for things made up in school one day, nor is it a how-to guide. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, please find somewhere else to promote your new games. Polarpanda (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I didn't realize we weren't just speedy deleting this kind of crap wholesale anymore. RasputinAXP 13:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, CSD is a very exacting set of criteria. It doesn't take much to pass a speedy criterion, and a lot of stuff just plain doesn't fit any of them. This one was of the latter cases, which is why we have AFD. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm pretty aware of it. But in MY day... RasputinAXP 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Prime example of Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Angryapathy (talk) 14:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian divisions in WWI[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An extremely short list (5 items) devoid of any content. Aiken ♫ 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the length as a problem, and I've added a little content. Could easily be expanded further. Polarpanda (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful list, but should be expanded. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator has not given any valid reason to delete the article. The list is perfectly suitable for an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful list that should be enhanced further. No reason for deletion. Warrah (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An encyclopedic list. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, List meets WP:SALAT. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm glad to see that someone is adding content to the article. I'd call it more like "no reason now for deletion". Had it not been for the nomination, it would not have improved, so hats off to the nominator as well as to the editors who addressed the problem. AfD can be a win-win situation. Mandsford (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were only five Canadian Army divisions in World War I, so the list is entirely comprehensive. Shortness is not a reason for deletion anyway. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems a valid list in my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List was not devoid of content when nominated and length of list is not valid reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paresh Madhaparia[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to meet WP:BIO. Not every minor game contestant or reality series contestant is notable enough for a personal biographical article. Google search shows the facts of the article are likely to be correct but with no prospect of addressing notability. He is mentioned on the main article page which seems sufficient and I see nothing that needs to be merged back there. Ash (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Sodabottle (talk) 07:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Lindsay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. I can find no relevant Google News articles for this group. Ash (talk) 12:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - nothing to indicate notability. I searched for any news articles, and couldn't find anything either. Aiken ♫ 12:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to meet speedy criteria for bands. Aiken ♫ 12:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this group. Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 18:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monarca[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the requirements of WP:PRODUCT. I find no relevant Google News articles within the last two years (several false matches). Ash (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. How could this article have survived since 2005? I could not find any coverage of this software. It's even hard to find anything at all about the software on Google; most hits are to this article. It's spam. Haakon (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sungei Kadut MRT Station[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. No content. Although I'm an inclusionist, this should be deleted. Not even the name has been confirmed, see North South MRT Line. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing found through search engine, that isn't a mirror of this article. Aiken ♫ 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only if there's content possible should it exist. We don't even know if it'll be built. --Triadian (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice to recreation if the station ever gets built. Mjroots (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are also no plans for this station, unlike stations on the Downtown Line. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 12:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BlockSMTP[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely non-notable program: no evidence of notability but I doubt any exists. JohnBlackburne (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. For now. While he has gained slightly more notability, it seems that the discusion (not counting the obvious SPAs) is that he hasn't garnered enough quite yet. I'm not salting it though, per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, as he might become more notable over the coming months. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Slattery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted after a sock-infested AfD back in October of last year, for lacking verifiable notability by the standards of similar subjects. Whilst this article qualifies under CSD-G4 as a repost (it's the same article, only with slightly less information), a 14-month gap is enough to warrant community input again to see if consensus has changed. A polite note in advance: new editors, we value your opinions but this is not a majority vote, it is a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 09:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per CSD-G4. Obviously not notable. Self-published sources do not establish notability. Only sources I can find are self-published or social networking sites.SnottyWong talk 12:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedly delete per G4 Notability has not changed in the intervening months. Angryapathy (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 - Not notable. Lithorien (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also clearly doesn't qualify for G4 due to post-initial-AFD events. The prior AFD was a debacle, unfortunately. There is more evidence of notability than there was previously (how much more notable I can't say); for example, the subject's work has been anthologized in a national best-of-the-year volume [12]. The subject has recently, it seems, been named an artist-in-residence by an apparently notable Australian cultural organization [13]. The awards won by the subject, including awards received since the previous AFD, are certainly no less notable than the awards which by (unhappy) consensus demonstrate notability in other fields, like those for pornographic performers; and he's received several potentially notable awards since the prior AFD took place. I'd say the available sourcing qualifies him as just notable enough. Certainly shouldn't be salted if deleted; he's at the very least advancing toward notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no important information, it is little more than a bunch of lists which is clearly what WP:NOT is written for, and it seems terrible. Delete and Salt for say 12 months. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - none of his books are "self-published." Capstaine 22:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC) — Capstaine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
RE: Snottywong's comments: NONE of these sources are either self-published or social networking sources. Debut publication is with a major Australia poetry publisher, and all anthology publications ditto. User: Capstaine 11:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep although young, these are significant awards and publications. User:Sally Karl Marx 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC) — Sally Karl Marx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note to closing admin: It's pretty obvious that Sally Karl Marx (talk · contribs) and Capstaine (talk · contribs) are the same person. I've asked SKM to restrict themselves to one account from now on. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 12:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Setting aside from the conduct of editors involved, there does seem to be a claim to notability for the subject, as he was listed in The Best Australian Poems of 2009, what might be considered a peer reviewed journal, and has other mentions from sources that can be used to add verifiable content. I feel there is enough outside sources to confirm notability, though the page would have to be rewritten to reflect only information in credible sources. Mrathel (talk) 16:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. It'd have been nice if the article had been expanded, but it seems to be a notable theatre from the coverage. Fences&Windows 18:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Red Orchid Theatre[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable theatre WuhWuzDat 07:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

342 google news hits, don't have time to examine them right now. Polarpanda (talk) 10:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and something discussing the topic: [14] Polarpanda (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google news hits include TOILING IN THE TRENCHES RED ORCHID THEATRE STRIVES TO BLOOM THROUGH ADVERSITY so I think I can !vote keep at this point. Polarpanda (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N although relatively unknown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily satisfies WP:NOTE, plenty of significant coverage in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of Freedom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. I did my best to find non-trivial coverage of this organization by reliable third parties and have come up empty handed. It doesn't help that "voice of freedom" is a very vague search term. The article has been tagged for notability for well over 2 years now with no improvement. JBsupreme (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nonnotable. Appears to be a purely local, possibly one-man "organization" created on public-access TV.--MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zizzle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable toy company WuhWuzDat 06:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This company has a lot of mainstream coverage. [15], [16], [17] are three examples among many, many others. Poorly sourced article, but actually I think this could be expanded greatly. Angryapathy (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N although relatively unknown.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I'll change my mind when sourced facts are in the article. Just ask on my talk page. Miami33139 (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks for fixing it. Miami33139 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Two references were added already when I got here (NYTimes and Forbes) and I just added one to Business Week. No question this is notable.--Milowent (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Four references have been added to the article: The New York Times, Forbes, BusinessWeek, and Time. All four of these articles have Zizzle as the topic. I believe this shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that this company is notable. Angryapathy (talk) 16:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Showtek[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks primary sources to establish notability. Eeekster (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Were the subject of the Essential Mix, BBC Radio 1 [18] (see also [19] March 7 2009), hence satisfying WP:Band #11. There are also some sources, including one from the Belfast Telegraph [20], but mostly from Dutch or dance (or both) publications which I'm not equipped to judge. 86.44.35.226 (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 86.44.35.226, who identified third-party reliable sources, which I'm sure is what Eeekster was looking for, not "primary sources." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

reputable across a number of countries sources do exist, here is an australian source, [21]

Digmores (talk) 03:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TEDxSF[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established and is more of an advertisement than an article. Lacks primary sources. Eeekster (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of sources to the talk section. --Max Allen G (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete or merge - even with the links in the talk section, I can't seem to be convinced that this meets WP:Notability. Notability of TED (conference) has certainly been proven by the links, but not the subject of the article, TEDxSF, which, as the article states itself, is an independently run event (albeit a spin-off). Perhaps this would be better as a sub-section of TED (conference). Feel free to change my opinion, though. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should not go away and TED doesn't seem like the right place to merge into. I think it should be merged into a new TEDx page along with any other TEDx conferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin Ormont (talk • contribs) 06:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources, so no way to establish notability. Studerby (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jasper Fforde. Cirt (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Great Tortoise Race[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, no sources, doesn't really seem to be a very notable series. fetchcomms☛ 02:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jasper Fforde. Even the author doesn't know when it will be published - the latest estimates are 2011 or 2012 (possibly). There's no news on the plot line or anything, although fans of the series (of whom I'm one) will have a good idea. NtheP (talk) 13:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Nthep Mandsford (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ves (Music Producer). So Why 13:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ves (music producer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a non-notable producer. The short list at Discogs proves he exists, but does not prove notability. Should such evidence be brought forth, I will reconsider--but none is provided, and I can't find any. Drmies (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G4, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ves (Music Producer), closed 25 Nov. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Huda Islamic Charitable Trust[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to verify notability Polarpanda (talk) 13:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge description to Hagley Community College. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:ORG. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Migalchan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable (by Wikipedia standards) Ukrainian wushu practitioner. Does not pass WP:ATHLETE or WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 14:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could find no independent sources in English on him. Most of the results given do not appear to be national results, but rather regional events. I don't speak Ukrainian, but I attempted to search for his name (in Ukrainian) on both the Ukrainian wikipedia and in the major results from the Ukrainian Wushu Federation. I didn't find him, but I'll admit that could be a problem of my search rather than his notability. However, since this is the English wikipedia, there should be a reliable source in English to verify his notability. Papaursa (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced BLP & reads like a promo piece --Nate ^t/_c 12:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article created by an SPA. Google showed only user-generated content such as facebook and alivenotdead. Racepacket (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nat & Alex Wolff (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Nat & Alex Wolff (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is solely about a putative future album with no set release & only two songs suggested for it; also no references, which does not meet required criteria. Should be postponed till album actually is released and can meaningfully be written about. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 19:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, everything in this article could be added to the biography/history in the Nat & Alex Wolff article. An article for the future album can be recreated later when the album becomes a reality and more information is available. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea, Doomsdayer520. Their is an unregistered user on Wikipedia, who added all of this new information (in addition to the Nat & Alex Wolff article and this album) article, which isn't sourced at all. None of this is sourced online and I think Doomsdaver520 came up with a good idea. This article barely has any info about the album (apart from release dates and listing the song tracks) and is not at all sourced and should be deleted until future notice about this album. I generally coordinate the vast majority of the Nat & Alex Wolff article/NBB articles, so any problems regarding this subject you can always feel free to leave a comment on my talk page and will do my best to say my opinion. The best, ATC^{. Talk} 04:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another future album without sufficient information and sourcing. WP:CRYSTAL applies. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No objections to a later redirect somewhere as an editorial decision. Cirt (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced Budget Veto Amendment[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this topic is non-notable (Wikipedia:Notability). I don't think it's received any substantial coverage in the media or academic writings. Also the entire content of the article is included in Balanced Budget Amendment so doesn't need to be reproduced in a separate article. Iota (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An interesting subject, but fails WP:GNG and is redundant to Balanced Budget Amendment, which of course has received far more coverage. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent secondary source coverage. I don't believe that related think tank position papers qualify to establish notability. Every idea in Washington has been encapsulated into a think tank position paper. Racepacket (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balanced Budget Amendment. I couldn't find any sources on Google News, and this deserves a brief mention in the main article. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cato Institute, whose soapbox this is going to be for awhile, I guess. Authors don't have any power to amend the Constitution. Find a member of Congress to propose it, and it might deserve an article. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submission (band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BAND. Warrah (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G6) by Anthony Appleyard. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bardiya (disambiguation)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a contested prod, but I think the person who contested it may not have fully understood the issues. This page is unnecessary since it only have 2 entries and nothing links here. The primary meaning of Bardiya is the Persian king, it has a hatnote to Bardiya District. There are a number of precedents that we do not need a disambiguation page where there are only 2 entries. PatGallacher (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The hatnotes work well for this sort of thing, where there are only two articles to disambiguate. I can't find any other uses of this title, or titles similar enough to warrant inclusion here. So, Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with UltraExactZZ; hatnotes would suffice here. Is there any reason why this DAB page isn't eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G6? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Viner[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant third party media coverage beyond the WP:NTEMP stuff. --Jimbo^[online] 22:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 22:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 23:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the following was copied form the article talk page for convenience

It was proposed to delete this article because he was not a professional athlete but this is wrong he was a profesional in Cyprus during the 2008 season and is a profesional soccer player with Barnet FC see http://www.barnetfc.com/page/ProfilesDetail/0,,10431~49853,00.html ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deefaulds (talk • contribs)

The Cypriot league isn't fully-professional though, and he has yet to make a competitive appearance for Barnet. --Jimbo^[online] 18:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of having played professionally, and no sources found to pass GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of having been a professional footballer in a fully professional league, as yet Steve-Ho (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Want the Truth or Something Beautiful? (song)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. No info here at this time. May become notable later (and not against recreation at that time), but for now fails WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. Tried a redirect but was reverted. Wolfer68 (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an attempt to redirect is reverted, it is bad form to attempt a complete deletion instead. Why not try to get a consensus about the redirect first? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A possible future single by a notable artist. No sources. Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:V. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable info, WP:CRYSTAL, some slobbering fanboy wetting his pants over being the firstfirstfirstFIRST to post it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Macau FBMW Pacific[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual Formula BMW have generally failed notability previously. This is a support race held as part of the larger 2009 Macau Grand Prix event. Completely lacks sources or any explanation as to what the event was and has a jargon laden title. Contents are essentially a table of results without context and is largely duplicated at 2009 Formula BMW Pacific season. --Falcadore (talk) 06:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The content or title of the page is not so much of an issue as it can be changed, but a Formula BMW race is not notable enough in my opinion. Allowing such a race to be included would set a precedent that would also allow Formula Three and Formula Renault races to be covered by individual articles. If the race was a one-off event (such as the Macau F3 GP itself) it may be OK but this is covered by the 2009 season article page. Major international motorsports news sites such as autosport.com and crash.net have not covered the event. - mspete93 [talk] 17:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to point out. Racing magazine such as Autosport, Motorsport News and Racer cover their respective areas where they are likely to cover their target audiences (i.e. UK, Europe, U.S. respectively) aside international motorsports. That race is likely to be covered to be covered by Asian motorsport magazines, but then there are no motorsport specific magazines in Asia (except Japan) and motorsport tend to be covered by generic car magazines such as Car and Driver, particularly in countries where motorsport are far and few as they do not have as many circuits as they would in Europe, America and Australiasia. This is from my experience when I lived in HK for a year. Donnie Park (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fair point (I didn't think that bit through) but even if the race was in Europe it wouldn't deserve an article surely? It was quite rightly decided that World Series by Renault races should not have articles. - mspete93 [talk] 17:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and precedent. Insufficiently notable. DH85868993 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Only superficial coverage in even the specialist press, no non-specialist coverage. Pyrop e 21:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halite (BitTorrent client)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software that was tagged for third party references one year and still does not have any. Existing sources are forums, blogs, the developer, and then some sources that verify facts in the article, but those are about Unicode, not this client. Miami33139 (talk) 03:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. allen四names 05:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [22]. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribal Ink[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band whose only claim to fame is supposed MySpace popularity; article also claims that the band received some sort of attention when their music was mislabeled on filesharing services. All of this is unsourced. Whether or not any of the information in the article is actually accurate, there's nothing that establishes any kind of notability. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both No third-party reliable sources in sight. Furthermore, both subjects seem to fail WP:GNG. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no in-depth coverage for this band; does not appear to meet any other criteria of WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 01:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for album article / Weak delete for band article. Like Willoughby and Gongshow I can also find no useful sources. For the album Surrounded by Freaks, we're going to need much more reason for notability than getting confused with someone else in a file-sharing error. For the band Tribal Ink, there might be reason for notability due to appearance on little-known reality show/TV contest, if the creator of the article adds more detail. Otherwise, the case for keeping the article would still be weak. For example, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Caruthers. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 03:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Downtown Norwich[edit]

Previous RfD for this title:

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 26#Downtown Norwich

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm moving this here from MfD, where it was originally nominated by Cnilep. I speedily closed the MfD because the article in question is a disambiguation page in the article namespace; see WP:Miscellany for deletion/Downtown Norwich for more on why I did so. The original nominator's rationale is as follows:

"Downtown Norwich is a DAB page. There are currently no internal links to that name, and no clear reason to expect that pages would link to that name rather than Norwich. The page Norwich (disambiguation) therefore seems sufficient to handle any future links.

In addition, DAB pages are generally created only when there are three or more topics that might be referred to with the same term. This page currently contains only two links. I redirected the page to Norwich (disambiguation), but this edit was reverted by the editor who created the page.

See also WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 26, a decision to delete the page Downtown Norwich, which at that time was a redirect to Norwich. Cnilep (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)"[reply]

Comment - Actually, the page had been created as a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, then was edited by another user to become a redirect to Norwich (which was an inappropriate destination). It was nominated for deletion while it was in that state, but it got switched back and forth a couple more times during the RfD discussion period. When deleted, it was a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also am neutral. I don't think this page does any harm, but I also think it serves no useful purpose. Far too much time and energy has been expended battling over inconsequential redirects and disambiguation pages like this one, when it doesn't matter one way or the other. --Orlady (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, which appears to be the primary meaning of the phrase and is the most appropriate redirect target. There was no good reason to delete the original redirect anyway. Are we saying that the phrase "downtown Norwich" should be forever a red link? If so, what is the policy basis for requiring a permanent red link? --Polaron | Talk 05:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I personally don't see a consensus to delete at the RfD... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady did see the consensus to delete and has stated she believes the page does not have value, appropriately IMO pointing that out to Polaron at User talk:Polaron, as follows:

BEGIN QUOTE Hi. I see that after the redirect was deleted, you re-created Downtown Norwich as a disambiguation page. I don't believe that the page has value. The chance that someone would seek an article about "Downtown Norwich" without finding their way to Norwich (disambiguation) or Downtown Norwich Historic District is vanishingly small. This article gets in the way of prospective users by placing an extra step between them and the content they seek. To avoid yet another contentious (but fundamentally pointless) discussion, would you please consider flagging it with ((db-author))? --Orlady (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
"Downtown Norwich" is primarily used for the Connecticut neighborhood of that name as evidenced by Google Books and News hits. I would consider recreating the redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District as the primary topic for that term. --Polaron | Talk 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for not responding earlier -- I was thinking about what to say.
Considering that the "Downtown Norwich" redirect was just recently deleted following a CfD discussion, recreating the redirect would convey a very negative message regarding your opinions of Wikipedia policies and conventions.
Although the fact that a pair of words exist as a potential search term does not justify creating a wikilink for that pair of words, the redirect was (in my opinion) harmless. Unfortunately, however, the disambiguation page could be harmful -- it creates problems for other users. People who click on a 'downtown Norwich" link in the articles that have such links are now taken to a disambiguation page, when we all know perfectly well where they should be pointed. Those links should be piped so as to take the user to Downtown Norwich Historic District. If they were piped, then there would be no need for either a redirect or a disambiguation page.
Goes off to pipe those links... --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC) END QUOTE

I agree with Orlady's previously stated sentiments quoted here: the disambiguation page is mildly harmful and should be deleted. doncram (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My views have been misrepresented. I think the best use of this title is as a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, but Doncram has vehemently opposed the existence of that redirect, and managed to get it deleted. At this point, I have seen so much time and effort squandered arguing over so little that I don't care what happens to the page. --Orlady (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The previous redirect to NRHP-listed "Downtown Norwich Historic District" and the current disambiguation page are in effect argumentative assertions of one editor (Polaron) that "Downtown Norwich" is a wikipedia-notable place. I see no evidence that "Downtown Norwich" is a significant place on its own, while there is no question that NRHP-listed "Downtown Norwich Historic District" is wikipedia-notable.

I believe that under disambiguation page guidelines and DAB-editing practices it is justified to delete both entries in the current dab page, as neither points to an article or section actually describing a "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood.

Note, the current DAB page makes the unsupported assertion that "the central business district of Norwich, Connecticut, [is] designated as Downtown Norwich Historic District". That is not supported by the linked article on Downtown Norwich Historic District, because I and others would delete an unsupported assertion like that if made there. The historic district is no doubt in the "downtown" area of Norwich, but there is no evidence that its legal bounds coincide with whatever local usage might be for a neighborhood of that name. The DAB page is serving as a place for Polaron to make the unsupported assertion. If Polaron wishes to establish that "Downtown Norwich" of Norwich, Connecticut is wikipedia-notable, he should do so by following the procedure he agreed to in a long discussion (namely, get the stupid NRHP document and/or other sources which discuss relationship of NRHP-place to hamlet/village/neighborhood, and create a DYK-length accurately sourced article on the topic). doncram (talk) 07:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District. This seems to be the topic that`people are most likely to be expecting to see if they type in "Downtown Norwich". Redirects don't have to be pedantically "correct" - it doesn't matter that "Downtown Norwich" might itself refer to something with different boundaries than the historic district. (In fact this seems to have been the actual conclusion of the previous AfD discussion.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are just guessing that any people at all are looking for "Downtown Norwich" (I think it is likely no one is; even the Norwich, CT, area newspapers only occasionally refer to "downtown Norwich" and I believe never to a "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood per se). And, you are just guessing that if there is a neighborhood Downtown Norwich, that the historic district would be what readers would be seeking. As with many other historic districts around the country, this could be one where it is a small historic district IN the downtown area of the city, not covering very much at all of the neighborhood. It could be that readers, if any, would be better served by going to the Norwich, CT, article. You are just guessing that Polaron's guess/assertion is correct. This is an encyclopedia where there should be reliable sources supporting any assertions made. Polaron, and presumably you, are unwilling to obtain the free NRHP document that would provide clarity on the actual relationship of any "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood, if one exists, to the "Downtown Norwich Historic District", perhaps then justifying a redirect. In the absence of reliable sources, the appropriate thing is to delete the DAB now and not replace it by a redirect. Polaron has created hundreds of similar redirects which are in effect argumentative assertions not backed up by any reliable source. If Polaron wanted to create wikipedia-relevant knowledge to be reflected in these articles, the way is open for him to do so (get the stupid NRHP document. Also, Kotniski, you are not bound by any previous agreement, but Polaron has agreed in a long discussion at Talk:Poquetanuck and elsewhere, to abide by decision not to create a competing article on "Downtown Norwich". Creating a redirect or a dab page to make the assertion that Downtown Norwich exists as a neighborhood is in effect just a subversion of the agreement, IMO. An invited mediator in the long discussions, User:Acroterion, has elsewhere stated, as Polaron knows, that he disapproves of the extra redirects like the one that was here. Polaron should abide by that and not create redirects like was involved here (or dabs to substitute for them). doncram (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Downtown Norwich Historic District and Downtown Norwich (New York) are ambiguous, so useful dab. If Downtown Norwich (New York) redirect is deleted, this title could become a redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District, contrary to the earlier RfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JHJ has stated perfectly the reasons why it should be kept, and the conditions under which it should become a redirect. --NSH001 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You both seem to be overestimating the importance of this other redirect. It probably should be deleted, true, but we aren't a bureaucracy - we shouldn't let the existence of one odd thing elsewhere prevent us from doing the right thing here. (In any case I think DNHD is the primary topic, since this is actually an entity likely to be named as such, while the other thing is just the downtown of some city, which isn't the sort of thing people are likely to be looking for an article on other than under the article for the city.)--Kotniski (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've been to downtown Norwich, New York, and I can testify that it is unlikely that anyone would expect to find an encyclopedia article about it. Norwich is a very small city. --Orlady (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not over-estimating its importance, or treating this as a bureaucratic process. Another editor has, in good faith, created a redirect to an article. This, in and of itself, is exactly what is supposed to happen in Wikipedia. With or without that redirect, if there are two or more articles that cover an area (no matter how small -- this isn't a paper encyclopedia, so there are no size or population requirements for articles on inhabited places) that could have an article at the title, we disambiguate them. A disambiguation page at Downtown Norwich's only potential drawback is getting in the way of the search results for "downtown norwich". Looking at those search results, it appears that the reader would be better served by the disambiguation page, since the search results "boil down" to the two entries listed. So, I still !vote "keep". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be overlooking the whole WP:PRIMARYTOPIC thing. We don't do a dab page if there are two uses and one is the primary topic (which is what's being asserted here).--Kotniski (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) And in fact there aren't two uses. I would myself not allow there to be a hatnote at the top of the CT "Downtown Norwich HD" article pointing to the Norwich in NY, as there is no evidence that there is any "Downtown Norwich" named neighborhood there. There may be zero valid uses: the only evidence that the CT Norwich has a "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood is the existence of the HD named "Downtown Norwich Historic District", which has an article. Whether it is one or zero valid uses, there is no need for a dab page.

(replying to JHJ, before ec) Well, new to this issue, it may be appropriate enough for JHJ to assume that Polaron's creation of the redirect was in good faith. But after many months of discussion with Orlady, Polaron, Acroterion and others, leading finally to an agreement that at least Polaron and I agreed to (and which I believe does not allow for redirects like this one), I do not judge that Polaron's actions here are done in good faith. If Polaron wants to discuss the interpretation of the agreement that he agreed to, he should discuss it with invited mediator Acroterion and me and others at Talk:Acroterion or Talk:Poquetanuck or similar forum where the general agreement was discussed.

Back to this disambiguation page, it seems consensus here that at least one of the 2 items on the dab page should be deleted. So the conclusion here should be to delete the dab article. Then, about replacing it with a redirect, that should be discussed in the Acroterion-mediated forums, or brought back to RFD, or (best) dropped as unnecessary. I think no party here actually believes that the dab or redirect help wikipedia readers. But the dab page should be deleted based on what has been discussed above, IMO. doncram (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotniski: Who's asserting that there's a primary topic? It's not in the AfD proposal. Of course, I am aware of what we do when there's a primary topic: if there's a primary topic for "Downtown Norwich", then yes, the disambiguation page should have been moved to Downtown Norwich (disambiguation), where it could have simply been ((db-disambig))ed instead of AfDed. Doncram: If there's bad faith from some earlier agreement, you're right, other avenues should address that. I do not see the consensus here for anything; the !votes are evenly split 3 delete or redirect/2 keep/2 neutral (that's statistically even for this sample size). As I thought I stated clearly, I believe the dab helps Wikipedia readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm asserting there's a primary topic, even if no-one else is (though it's implicit in the suggestion to change this to a redirect). I don't think this question is really difficult or important enough to warrant discussion - if it's a spillover from some past bitter dispute, then it's probably best if those who are emotionally involved to leave it alone, and let others come with a clear head and sort it out. Whatever the decision, it really doesn't matter very much. (So on that note, I've said all I'm going to here.)--Kotniski (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid i may have overstated matters. I wouldn't call it a "bitter dispute" and I misstated matters to be suggesting P was participating in bad faith. I apologize for any overstatement. In fact I also assume that P acted in good faith, in creating a dab page, perhaps following two related examples from the same RFD batch (out of a batch of several redirects, I converted one to a dab and Orlady changed a different one to a dab). I believe that P is not as familiar with dab page guidelines and practices as JHJ and other dab wikiproject members/regulars are. And I believe the ones that Orlady and I created are "more valid" for linking to real articles or sections that cover the topic, while this dab, linking to two articles that have no mention of the explicit topic, is inappropriate IMO. Also, the effect of creating this dab, whether intentional or not, is to subvert the previous RFD to delete the redirect by creating a dab which is essentially an indirect redirect.

Bottom-line, here, there is consensus that the dab is inappropriate: at least Orlady, Kotniski and I agree that there is no need for the dab item on the NY Norwich, and it is significant that the linked article has no mention of a "Downtown" there. If Polaron wants to revisit guidelines and agreement on the appropriateness of a redirect, there are forums for that, post the deletion of this dab. Or, Polaron could research and write a separate article on the hypothesized Downtown Norwich neighborhood, or he could apply research to add a well-sourced mention of the neighborhood to the existing Downtown Norwich Historic District article (in which case I would agree to re-creating the redirect, except I would have to consider impacts on the agreement that he and I agreed to). Thus there are thus several ways forward for P to take if he wishes for Wikipedia to carry mention of the hypothesized neighborhood. But in the current absence of indication that there is an adequately important Downtown Norwich in either NY or CT, it is clear to me that the dab page should be deleted. Let's please just resolve it that way. doncram (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I believe that in previous dab discussions with me, JHJ has several times stated that "dab pages are for disambiguating amongst Wikipedia articles", arguing for dropping red-links for proposed articles or for listing them lower down on a dab page. Here, there are no articles and no sections on any Downtown Norwich neighborhood, and in fact there is (correctly IMO) no mention of any "Downtown Norwich" whatsoever in either of the linked articles. (Again, based on many other examples nation-wide, it would be incorrect to assume from the NRHP historic district name that there is a neighborhood of that name. There are many thousands of NRHP HDs where there is not a corresponding neighborhood of the same name less "Historic District". A reasonable assumption to make is that the NRHP HD is in the downtown area of Norwich, CT, but that is different.) So, based on reasoning in past discussions about dab pages with JHJ, I kinda think JHJ should be against this existing as a dab page as well. doncram (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that these links, instead of being red, do lead to Wikipedia articles. OTOH, I thought I was agreeing with you when I !voted to keep, so we are both still misreading the other. :-) -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for those redlinks, there is a minimum standard about what justifies having the redlink in the list of dab items. Namely that there is a regular (non-dab) wikipedia article which shows the same redlink, in effect asserting in mainspace that there is a valid wikipedia article topic of that name (spelled out at MOS:DABRL). The redlink in the dab is valid only if there is a supportable mainspace assertion of the validity of the redlink topic. The 2 items in this dab page however, are even lower, they are not even redlinks, and there is no assertion anywhere in wikipedia mainspace that "Downtown Norwich" is a neighborhood. In reviewing Google hits on the phrase "Downtown Norwich", I am only seeing hits, even in the Norwich CT paper, where the article mentions a "downtown Norwich". "Downtown Norwich" only appears in occasional headlines but only where all caps are used in the headlines, capitalizing minor words. So, JHJ, i am curious what is the usual dab editor practice for such entries? In some DAB page guideline i saw mention that references supporting entries should appear in the linked articles rather than on the dab page. Where there are no references in any linked article, no mention of a term at all, in fact nothing to distinguish between something made up in thin air vs. something valid, am I correct to assume that such entries can be deleted on sight by any dab editor? Your pointing to a relevant dab guideline clause would be appreciated. doncram (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blue links are not "lower" than red links, because they are blue. Both links as listed indicate something that could be ambiguous with "Downtown Norwich" -- Downtown Norwich Historic District looks like a mouthful that would be commonly shortened as Downtown Norwich, and Downtown Norwich (New York) is ambiguous with a disambiguating parenthetical phrase. Again, if the redirect is in error, then it should be deleted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Downtown Norwich (New York)) to the article Norwich (city), New York indeed is an invalid redirect and should be deleted. There is no downtown there. Is that where we were misunderstanding each other? It appears to be a made-up redirect to justify the dab page by having two items on it. So it is in error, in your words. And then you agree it is to be deleted, may I presume?

It's been a long time since I was last in downtown Norwich, NY, but unless it burned down since my last visit, that city does have a downtown. My comment was only to the effect that I can't imagine anyone expecting to find an encyclopedia article about that Norwich's downtown (separate from the article about the city). --Orlady (talk) 03:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, JHJ, now you are making up information, in your edit to the dab and your statement here that Downtown Norwich Historic District "would be commonly shortened as Downtown Norwich". That is just speculation! There are hundreds or thousands of NRHP HDs where such speculation would not be true. doncram (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using common sense is not making up information. A search (not in Google, but in a news database) turned up 0 occurrences of "Downtown Norwich Historic District" but hundreds of hits on "downtown Norwich", the first page of results including Connecticut, Ontario, and New York Norwiches. But if you're right, then the redirect Downtown Norwich (New York) should be moved to Downtown Norwich is the DNHD is an incorrect target, and then the redirect should be RfDed if it is also in error. I do not "agree that it is to be deleted" -- I have no opinion on its validity, which is where the RfD would come in (unless one of the speedy deletion criteria applies). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the head of this discussion, we are reminded that disambiguation is not needed where just two articles are involved. So Downtown Norwich should redirect to the most likely target Downtown Norwich Historic District with a hatnote "This article is about ... For other meanings, see Norwich (disambiguation).". Sussexonian (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That reminder is incorrect. Disambiguation is not needed where a primary topic and just one other article is involved -- in that case, the disambiguation page is titled "Title (disambiguation)". Disambiguation is needed where two articles are involved, if neither is the primary topic -- in that case (as here), the disambiguation page does not have the "(disambiguation)" qualifier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't keeping this open the way for DABs for every place large enough to have a downtown and common enough to have more than one place of the same name? If I were searching for info on downtown Syracuse, I'd search Syracuse. If I were searching for dowtown Phoenix, I'd search Phoenix. I think it's beyond useless into at least mildly harmful. Lvklock (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking it would be like making up other placenames too, like "Greater Norwich". Why not make new versions of every placename in wikipedia, with "Greater" or "Downtown" or "South" prepended? doncram (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Norwich (disambiguation) Mandsford (talk) 02:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~redirect to Downtown Norwich Historic District.~~ Traffic stats for November: Downtonw Norwich dab page: 56, Downtown Norwich Historic District: 65, Downtown_Norwich_(New_York), 3. By the way, the RFD discussion could easily have closed as no consensus, there was substantial support for redirecting to the historic district. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC) See below for change[reply]

I don't get why you would want that. The Downtown Norwich HD is, no doubt, in the downtown area of Norwich, CT, but the HD article does not attempt to mention or describe any "Downtown Norwich" neighborhood and what relationship such a neighborhood would have with the HD. It could be like linking to a "Downtown Norwich Pizza Shop", because a place of that name would probably be located in the downtown area as well. No one has collected a copy of the free NRHP document that would enable the HD article to describe its relationship to any such neighborhood. No one here knows whether the HD is at all similar in area or history to any neighborhood named "Downtown Norwich". I object to allowing the dab creator to make argumentative, indirect assertions by creating redirects and dabs that effectively equate the HD and a supposed neighborhood. It seems wrong to burden the NRHP HD article with a redirect, which creates an implicit need in the article to explain to some arriving readers why they have been redirected there. doncram (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nominator jumped the gun by closing the MfD early. Afd is for articles, not simply for pages in article namespace. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is the usual venue for disambiguation pages. See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Proposed deletion of disambiguation pages and Wikipedia talk:Deletion discussions#Disambiguation pages for discussion/deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with and Redirect to Norwich (disambiguation)#Places - as others have said, downtown is a generic term. I'm sure anyone looking for an article on downtown Norwich can find the city. I have already copied the 2 links from Downtown Norwich into Norwich (disambiguation)#Places, they are useful there regardless of the outcome of this AFD. Yes, I know merging mid-AFD is generally asking for trouble. WP:IAR. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 among established editors is that the organization is not sufficiently notable to be included within Wikipedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connetquot Junior State of America[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable branch of a larger organization. otherl left 03:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Delete no evidence of significant coverage in third-party reliable sources; sub-organizations of individual high schools are generally non-notable. Andrea105 (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete There are both significant references and citations, the content is in no way offensive of vulgar, and the information is both pertinent and accurate. There is no valid reason to delete this page. In addition, it was stated that "Sub-organizations of individual high schools are generally non-notable." This is not true when organizations are larger than actual graduating classes throughout the country and are significant influences in their region. This is also not a sub-organization of a high school but of the Northeast Division of Junior State of America. This thereby provides adequate reasoning to keep the article. MUNKings (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete From what I have read, this is both a benevolent and viable organization. It has an extremely large membership and is well cited. Like MUNKings stated, it is not a sub-organization of a high school but instead of a larger Junior State of America organization. Therefore, it has every right to an article. If this article has any inappropriate references or comments I would whole-heatedly agreed it should be deleted. However, it does not. It shows no sign of vandalism and falls within Wikipedia guidelines. Beethoven02 (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article just describes one local chapter of a nationwide organization (which IS notable and has a Wikipedia page) at a particular high school (which also has a Wikipedia page). This local chapter could be described under either of those topics, but it does not merit its own page. If you allow this article to remain, you're asking to have a separate Wikipedia page for every individual Rotary club, every Kiwanis club, every Key club - we'd be overwhelmed. Sure there are a dozen references, but all of them are internal - there's no independent recognition, nothing to indicate this particular chapter is any more notable than any other. Kids, I appreciate your enthusiasm and I'm glad you belong to this worthy organization, but Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, and this doesn't meet the significance criteria to be included. Read what it says at this link WP:notable and you'll understand --MelanieN (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Delete Article is referenced to a single webpage that falls under WP:SPS. Specific Chapter of larger nationwide organization does not meet notability per WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE! This is becoming aggravating. A small minority of editors is constantly removing this page stating reasons such as "Sub-organizations of individual high schools are generally non-notable." THANK YOU MUNKings and Beethoven02 for pointing out the merits of this article. Like both of these editors stated, it is referenced, not offensive, informational, and fully within Wikipedia guidelines. Another statement I would like to point out: The NORTHEAST STATE of Junior State of America has its own page, yet it is a sub-organization of Junior State of America. Since they have been approved there is no merit to deleting this page. Not to mention, this article has nothing remotely to do with any of you. It's a great cause and a great organization. So instead of trying to delete it every chance you get, try leaving it alone and editing articles related to you. NONE of you even live on the east coast. Why are you even up at 3am editing Wikipedia Articles? AlxRnz02 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, cool it. Nobody is criticizing your organization or trying to put you down. We are just applying the standards of Wikipedia - yes, Wikipedia has standards. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not just a bulletin board where anybody can put up anything they want as long as it is not offensive. Take my advice and put this article on the Junior State of America page, or on your high school page, where it belongs. (And by the way it is only 9 PM where I live.) --MelanieN (talk) 05:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Delete. No third-party sources to establish notability. While the national organization may be notable, the branch formed at a particular high school is not. This is an encyclopedia -- not a directory of high school clubs. If every club in every high school that has the technical know-how to create a web site is deemed notable, then we really are allowing Wikipedia to become the equivalent of a web page for anyone who wants to create a web site. Cbl62 (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upon checking the edit history of the "DO NOT DELETE" votes above, it appears that there is a group trying to publish their club information (including list of officers) on as many pages as possible. I will assume good faith (?), but this could be viewed as vandalism. See these diffs as example: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], and about a dozen more just like these.Cbl62 (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All three of these users have edit histories that show they are new users focused on this one article. Also, user AlxRnz02 is likely the same as the club's "Director of Finance/Treasurer: Alex Rienzie." Above and beyond what's been noted, there appears to be a potential conflict of interest here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is expanding. There is now a fourth brand-new user who is reverting the removal of the diffs noted above. See, e.g., [31] and [32]. The "new" user is "Chsjsa" ... hmmm ... acronym for Connetquot High School Junior State of America. Looks like we may have sockpuppetry here. Cbl62 (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the assumption of good faith is no longer justified. This is an attack on Wikipedia, possibly by a group of kids, more likely by a single kid using multiple usernames - someone who is making a game out of it and has no intention of complying with Wikipedia standards or collegiality. And it's getting ridiculous. Check out the revision history of Long Island; the stuff about this club has been removed by various users and re-added by sockpuppets EIGHT TIMES since Nov. 25. Sockpuppet usernames at that site include: AlxRnz02, Ssypher, Beethoven02, and Chsjsa. Also, MUNKings and AlxRnz02 have altered comments made by other editors on this AfD page, deleting material they didn't like. IMO administrator action is needed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Delete. This is just a local chapter of Junior State of America at a single high school. Per WP:ORG, student organizations that exist at only a single school are generally non-notable (by which I mean that no other schools have the Connetquot Junior State of America at their schools). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question User AlxRnz02 said that editors are "constantly removing this page". Has it been AFD'ed before? --MelanieN (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Melanie[reply]

The article has not been to AFd before. I think what AlxRnz02 is talking about is that it was moved by Cluebot to a userspace draft and the cross namespace redirect was deleted. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alert User MUNKings just deleted the AfD message from the article. I believe that is a serious no-no. --MelanieN (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

I undid the removal of the AfD message. Cbl62 (talk) 05:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alert Worse yet, User MUNKings just deleted this entire discussion from the AFD discussion page. I just undid the deletion. I would say that user is begging to be blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete: It appears this is a local high school chapter of an organization that is very new and has received no independent notability. Any relevant information should be included on the Connetquot High School article - which already covers it. I edit a lot of Long Island related articles, and can't think of any other high school club chapters like this having articles.--Neighborhoodpalmreader (talk) 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A local chapter of an organization without any coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet minimum notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no reliable sources, and it fails the GNG for Wikipedia. Lithorien (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this chapter of an organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen it spelled "Conneticut", but the correct spelling is Connecticut, of course. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, they mean "Connetquot" as in http://www.connetquothighschool.org/ -- this is the correct spelling of the school's name. I don't know if "Connetquot" is derived from similar roots as "Connecticut"; perhaps the two names came from the same or closely related Algonquian languages. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments such as Neighborhoodpalmreader. Not notabie. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the consensus reached is for deletion, recommend blocking page creation, as the page was moved into mainspace several times previously. --otherl left 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:Salt, non notable and the vandalism by the editors is not going to help their cause. Mah favourite (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 18:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Renee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable adult film star. While Renee certainly has a large body of work, her notability is not substantiated through third-party reliable sources. In the six months since the last time that this article was up for deletion, no one has added any reliable sources to substantiate notability, which to me indicates that such notability does not exist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant reliable coverage here. Epbr123 (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Plus she passes WP:PORNBIO per her SIGNY Award. Epbr123 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite her pioneering work in bondage (for which I'm sure she should be applauded), I just don't see adequate sourcing even by our rather lax porn biography standards. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication the subject meets the GNG or any other specialized notability guideline. The SIGNY award isn't "well-known," as required by the guideline (no GNEws hits, for example); as of right now, it isn't even in the categories of awards included in WP:PORNBIO. One AVN article about her website doesn't meet the "multiple" requirements for coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to WP:PORNBIO criteria 1, she also passes criteria 4: "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre". Also, GNG does not require multiple sources; they are just "generally preferred". The GNG footnote states, "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." - you should therefore be arguing for the article to be merged, rather than deleted. Epbr123 (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes Crit 1 of WP:PORNBIO at minimum. Also appears to have claim for Crit 4. Horrorshowj (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Epbr123 and Horrorshowj. Lithorien (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:PORNBIO. Click23 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, inside joke at one dorm at one college, WP:V, WP:NFT, WP:SNOW. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walshle[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable meal that may or may not be unique to a single college. Google searches return to the article only. Seems to fall into WP:NOTMADEUP. Warrah (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Christianson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Completely unsourced BLP at time of nomination. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP that does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Enigma^msg 16:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Regis[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Completely unsourced at time of nomination. Possibly dead. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unsourced. Does not meet the notability guidelines for the subject area. Enigma^msg 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets GNG between their porn and stage acting careers. I count at least fifty films and six magazines. I had little trouble finding these, these, His real name was Randy Wendelin, which further yields Screen World Volume 53 (2002), John Willis, Tom Lynch, Barry Monush, Hal Leonard Corporation, ISBN 1557835985, 9781557835987; Stage Michael Scott Moore, Carol Lloyd, Heather Wisner, SF Weekly, July 09, 1997.; these from SF Chronicle; "San Francisco hosts gay 'marriage'" Greg Lefevre, CNN, March 26, 1996. "First vote on bathhouses invalid, HPPC again votes to lift ban" Cynthia Laird, The Bay Area Reporter, June 18, 1999. "20 Arrested at AIDS Drug Vigil" Victor F. Zonana, Los Angeles Times, August 10, 1989. "Volunteers Test New Drug Therapy: Victims of AIDS-Like Illness Find Hope" Gerald Faris, Los Angeles Times, October 05, 1986. Article from Tuscon Observer, PDF version, etc. There's obviously more as he was active before many publications posted online but this should demonstrate a good article is certainly possible here with plenty of reliable sources. -- Banjeboi 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Benjiboi. Keep as a biog of an actor, perhaps, but I'd like to see more refs before the pornbio tag is added - Alison ^❤ 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy As unsourced possibly defamatory. Hipocrite (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Fails the GNG, no indication the subject meets any other specialized guideline. Potential sourcing gives virtually no evidence of notability; citing published castlists and plot summaries of non-notable porn films as significant coverage is ridiculous. What's left are a sprinkling of comments by and passing mentions of in newspapers, entirely unrelated to any of the claims of notability, and therefore insufficient to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's utterly false and I belive you know that. Several of those news articles including a few from CNN speak to him as an AIDS and LGBT activist. Hard to imagine any other AfD not keeping an article after several dozen sources have been posted well exceeding GNG. -- Banjeboi 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's uncivil and at least intellectually dishonest to repeatedly attack those who disagree with you in this fashion, as seems to be becoming your practice. The article made no claim the subject was notable as a political activist; the topic is only mentioned briefly in the last paragraph of the article. And your facetious claim of "several dozen" sources rests not just on the cast/scene lists you "cite" for various porn films, which by an overwhelming consensus do nothing to establish notability, but on occasion on multiple copies of the list for the same film.
    - So now you accuse me of being dishonest. Impressive. Besides the dozens of site hits at AVN and GEA I posted links to about thirteen articles. Asserting that in total these are little more than reviews and "copies of the list for the same film" is still utterly false. -- Banjeboi 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not what I said, as is clear from actually reading my comment. And your statement that my initial response is "utterly false, and I believe you know that" is clearly an accusation of dishonesty, with the weasely "I believe" stuck in to pretend it's just a statement of opinion. You're the one who repeatedly and uncivilly descends into attacks on other editors when the facts turn against you, and you should stop. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is some evidence that the subject received an award, the WP:PORNBIO guideline is not a bright line for inclusion. In this case, the lack of reliable sources, which has not been refuted, must override this guideline. Kevin (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Davis (actor)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable porn performer. Appears to fail WP:PORNBIO (unsubstantiated assertion of award) and WP:GNG. Only source at time of nomination is a dead link. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citation for the award has been supplied. Meets WP:PORNBIO.Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article, at least in current form, proves existence, but doesn't point to how the person is actually notable. It's a common name, however, so if sufficient sources can be found and there's a clearer demonstration of actual notability, I'd be willing to reconsider my vote here. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a reliable source can be found for his award win. Epbr123 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ref for award added, meets WP:Pornbio but more content would certainly be a better read. -- Banjeboi 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no reliable sources that discuss the subject of this blp in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As mostly unsourced possibly defamatory. Hipocrite (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain what's defamatory if they are sourced as having won a major award for their porn work? -- Banjeboi 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Winning awards for porn work is possibly defamatory. Hipocrite (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Could you please explain how? -- Banjeboi 23:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps you could simply review Defamation. In any case, the possibility of defamation in this article is crystal clear, since there is an unreliably sourced claim that the supposedly notable porn performer is identified as a (minor) mainstream actor sharing the name. Well, make that "was," since I've just deleted it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not bothered with removing that information but there is still no explanation why noting a porn performer has won an award would be in any way defaming them. If they are doing the work there is little to carry the concept that they are in some way besmirched for getting an award for it. -- Banjeboi 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No one has said that here but you, so you should be able to answer the question if anyone can. I pointed out the "possibly defamatory" element, just as I've pointed out similar issues of badly sourced or unsourced identifications in similar/related discussions, and you're ignoring it and blithely suggesting that editors who disagree with you are making unfounded and illogical arguments (which are generally figments of your imagination at best). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A simple mistake, which was eliminated(provided it was a different person). Do you believe there is a reason to delete an article, just because someone else might have the same name, and thus cause confusion? Dream Focus 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets requirements for an article. Award winning porno star. Dream Focus 18:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB [33] shows him as the same actor who was in the love boat. I guess someone could compare pictures and see if it was the same guy. Or check out his home page. I tried to do that, but when I clicked on it, the first thing I saw was a man waving his thing around, so I hit the back button at once. Someone not bothered by that can look around his site and see if he list that. He may only advertise his porn stuff on his site, but I'm thinking if it was him on this show, he'd list it somewhere, even if it was just one episode. Dream Focus 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted the deletion by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz . Source identifies the porn actor with the "Love Boat" actor as the same person. No defamation - if that's what a reliable source says then that is what we report as editors - going beyond the sources is OR. Once again, this performer fully meets WP:PORNBIO as a winner of a major award. Other considerations are immaterial. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not, by consensus, reliable enough to use as a source for potentially sensistive information. There's not even a consensus that IMDB is reliable enough to use as a source for virtually anything; see Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb. It's certainly not reliable enough to identify which of the dozen or so guys named Sean Davis, or some variation there, appeared in a TV episode. It's rather odd that a low-rent Australian gay porn star, last seen managing an Australian bar, would pop up in Hollywood years after his main performing career ended, appear in one TV show, and return to Australia -- especially since, when interviewed about visiting the US, he doesn't even mention it. BLP violation, removed again. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clémentine Nzuji[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO, WP:SCHOLAR. only 3 hits in gnews [34]. not much in google scholar, and mainly passing mentions in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources I've just added to the article. She seems to be a major figure in African literature, both as a writer and poet, and as an academic and literary theorist. She clearly meets WP:GNG due to the nontrivial coverage about her in multiple independent sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has the nominator actually looked at the 150 Google Books search results? The second one of them starts its coverage of the subject with the words "the first poet of real significance to have emerged in the late sixties is also Zaire's first woman writer, Clémentine Nzuji" and goes on to discuss the subject at length: far from a passing mention. Scrolling down through the results finds plenty more coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The evidence above seems to suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Canali[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable porn performer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Completely unsourced BLP at time of nomination. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actor. Joe Chill (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Unsourced and worthless stub. Enigma^msg 15:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and someone consider notifying this guy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly unsourced and NN individual. Fails to meet WP:PORNBIO by some margin - Alison ^❤ 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common conception[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested by article's creator. As I said in the prod template: "Mere definition of a transparent juxtaposition of two English words. No possibility of expansion into an encyclopedic article." Every combination of words does not constitute a valid topic (although the creator felt it necessary to automatically link every occurrence of the words "common conception" in Wikipedia to this article). Deor (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- This term is a well known, common, and notable term in philosophy, especially metaphysics. One can hardly have any discussion without first getting a grip on what is being discussed. I think this proposal for deletion is consistent with a popular belief that everyone knows what is and is not important just from first impressions, whereas philosophers actually do look beyond first impressions and intuition to analyze what is and is not appropriate. The article is a stub, and not that great now. However a belief that it cannot be expanded is very presumptuous (It is presumptuous to assume that its creation is just an instance within "every combination of words". That is the type of statement we might expect from someone with no expertise in the field at all.) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator is Pontiff Greg Bard. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Based on this source (Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy) I think the concept is worthy of a Wikipedia article. This wiki doesn't seem to have an article on preconception. Pcap ping 02:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have an article Prolepsis. Deor (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dab in disguise between 4 different concepts under that name, so an article appears justified. Pcap ping 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above keeps Madmaxmarchhare (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and ~~possible WP:NEO~~ patent failure of WP:NOTDICTIONARY (first line says WP is not a jargon guide). [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is philosophical jargon, (just like Prolepsis) but not a neologism since it dates back to the Stoics. Pcap ping 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, koine ennoia "dates back to the Stoics"; common conception doesn't. Deor (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't speak English. The translation is from a source. Pcap ping 02:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that even if it is philosophical jargon as you say, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide. Even if it's not a neologism, it still patently fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 15:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a bad habit to write articles about jargon-per-se. If I had my druthers I would also delete articles from the math domain like well behaved and if and only if; I haven't yet bothered to take on that battle and content myself with removing wikilinks to such things. --Trovatore (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe! I believe you would meet with unexpectedly strong opposition about trying to AfD articles like if and only if! They are indispensable parts of modern science. Maybe it's not only a feat of tolerance or laziness ...? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linking (indiscriminately) is one thing, but do you really contend that if and only if shouldn't have an article here? Pcap ping 02:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Of course it should be mentioned in logical connective, but it should not have a standalone article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "philosophical jargon." Philosophers always attempt to identify the terminology that all reasoners should be using. There is a long history of terminology entering into common use which was first clarified by some philosopher. Philosophers do not use terminology solely for the benefit of its in-groups, unlike other more technical fields. The idea is always that the terminology is for supposed to be for everybody. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then there's even less reason to have an article. --Trovatore (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Whatever the noble goals of philosophers, terms used with certain meaning mostly by them are jargon nonetheless. Pcap ping 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Solely by them"? So then which is it? Inappropriate linking or appropriate? I think people need to cool it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a tricky one. There's the Stoic philosophical term "common conception" which has reliable sources (e.g. Routledge mentioned above and The Sceptics By R. J. Hankinson). But the article has nothing to do with all that and seems to be just a definition of the two words. (And the article's definition is significantly different from the meaning of the Stoic's "common conception".) I'd say delete the existing article, but without prejudice against creating a future article on the historical philosophical term. Billgordon1099 (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there's a genuine, specific encyclopedic notion to discuss, coming from historical Stoicism, with sources and everything, then we don't need to delete the article, just rewrite it. However in that case Greg absolutely needs to back off on the wikilinks. There's no way that any noticeable percentage of occurrences of the phrase common conception in WP are talking about the Stoic notion. The wikilinks need to be restricted to the ones specifically discussing the Stoic notion. --Trovatore (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete I am torn on this one. Most of the time, articles such as this are simply WP:NEO or Jargon, but I can't decide whether or not sources such as this are discussing a finite term or using the words together because they are both so common in philosophy. [this. If it is a concept, then the article can be written, but as it stands, the article does not make a claim to notability. Mrathel (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this article is actually talking about there being a philosophical concept of "Common Conception". If an article were created with that purpose and cited with sources that may or may not be there, then I would suggest keeping it. Mrathel (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Trovatore. And the contention that there is no such thing as philosophical jargon is the very height of absurdity. 65.46.253.42 (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since the encyclopedia entry listed earlier proves the concept exists and has been written about in an encyclopedia before means I'd be happy to have an article about this topic. But before I vote in favor of that, this needs improvement. Right now, it is a dictionary definition. I need evidence it can grow to an article. =- Mgm|^(talk) 14:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as beneath dictionary definition-- probably anyone who can figure out "conception" as meaning something outside of reproduction can figure out what the phrase (as defined in the article) means without having to be told. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo (software)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a specialized computer program written for experimental research in neuroscience, and even given a name that will stymie searching, it's hard to imagine anything of such limited interest becoming notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability guidelines. Haakon (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 00:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was replace with disambiguation page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billennium[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Blatant neologism (states it is in the article!) - the article states where it has been used, but I feel it is insufficient for it's own article. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 02:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY, possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Replace with the dab page. 70.29.215.186 (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with dab. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and neologisms don't fit if it was. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with dab - As above. WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICTIONARY. There's no Wiktionary entry, so maybe transwiki some of it? I'm not sure of the policies they use over there, so maybe not, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Davenport. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph's Catholic Church (Sugar Creek)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Saint Joseph's Catholic Church (Sugar Creek)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG. a non notable local church. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:ORG and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Davenport. There is useful information here, and that is the parent article where it fits. LadyofShalott 17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. The information is clearly verifiable, but there isn't enough of it to sustain a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1320: A West Coast Story[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot personally see what is notable about this film (created by a potentially COI and SPA user) never mind when there will be a release date as that claimed date is just about to lapse, neither can I see any reliable third party sources to support this article as those that is does nothing but to support facts about street racing and have nothing to do the documentary other than one to its official site itself.

Personally think this article deserve a CSD but I will put it to AfD (although a PROD was contested by the creator in the past) if there is anybody who want to argue its notability, but I doubt it will ever be notable as there is no release date for this now dormant project. In all, a failure of the WP:BROADCAST guidelines. Donnie Park (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would've been a clear A7 candidate. Most of the references don't actually mention the film and the ones that do belong to the filmmakers, causing them to not be independent as required for notability purposes. Therefore notability can't be gained from GNG. Since the film also hasn't got a wide release or awards, it fails the film guidelines too. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Gray (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray

Articles for deletion/Valerie Gray (disambiguation) (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page with no ambiguous Wikipedia articles to disambiguate. "Solution" from earlier AfD is no solution at all.JHunterJ (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Danny_Phantom_Characters#Recurring_Characters, which as far as I can tell is where the information about this character exists (not at List of villains and ghosts in Danny Phantom, which is where the wikilink on the current disamb page leads). If some other notable Valerie Gray were to pop up down the road, it would be easy enough to change the page or make a disamb again. But in the meantime, I don't see any need for this page. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the page formerly at Valerie Gray to Valerie Gray (disambiguation) and redirected Valerie Gray to the Danny Phantom list. This AfD is for the supposed disambiguation page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Self-correction: I just now pointed the base name at the target you suggested. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nom. I would have just tagged it as ((db-disambig)) except that it had been through AfD before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary disambiguation page. There is nothing to disambiguate at this point. If more Valerie Gray articles are created then this can be created. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is in no way a disambiguaiton page and serves no useful purpose. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to disambiguate. Propaniac (talk) 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only thing it desambiguates is not an article :P --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Valerie Gray is not a disambiguaiton, and I don't see how it could be. Maetch (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Delete it now! - What possible purpose does this serve?! Am I missing something? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nasseef House[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete very unotable, possibly an advertisement.--Simfan34 (talk) 13:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP It is very notable, just look at the refs. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The provided reference support notablity --Rirunmot 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Keep. Has reliable references, and is consistently called a historical monument. Clearly suitable for inclusion by all the rules we have about articles on buildings. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mgm, the sources in the article are good indication of notability. --Jmundo (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nassef House) should be merged with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naseef House to something like "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasseef House" (note the spelling) --T.woelk (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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