< 6 July	8 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deville (Talk) 01:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimori[edit]

Non-notable minor writer. No third-party references to verify notability claims have been added in the 2+ years since the article was created, and the Japanese version of the article is similarly bare of any reference sources. DAJF (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can find nothing which indicates notability. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is quite normal for the Japanese Wikipedia to lack sources, this illustrator seems to be entirely non-notably. I could only find very trivial mentions when looking for sources. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trying to understand the Japanese Wikipedia article with Google Translate (which doesn't work very well for Japanese), it seemed like she worked on parts of two notable franchises, but that her individual contributions to those franchises weren't notable. I couldn't find any other sources indicating notability. Calathan (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dantwann crane[edit]

Notability is asserted so A7 does not apply, but I haven't been able to find sources to verify the claims in the article. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources. The only proof of this individual's accomplishments can be found on his website. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independant sources. Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no reason not to speedy. Beach drifter (talk) 00:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dan who? Obvious WP:Autobiography full of WP:LARD. -- œ ^™ 01:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant WP:Autobiography of course — that annoying twilight zone between no assertion and blatant spam, yet still a heaping helping of WP:LARD, which has just become my new favorite Wikipedia editor jargon — especially now that some people think it's impolite to use WP:VANITY. --Closeapple (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I'm sure they are quite an achievement, none of the listed accomplishments are notable as evidenced by a complete lack of coverage about those accomplishments. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @501 · 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Brogan[edit]

Not notable Jack Pinchwife (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be somebody's fanfiction character. Clearly not notable. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge or delete merge as usual, if there is an article on the series or fiction. If there is not, then delete. DGG (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - a character from series posted on the web with no notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @501 · 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher A Allen[edit]

Notability is asserted so A7 does not apply, but I haven't been able to find sources to verify the claims in the article. A Google News Archive search returns no results about this person. Cunard (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no citations or references to indicate sources of the information in the article. I was hesitant to mark for deletion because the article appears to justify notability. However, without citations or refs, the article appears as a hoax.--TRL (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a resume. 'Nuff said. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of sufficient notability per WP:BIO. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @501 · 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavallino LLC[edit]

Non-notable company. Article is written like a cross between an advert and a bio for the founder. Only thing that's even close to notability is that the founder wrote a book, but as notability isn't inherited so therefore cannot be carried on to the company. SPA user whose first edit was to remove the CSD notice, followed by their 2nd edit to remove it again, so it seems there's some CoI there. Rather than getting into an edit war I've brought it to afd. Web Hamster 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be entirely spammish. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POLITE REQUEST FOR HOLD UPON DELETE. Our first attempt to add our verifiable corporate information simply requires a more comprehensive understanding of Wiki source code updates in order to demonstrate content validity. No spam has been added, only three users (each authorized editors for the corporation) have worked in tandem. Advice and/or polite guideance would be greatly apreciated from the community. --TexasMikeRyan (Rawr and stuff) 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC) — TexasMikeRyan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Well, first, the best advice I can give in adding your own corporate information is simple: don't add it. See that link as to why - it will explain my !vote. Let other people add it. As for formatting, all the basics are at Wikipedia:Introduction. Tutorials, formatting, everything - it's found there. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. See WP:NOTADVERTISING. Fails WP:SOURCES. Looks like a definite case of WP:COI as well. ThePointblank (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. 174.146.255.7 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article must have been updated, sounds objective and factual...not advertising. Plus, the board member is former president of the Fed in San Francisco. Company has been relevant in business field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBthilla (talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC) — CBthilla (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No imputation, but merely a notice: please see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account.

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject to establish notability. Brief mentions are not the same as coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect can be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College football's ten most victorious programs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/College football's ten most victorious programs

Article should likely be deleted or merged into the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article due to the arbitrary nature of cutting the list off at ten, and the lack of references justifying the top ten list. The article also duplicates information found elsewhere and seems to be WP:POV / WP:OR. For further information and discussion on this proposal, see CrazyPaco's discussion on NCAA Division I football win-loss records talk page and the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship talk page. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Partial merge Cardsplayer4life is partly correct. I agree that the last half of the article (i.e., the part titled "National championships") could be merged into the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article. However, the lists showing the top college football programs both in total wins and winning percentage is useful content that I do not believe is duplicative of any other Wikipedia content. I think some of the prose could be adjusted to deal with the "POV" issues noted. As for the arbitrary cutoff at the top ten programs, I see no reason why the article cannot be expanded if and when someone has the time and inclination to do so, but that's not a reason for deleting the current content. A "Top 10" list is a good start. I think the best solution is to merge the "National championship" part and then take the two lists and rename the article something along the lines of "List of college football programs by total wins and winning percentage." With such a description, the content could be expanded to include a wider listing of programs. Cbl62 (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change my vote to Full merge. On first read, I didn't see Carsplayer4life's reference to the second article on NCAA Division I football win-loss records. It seems to me that the entire content of College football's ten most victorious programs could indeed be split and merged into one of the two main articles -- NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship or NCAA Division I football win-loss records. Cbl62 (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a complete Claimed National Championship List in my sandbox that will replace the one in the top 10 article and be placed in the NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship article. The previous list on the top 10 article contained errors (although I had since updated it with my new information). Such a list of university's claims is complicated, but I'm hoping to have a relatively complete and thoroughly referenced one soon. I have also updated the table in the NCAA Division I football win-loss records article through 2008 per the NCAA Records Book. It is now sortable by wins or percentage thereby replicating the information in the top 10 article in a more comprehensive fashion minus the POV. CrazyPaco (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles linking this one should be redirected to NCAA Division I football win-loss records which duplicates the data and is comprehensive. Actually, "NCAA Division I football win-loss records" should probably be renamed to "NCAA Division I FBS football win-loss records" CrazyPaco (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create a redirect to NCAA Division I football win-loss records per Crazypaco. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (userfy to someone but not me 'cause I have too much to do already) actually kind of smells more like "original research" or maybe "wikinews" instead... because it can change with current events and is ongoing. Good information, wrong place.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the notion that it comes off a little bit like OR. Also, it could be argued it's an example of content-forking, too, as the same info is included on NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship and NCAA Division I football win-loss records.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A potential merger can be discussed elsewhere, but there is no consensus for deletion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Rosewood[edit]

Delete - no independent reliable sources appear to get this past notability. The notability of the film series does not extend to every fictional character within the series. Otto4711 (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - Either delete because this is a non-notable character, or merge into one list of all characters in the film. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep ~~or merge~~ - information should probably be merged either into Beverly Hills Cop series or a new "characters of Beverly Hills Cop" type article, but outright deletion isn't the best option. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to "keep" from "keep or merge" per coverage found by Michael Q. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Even Axel Foley is of questionable stand-alone notability, and no other character from the film series warrants a stand-alone article. Yes, it was a notable series, but it wasn't THAT notable. Eauhomme (talk) 05:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Judge Reinhold. My first thought was to merge it to the article about the film, but Reinhold portrayed the character in two sequels as well. This is a holdover from the days where Wikipedia was seeking original research articles about people's favorite TV shows and movies, including "biographies" of fictional characters. I agree with Eauhomme that an article about Axel Foley is unnecessary as well. I wouldn't mind if these were all grouped into an article about the characters in the film series. No, I'm not going to mention it on the article's "talk page", assuming it has one. Screw talk pages, they are silly and a big waste of time. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character in several notable films. Also has his own action figure. See Marvel Minimates Beverly Hills Cop for that. Dream Focus 11:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is nothing to merge other than jokes about how the character likes guns. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure we even need a characters from BHC article for stuff like this. Matt Deres (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it does not matter that it is a character from a notable film as long as the article subject receives coverage in relable sources that meets WP:N.... and "Billy Rosewood" seems to get the coverage. The character was specifically covered and in depth by Time Magazine in 1987, and again by Time Magazine in 2001. And there is significant coverage of the character in relation to the actor: Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Sun-Times... and many others. This is a case where there is enough to support an article about the character, per the precedents set by Hawkeye Pierce, Hot Lips Houlihan, Archie Bunker, Al Bundy, et al. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:MichaelQSchmidt has done an excellent job of demonstrating the notability of this topic by reference to independent reliable sources. The case made by the nomination has been refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdraw nomination. Tavix | Talk 22:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teashark[edit]

Not notable Cybercobra (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched Google News and none of the mentions of it go into any great depth much beyond that of press release-like material. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In amongst all the blog comments there's magazine and technical magazine coverage; seems to meet notability guidelines. eg [1] [2] [3][4]. I42 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are 44 GNews hits for this web browser, and actually I don't see a single press release in the bunch. The first page of results are mostly blogish posts and thus not very useful. However, there are quite a few foreign language reliable sources on pages 2-5. The language of coverage is, of course, irrelevant, and thus the GNG are reached through coverage in multiple reliable sources.

Additionally, there are a few RS English reviews of the browser, such as Softpedia, CNET Australia, and WAP Review (technically a blog, but I would considet it an RS for purposes of product review) --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw CNET Australia is sufficient for me. The article still definitely needs work though. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gateshead F.C. season 2006–07[edit]

Article detailing a season for a club playing in regional league, which I do not believe is article-worthy, and precedents have been set here and here. I am also nominating:

Gateshead F.C. season 2005–06
Gateshead F.C. season 2004–05
Gateshead F.C. season 2007–08
Gateshead F.C. season 2008–09

for the same reason. Note that I have not nominated Gateshead F.C. season 2009–10, a season in which the club will play in a national league, as I believe this needs further discussion before a separate AfD. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. – Pee Jay 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete all per nominator after summarising anything noteworthy enough for the main article there. Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - it has become accepted practice to have season articles on teams that play in a national league as Gateshead will have from August (and it is plainly irrational to delete the pages and recreate them in due course). The fact that the seasons were on a club in their non-national league period is not relevant; see Thames Ironworks F.C. season 1895–96 and Black Arabs F.C. season 1883–84 for example. I see no policy or consensus reason to delete these articles. TerriersFan (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 10:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all they appear to be as well referenced as other articles for clubs playing at a higher level. Status of the club should not be the defining factor; Verifiability and Notability should be, and those are defined in policy. - fchd (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - If pages such as Newton Heath L&YR F.C. season 1883–84 and several seasons following are acceptable because the current team play in a national league, even though at the time they weren't in any league, these season articles should not be deleted. - Jcarls1 (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As the major contributor to the articles you mention, I ought to say that I'm actually considering nominating them for deletion for precisely the same reason as this article. However, I think that should be postponed until after this AfD is closed. – Pee Jay 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SilkTork *^YES! 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magritte (software)[edit]

All that I can find is a bunch of trivial mentions in multiple searches. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No external sources give to establish notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a minor open-source meta-description and meta-data framework. OK, so what does it do? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - for now. I think your critique is not valid as to 'what does it do' — framework is something you can build stuff on, so that term defines what it does - ie. set of blocks to build or define aspects of your services. While smalltalk and squeak are pretty awesome and very notable developements in computing, I must say so far Magritte hasn't made any big splashes yet. I don't see notability through publicity or numbers happen. Whether it is pioneering effort - yes, its new type of approach to framework. Whether this article is a keeper. Well... I am not totally sure (notablity: 0, popularity: low, remarkable software: yes). Casimirpo (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You saying that it is remarkable software is your opinion and has nothing do with the notability guidelines. Iowateen (talk) 00:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it enables type of changes and developement that is not possible with other similar frameworks is what I am saying, enabling changes to the data(base)- and/or object-models of the service or app being built both 1. after the interfaces and logic dealing with that data have been set up without having to modify (all of) that logic and interfaces and 2. by people who do not have the skills to manipulate the logic and interfaces (ie. not having to program to change the model to suit the needs directed at the app/service). Ie. not subjective imo thing. Notable in technical sense. Casimirpo (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. We do not judge directly the notability by deciding that it a bit of remarkable technology. We let the independent reliable sources decide on its remarkability to establish notability by covering the software. If really is remarkable, the coverage will come and recreation of the article then would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Whpq. — ^Fatal Error 03:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. This is the wrong forum to decide between redirecting an article and keeping it separate. Flowerparty^☀ 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blastoise[edit]

Article about an arbitrary Pokémon without any significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. I've searched and there doesn't appear to be sources with critical discussion on the character. Artichoker^[talk] 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ - The rest is fine, but it has hardly anything to make a critical reception section with. Referencing most of the article with a few interviews is nice, but it doesnt make it automaticly notable. --Blake (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think that the references in the article do satisfy the requirements. They just arent in the form of a separate paragraph like the other articles. --Blake (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "They just arent in the form of a separate paragraph like the other articles"? The leftorium 16:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of having a whole section about the reception, like the other articles, the reception is spread out throughout the article, in a way. Zap found a book that talks all about Blastoise, what he did, how popular he is, etc and used it all over the article. I think this is a new generation of articles in the making. Not every Pokémon can have a big giant reception section like Pikachu, who is painted on a plane, and has a virus named after it. --Blake (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not really reception. His sources are mostly gameguide materials that discuss the attributes of Blastoise in an in-universe style. This is different from the critical discussion that is needed to fill up a "Reception" section. Artichoker^[talk] 16:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You say "the reception is spread out throughout the article", but I can't find it anywhere. The leftorium 16:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends on your definition of "reception". If it means how notable is the Pokémon, then there are plenty of things.

This tortoise-like Pokémon is well-known for being featured on the cover of one of the first Pokémon games, Pokémon Blue, as well as Pokémon Stadium......Blastoise is the final evolved form of Squirtle, one of the Pokémon players may receive at the beginning of playing Pokémon Red or Blue, and the remakes of those games......Described in Notre Dame's The Observer as "a tank of a turtle",......Blastoise also appears in Super Smash Bros and Super Smash Bros Melee as one of many Pokemon that a fighter can send out after throwing a Poke Ball......and is the main Pokémon on Green's team.

But, thats probably not what you mean. Why does a Pokémon need to be notable outside of the series? That doesnt make any sense. Satoshi Tajiri isnt notable outside of making the games. Why does he deserve a page? Alot of the manga series we have pages for arent notable outside of Pokémon. Why do they have pages? Because they are notable in the series. I think everyone is looking too deep into the rules. --Blake (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sentences you provided are not reception. Also, "notable outside the series" means that it has received critical reception from independent third-party sources. Unlike Blastoise, a quick search of Satoshi Tajiri shows that he satisfies that criterion. Artichoker^[talk] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This tortoise-like Pokémon is well-known for being featured on the cover of one of the first Pokémon games, Pokémon Blue."

"Blastoise is a well-known Pokémon because of its role in the video games, but it makes relatively few appearances in the anime."

(from below, not yet in the article)"Blastoise's role in the video games has been described as an 'impressive... tank'—compared with Wobbuffett, 'except, that it can actually defend itself'."

How are these sentences not considered critical reception? Plus, just to throw it out there, KaZaA reformed under a company called Blastoise, among others. And while i have yet to find an article connecting the two (or saying where the got the name from at all), it's not unreasonable to assume that someone out there wrote something about it, and it's as coherent a connection to our real-world as naming a leptin after pikachu. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 19:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Blake (talk) 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20) - Does not establish notability as there is not significant coverage in secondary sources. A species of Pokémon is not notable because of cursory mentions and blurbs from in-universe guides. As with any other article (on Pokémon or any topic), this article can be changed from a redirect if secondary sources arise that show this particular Pokémon has had impact in the real world. —Ost (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A discussion about this article is also taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Blastoise. The leftorium 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as well.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I thought WP had already decided this.. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Essays are not binding contracts of community consensus. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article makes critical claims about the Pokemon's popularity, why it's well-known, and analyzes the character's role in the game (akin to Mario#Abilities or the plethora of articles on Chess openings), this is all referenced to a third-party publication about Pokemon as a whole that devoted three pages to Blastoise which meets WP:N's definition of significant coverage, "more than trivial, but less than exclusive", and supported with details from third-party guides (now). Additionally, throwing the phrase "in-universe" in front of guide does not somehow make it less reliable according to WP:RS, since these guides are not describing the games as if the pokemon world is a real place that claim is just patently false. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- as an aside, just to remind you guys at the wikiProject, this is not a vote, it's a place for discussing the merits of the article, so merely piling on and saying "Keep/Delete/Redirect/Merge as per So-and-So" is unconstructive. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, this is a vote. What you are talking about would be a Peer Review. --Blake (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, no... see WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD, the second list. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, I get what you are saying now. I agree with you there. Just saying "I agree", "Redirect per above", etc. is sort of cheap and doesnt contribute much to the conversation. Either come up with your own words or dont say anything. --Blake (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying in-universe may not automatically exclude a source from WP:RS, but you can't deny that they're first party sources when the guides are created by Game Freak (as most of the article's guide sources are). You need more sources with real world impact and currently there do not seem to be sources that do this. —Ost (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The game freak sources are primary sources (used for description), and not the ones i'm talking about. Ref #2 (Cooper) is the one on which most of the article is drawn. Ref #4 and Ref #8 (MacDonald and Shlesinger, respectively) are third party authors who felt that the individual pokemon were noteworthy enough to give detailed information on each of them, these sources are given proper weight within the article. I am supporting the article on these three sources alone, the others are there merely for description, as fully allowed by standard guidelines. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of Pokémon (1–20). I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the rest. I'm not seeing anything any significant coverage of the Pokemon that is separate from the rest of them (unlike Pikachu, Bulbasaur, or recently-promoted GA MissingNo.) and also from secondary sources. I have also tried to search and came up empty. MuZemike 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- um... did you notice the second ref (Cooper)? and looking at the refs for those other pokemon articles (excpt pikachu), their refs to "Critical reception" are mostly passing mentions. Here I'm using an entire article all about Blastoise, and it's ridiculous that I have to be defending it. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think you understand, Zapper. The Cooper ref is nothing but a gameguide reference that fails to present any critical discussion on Blastoise. It pretty much just lists its in-universe attributes. Passing mentions are actually fine, as long as they provide critical coverage and they are many of those such reliable and independent sources. This allows an writer to compose a lengthy and comprehensive "reception" section. As a result of many editors' searches, not much information appears for Blastoise. Artichoker^[talk] 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Cooper ref is not a ref to a gameguide (which technically doesn't matter). It's a ref to a magazine about pokemon. Like i stated above, this ref supports two key components to establishing it's notability:

1. It makes an evaluative claim on whether or not it is well-known (Is Blastoise obscure, somewhat well-known, one of the best known?).

2. It gives the reason (Because it's on the cover of one of the first games, and evolves from a starter).

--ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - (ec)One article in a publication is hardly significant coverage, but it does help the text if the article is kept. Maybe a better question is if Beckett's is a WP:RS that has been discussed by WP:VG/S. —Ost (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - actually, Beckett would fall outside of the scope of the Video Game wikiProject as by default the publisher usually works with trading card games. The info they provide relating to the video games is solely related to Blastoise. being familiar with the topic myself, i found it generally accurate, making fewer technical errors than most mainstream outlets when discussing pokemon. If you'd like, you can pick one up at Wal-Mart right now and have a look-see. Your assertion that an article within a publication does not constitue significant coverage runs counterintuitive to the notion of coverage that is "more than trivial" which is usually meant to include passing mentions - not full articles. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment - would it help if i added the author's opinions on Blastoise? I personally don't feel most author's reviews are accurate descriptions of how the general population would describe a given subject (and one always has to take those things with a grain of salt), but if editors here feel that putting something like this would improve the article, I would go ahead:
- Blastoise's role in the video games has been described as an "impressive... tank", and compared with Wobbuffett except, "that it can actually defend itself".

--ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article is reliable and provides said significant independent coverage (it's print so I cannot readily access it right now), but are there other sources out there that can provide similar or more (critical real world) coverage of Blastoise? MuZemike 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you are saying that that is a good reference, but there needs to be more? --Blake (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps, but as i will readily admit, there is likely nothing online that someone can do with a google search (or this would have been settled long ago). Finding more sources would require real-outside-work and i think i personally did enough in finding these two (the MacDonald one was from the old version) that i shouldn't have to be fighting it in an AFD. Presuming I'm not pulling these sources out of my ass (and i have a spotless editing record here), the existence of these sources satisfy WP:N and it's an open and shut case. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20) - Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources needed to establish notability. Edison (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed redirection makes no sense because Pokemon 1-20 have no notability as a group, being an arbitrary selection, contrary to WP:SYN. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly a notable character in this multi-billion dollar series. Enough valid information to fill an article, so no reason to erase 90% or more of that and shove what is left into another article. Keep, not merge or redirect, which are the same as delete in most cases. Dream Focus 11:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of material and references for an article about this important character in an important series. — brighterorange (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. The sources usable for GNG provide excellent references for Pokemon (as creatures) on the whole. If there are several independent real-world-focus articles such as The Observer one, with Blastoise as their primary subject, then I'll be convinced that an individual article is required. Marasmusine (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the article does not have to meet your own personal requirements in addition to WP:V and (to a lesser extent) WP:N. articles about dogs are focused on animals, articles about apples are focused on food, articles about Blastoise can be focused on Pokemon. The video games, anime, etc. exist within our real world (they were created by a real person, i can buy them) just as much as animals and food. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- and doesn't the Cooper one satisfy your requirement? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "articles about dogs are focused on animals, articles about apples are focused on food, articles about Blastoise can be focused on Pokemon." is a somewhat egregious analogy (akin to one made by creationists). Articles about dogs are not focused on animals, they are focused on dogs and are always talked about in an real life, out-of-universe style with plenty of 3rd party (there really aren't any 1st party ones) sources to establish notability. Pokémon is completely different, as it is a fictional topic, and thus must abide by WP:IN-U. The Blastoise article just doesn't have the critical, real-world discussion required for an adequate article. Artichoker^[talk] 16:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In case it wasn't clear, my opinion was based on the WP:GNG. Marasmusine (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Artichoker, before reiterating the same opinion over and over, it would be helpful if you instead addressed my above question as to how the provided sentences do not satisfy the requirements for real-world reception, here's the diff in case you just missed it. Additionally, WP:IN-U is about talking about fictional subjects as if they really existed, not appropriateness of topics or requirements for inclusion.
- Marasumine, from WP:GNG:"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Where are the words real-world-focus articles that you say your opinion is based on? --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable as demonstrated by the numerous sources which reference it. Criticism is not required in an article and so the nominator's premise is false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Criticism"? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. I did say that the article needs critical discussion, which is absolute true, because without it there exists no grounds for notability. In other words, unless an article has coverage from reliable, third-party sources, it is not notable. Artichoker^[talk] 23:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination demands "'critical discussion'". Sorry, but that is just your idiosyncratic view as topics are not required to present opinions, just facts. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fictional topics pretty much have to present opinions as that is how notability is established: the article receives critical coverage from independent sources. And a "Reception" section presents how the character was received (i.e. an opinion.) Artichoker^[talk] 16:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinions are not required. This creature appears in sundry formats - TV, movie, book, game, TCG, etc. The facts of these presentations are quite ample for our purposes and we don't need opinions on whether it is cute, silly or whatever. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because then it's just a bunch of primary sources, which cannot establish notability. Artichoker^[talk] 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no connection between the degree of distance of the source and the way that it approaches the topic. Third-party source can and do approach the topic in a matter-of-fact way. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i find it odd that artichoker is somehow trying to claim the article is then "just a bunch of primary sources" despite the fact that there are three third-party sources in the ref section. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I want to mention that if the article does indeed stay an article, I will be moving some things back over from Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Blastoise. I saved the content before Zap started removing half of it. I think for some reason he thought that the article was being deleted because there was too much in-universe information. Which is silly, because as long as articles have the proper notability, they could be a big giant mess and could still be an article.--Blake (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- actually, that was normal cleanup i would have done anyways, i had mentioned on the project page i would be continuing to work on the article, and i did - plus sometimes it helps in afd discussions if people can see that there are ongoing efforts to improve the article in question, but we can discuss specific content changes on the article's talk page when the smoke settles here. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I added the 2nd lead pharagraph back because that is what every Pokemon species should have. The lead first describes what the subject is in the first pharagraph, and a summary of the article in following pharagraphs. I also added the mention of the two Gym leaders in the anime, and will add to the Manga section once I get to referencing the bit I want to add. --Blake (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (extra rambling by zappernapper, feel free to ignore) the discussion here actually represents quite well the current state of wikipedia in regards to fiction. the discussion has polarized into two factions that cannot compromise, and compromise is the essence of consensus (if you'd like a good book, go through the archives of WT:FICT). blake, you have actually represented consensus very well because despite the fact that you'd like to see each pokemon have it's own article again (which i can empathize with), you can accept that there is a significant group of editors who view that to be detrimental to the encyclopedia, so you compromise. problems arise when editors cannot accept any compromise, taking a firm position, and refusing to believe even a modest concession could be beneficial. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erm, thanks? --Blake (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh yes. When our group of active editors is composed entirely out of varyingly pedantic, obsessive idealists, the use of common sense is commendable. --Kiz o r 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Improperly nominated. There are many reasons to keep and delete, but the one that trumps them all is that the nominator has quite clearly used this AfD as part of an edit war. "18:42, 7 July 2009 Artichoker (talk | contribs) (66 bytes) (going ahead and boldly making this a redirect. no notability, goes against consensus etc. A further revert will result in this article being taken to AfD.) (undo) " Discussion before, during, and after. If there are active editors with opposing views on the article, and if consensus cannot be reached, RfC. Definitely RfC before AfD. AfDs in the middle of, with the nominator a participant in, an edit war, and NO...DISCUSSION...AT...ALL? Incomprehensible. Withdraw the nomination, and ANI may look more kindly upon you. You have 18 hours. Use them wisely. Anarchangel (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I don't believe you know what you are talking about. This AfD was not part of an edit war, it was created to garner a consensus within the community. The result of the AfD should eliminate the content dispute we were involved in. RfC is an unnecessary step when dealing with the notability of an article, as it can simply be taken to AfD: that's what the process is for'. And I'm sorry, but this statement "NO...DISCUSSION...AT...ALL? Incomprehensible." is just plain offensive. It is obvious you have not done enough research before making your bold (and completely fallacious) claims. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon#Blastoise for the extensive dicussion that took place prior to and during this AfD. And of course you end your comment with the portent of ANI; unnecessary, threatening, escalating. If you still believe the report is justified, go ahead. Artichoker^[talk] 16:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd just like to point out that discussions about these species articles have taken place at the project's talk page for months now. The leftorium 16:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but a new discussion has to happen each time new information is found for each Pokémon. You cant just say no Pokemon are notable except the ones we have articles for now. We havent searched for sources for hours on every single Pokemon. Only a select few, and even then, new information pops up everyday. --Blake (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep as disamb page SilkTork *^YES! 21:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tork[edit]

Delete no indication that the subject of this unsourced one-line article is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it vaporware? Abductive (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3. Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this title was previously a redirect to Torque tagged as a redirect from a misspelling. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should probabally just revert it back to the redirect. It seem to be quite plasuable and it has existed as a redirect for almost 15 months.--76.71.214.47 (talk) 23:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revert back to the redirect - Torque~~ per 76.71.214.47. I have removed the A3 tag, which does not apply, since this is a valid stub. I have done searches for sources and have been unable to find anything to establish the notability of this video game, so a redirect is the best course of action. Cunard (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with dab per below. Cunard (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: should this be a redirect to Torque, or a disambiguation between torque and people bearing the surname Tork, including Peter Tork of the Monkees? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think a dab page is a good idea - I'll start one at Tork (disambiguation) which can be moved to the primary title when this AfD finishes if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Looks good to me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to the redirect. The page had a purpose before it was changed, no sense in deleting it as it will probably be recreated as the old redirect anyway. --Taelus (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replace with disambig page as previously stated. --Taelus (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and replace with Tork (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in its present form: restoring redirect would make sense. A fairly brief search on Google produced only one reference to this game, a forum post at [5], which says "We've been developing a racing game named Tork...we hope to finish the project in a short time. Currently, looking for volunteered artists". Clearly a product of amateur programmers, who have presumably put it on Wikipedia in the hope of getting publicity. No evidence of notability at all: in fact if it said a little more it might qualify for a speedy delete as promotional (G11). JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Festival[edit]

Non-notable local event. Appears to fail WP:NOTE. Some GHits but no substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge - Small non-notable local festival, but it could potentially fit in well in its municipalities article. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advert for non-notable local event. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, spammy and not notable. ukexpat (talk) 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, small non notable local event created by User:Pgajames who is one of the directors of the event [6]. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete … pure weapons-grade vanispamcruftisement created by an editor with conflict of interest issues. Happy Editing! — 138.88.7.48 (talk · contribs) _{12:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 01:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lozar[edit]

Delete no indication that the winery which is the subject of this unreferenced one-line article is notable; fails WP:CORP. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One line article, no secondary sources, no indication of notability of the company. didnt find much in an internet search aside from wine reviews Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete same reasons as Ottawa4ever and Carlossuarez46 above.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepunch Studios[edit]

Article appears to failWP:WEB. Although there are a large number of GHits, the site lacks any substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Doesn't meet WP:N.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable web content. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 18:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be speedy per WP:CSD#A7 (web content). Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB Gosox5555 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find trivial mentions. Fails WP:WEB. Iowateen (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete because obvious hoaxes are vandalism. And this was an obvious hoax. It purported to define ragnad as an army sufficiently large to tip the balance in a war with the gods, relating this to Ragnarök. Now, Ragnarök means "fate" or "twilight of the gods"; this would make ragnad mean "D of the gods". Make of that what you will. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnad[edit]

I can't find any information online to verify the existence of this concept, which is purportedly found in Norse mythology. I would expect some scholarly hits. Gonzonoir (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other edits in Special:Contributions/Alt-samuel-fritz do not bode well for this article. ☺ Searching, I can find no indication that this is even a word in English at all, let alone one that denotes the concept stated. This seems to be pure invention from thin air on the part of a Wikipedia editor, in contravention of our Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research policies. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Iowateen (talk) 20:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax. Abductive (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack[edit]

There are no reliable third-party sources to establish this page's notability. The user who added the Amazon reference was well-intentioned, but retailers' websites do not qualify as reliable third-party sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable soundtrack release. treelo _radda 14:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It contains when each tracks are included in an episode, making it a useful resource. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in what way does it meet our content criteria? Or do you just like the page? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering treelo has put this up for deletion the same day I use the equality arguement, it makes it even more notable than before. As ever, full of crap to filter information, instead of being neutral. 86.139.225.200 (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? If you noticed, this specific AfD was done several days before mine which I withdrew because this already exists but not on the back of your argument at all. It's equality in that both articles aren't any more notable than each other but I'm not sure how that makes either more notable. Also, cut it back with the personal attacks, nobody has insulted you so no need to insult anyone else. treelo _radda 00:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10th July was yesterday. Why don't you stop trying to curtail an information resource? You probably won't answer the question again though as you're too high and mighty. 86.139.141.144 (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Torchwood article. magnius (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reviews on the net by professional reviewers; notability has been established, but needs to be incorporated in the article. — Edokter • Talk • 12:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Edokter's list establishes notability. Rlendog (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 00:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 in heavy metal music[edit]

This article is discussing 2010 in music in July of 2009 - a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Intelligentsium 17:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the way up to 11, with no issue of being re-created in a few months time once some more solid information is available. Lugnuts (talk) 18:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added a bunch more expected releases, making the article more significant. It also doesn't actually violate WP:CRYSTAL. Crystal says, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." - Well, all releases here are sourced, and the subject matter certainly would merit an article had it already happened. If you're going to use that guideline as a basis for deletion, please outline clearly how it actually violates it. 86.129.194.78 (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Korn's ninth studio album to the listKMFDM FAN ^(talk!)

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL all the way. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How is it WP:CRYSTAL when it has reliable sources? KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though 2010 is six months away from now, there are many bands planning their own new releases for next year. Mr. Metal Head (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as far as it is properly sourced it does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Mushroom (Talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Some users (i.e. those envoking crystal for delete) should really READ policies before they try to enforce them... 81.155.114.171 (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. I just happen to disagree. Have you read WP:AGF? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Have you? I'm not assuming bad faith (i.e. intent to disrupt or cause harm). I'm assuming that if you feel this "clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL" then you probably haven't read it. And certainly if you give no explanation as to WHY it violates it, then that is the logical assumption. 81.155.114.171 (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the title of the article is the issue here. If it were "2010 Heavy Metal Album Releases" (or something similar) I would have no problem with it fitting into the "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." section of the WP:CRYSTAL section. As the wording stands right now the page is open to all sorts of additional information...even if it's not there right now. Sabiona (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on that. I would move it, but I think since the article is in an AfD debate it would be best to get the opinions of other people first. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that particular bit mentions being about specific events. The events given (so far indeed only releases) are well-documented. But this is just the next in a whole series of "X year in heavy metal music" articles, so it is open to other things (events, reformations, disbandments, etc), but this has always been the case. We don't have any of those right now, but we do have plenty of expected releases. Anyway, to me I think it's fine. The title is open to more, but it will have to be soon enough, and for what it is now there are sources. 87.194.171.224 (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Does not appear to violate WP:CRYSTAL as the article stands right now. Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It has reliable sources cited, and isn't speculating. Brian Reading (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One week old now: 4 "delete"s, 6 "keep"s (and with more reasoning behind them). Time to close? 86.146.158.22 (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Plaster[edit]

Asserts notability as a prolific radio host, but no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep with a disclaimer that I do listen to him every day, so I have a bias. Plenty of sources exist on him...especially during his WTN/104.5 dispute...but my logic goes in a different direction. Do we consider Division 1 play-by-play announcers to be notable? He is the former announcer for both the University of Memphis and Vanderbilt University football and basketball. --Smashville^talk 19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but beef up the article. I've never heard of this guy (he's not in my part of the state), so I don't have that kind of bias. A quick Google search turned up a lot of hits on his name. Many were on websites for stations that run his show or teams for which he does play-by-play, so they aren't purely 3rd party. Many more were blogs, so they aren't reliable sources. Additionally, he's often quoted in news stories (most recently in stories about Steve McNair's death). I did find a couple of print articles that are mostly about him that could be cited in the article, but since there were discrepancies with details in the articles, I simply documented the links on the talk page (let someone more knowledgable sort them out). Based on all that, I concluded that Mr. Plaster is notable, but we still need the sources to show it. Additionally, I discovered that there is a George Plaster bobblehead doll (I suppose that's some sort of indication of notability!), which I documented in the article. --Orlady (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Plas bobblehead was a big hit at the Sounds game it was given away at. I was thinking the fact that I listened to him every day might cloud my judgment on this one...so I strayed from a full-on keep. --Smashville^talk 15:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Plenty of sources exist; many are from the Nashville Banner (where there is much coverage of him), but not entirely. I've added a few just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as per the concerns raised in this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Block in Harlem[edit]

Non-notable book. No third-party reliable sources found. The article's creator appears to be affiliated with the publisher judging by the editor name. bonadea contributions talk 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book was published two months ago and I can't find any reviews or substantial informations on it. We don't have an article for author and quick Google Search reveals, that he isn't notable enough. It looks like a self-promotion. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a real book. The ISBN number is: 978-0-578-02068-6 You can see a copy at: http://www.canalpublishing.com Also, it is available on Amazon at: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Block-Harlem-ebook/dp/B00295S4VQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246984267&sr=8-1 Also, it is currently being sold at St. Mark's Books and Housing Works Bookstore in NYC.— Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC).

Yes, I believe that the book is real, but this is not the point here. Try to look here for better understanding the criteria, please.--Vejvančický (talk) 16:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I guess you only take books that were produced in a giant corporate structure. This is a ligit publishing company and a ligit book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

May I ask you to please read the information provided to you by Vejvančický? Because the link in Vejvančický's comment explains why the article is not acceptable, and that has nothing to do with "giant corporate structures", nor has anybody doubted for a second that the book or the publishing house exist. --bonadea contributions talk 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. Though in order for all of that to happen for a book, you need to go through a major publisher and pay to have your book in stores. I think that with the advent of indi publishing, the rules should change. Why not? I have my book in bookstores, and selling it to the public, have it on Amazon, and trying to make it outside of the corp. world. Check me out. It is ligit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — Canalpub (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Per WP:NBOOK, being sold through a website such as Amazon does not confer notability. A Google search for "'The Last Block in Harlem' book" returns only 257 results, none of which are from reliable sources; searches using Google News and Google Books return no results at all. Also, User:Canalpub has a name very similar to the name of the book's publisher, Canal Publishing, which indicates a conflict of interest.--Unscented (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my publishing company. What is wrong with that? should I do it under a different name? I have been trying to get listed in Google and cannot. I do not know their formula. It's driving me crazy. If you Google Search Canal Publishing, then I am on the top of the list. Soon, the book will be getting reviews. The post I put about the company and the book are completely objective. Just stating facts. Come on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 20:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet notability at present. If it gets written up in the Times or other relevant media, then perhaps it'll be worth an article then; right now, this looks like a promotional effort. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the internet changing what is thought to be "Relevant Media?" After all, the Times and other papers like it are going under because people do not consider them to be news enough to keep purchasing. I hear what you are saying though. This is not a promotional effort. The book is being read and reviews are coming. Give the little guy a shot!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 21:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I own a small publishing venture with seven books to its credit. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article (and has never had one), because it isn't notable.
The reason why we can't "give the little guy a shot" is because if we didn't have guidelines like notability, we'd be drowning in millions of articles from people alive to the marketing possibilities of Wikipedia and who see our encyclopaedia as offering free webspace for their promotional material. Delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NBOOK. Gnews shows nothing, Gsearch hits are mostly blogspot or wordpress. An article can be created if the book becomes notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by the creator's own admission this is a very new book, and as such i find it hard to say it is automatically notable. Notable works are those which have generated comment from third-party sources. Come back in six months and if you managed to generate enough buzz elsewhere it might be appropriate here. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will tell you this. When the title becomes huge, you can be sure that you will remember this thread. I love the open discussion here and the democracy generated by the users. All of you are clamoring for deletion while the book is gaining steam here in New York. Whatever you decide I will abide with. Let me ask, if somebody, one of the people who have read the book wanted to write an article on it, what would you all say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read "writing my first article" to see how and when to create articles. Subjects of Wikipedia articles will have to meet the general notability guideline and the content of the articles has to be verifiable through reliable sources. When you think these requirements are satisfied, you can recreate the article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possibly a speedy delete as G11, entirely promotional--there can be no other purposes than that, for this is not a notable book, not being even in WorldCat at all, nor with any newspaper reviews. When the title becomes huge, and there are good published 3rd party reviews, then someone can write the article.It doesn't particualrly matter who it is--it matters whether there is any evidence of notability. DGG (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. Therefore, I invite you all to my site: http://www.canalpublishing.com to read the first 3 chapters of the book for yourself. Perhaps you will like it, order a copy for yourself, and then write a review? There are a few reviews coming out in the next few weeks, so I will wait and let the web take its natural course. Please feel free to keep this thread going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canalpub (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete, non-notable book. That's it. Drmies (talk) 04:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Reel Big Fish. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buy This![edit]

Non-notable demo album. Fails WP:NALBUMS:

"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources" KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 15:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:Merge to Reel Big Fish--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reel Big Fish. Non-notable demo, not enough independent coverage. Malinaccier P. (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was merge into Billy Mays. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

List of products that Billy Mays pitched[edit]

Violates WP:NOTDIR - Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. I understand people were entertained by this guy (for some reason), but this really is recentism at its peak. I doubt anyone is going to care what commercials this guy was in in a year or two's time. I don't believe this to be analogous to filmography for, all respect for the dead, real performers. We keep track of those things for just about anyone (or, at least, we can and it would be entirely reasonable), but we don't keep track of commercials that people have been in, even for people known partly for being in commercials - show me List of products endorsed by Peyton Manning or List of products endorsed by Michael Jordan. You can't, because those aren't reasonable articles. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost entirely unverifiable, violates WP:NOTDIR. But call now and you'll receive not one, but two WP:IINFOs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was created as a split from the Billy Mays article once the list in his infobox got too long. I took the liberty to make sure everything was sourced from reliable sources, so WP:V shouldn't be a big deal. Dealing with the WP:WAX, this is different from Michael Jordan because Billy Mays is a pitchman who built his career pitching for products, which MJ is an athlete. "I doubt anyone is going to care what commercials this guy was in in a year or two's time", so now you have a crystal ball and can look into the future? Your doubts shouldn't be a reason to delete an article. Besides, musicians have discographies, this isn't different from it. Tavix | Talk 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-We could delete this article, and make a new section in the billy mays article called "Things Billy Mays was best known for pitching" or something. We should mention some of the things billy mays pitched, but not every single one. And in reply to Tavix, yes musicans have discography's, but the discography's have information on the things the musician is notable for. The discography's don't have EVERYTHING the musician has it's name on, such as bootleged albums. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 20:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How is this any different than an actor's filmography? If Tom Cruise can have one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cruise_filmography), why cant Billy Mays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.5.7.4 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because Cruise's filmography doesn't include commercials.KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Cruise did MOVIES. He didn't do commercials or was he known exclusively for doing them. Tavix | Talk 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page listing the products that Billy Mays pitched is very important. I was looking for a list and this was the most concise list that I found. To say that such a list is not needed in Wikipedia articles is not only incorrect, but there are other lists, such as Law and Order, that highlight every single episode made, who was in them, and the content of the show. How is that different from listing "episodes" or infomercials that Billy Mays made? Please keep this page! And if someone could tell me how to add my vote to keeping this page, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks 3skinny (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC) — 3skinny (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: copied from article's talk page.[reply]
~~Keep~~ It's a list of what this notable person is known for. It should be possible to find sources for the items that don't have them right now. ReverendWayne (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Merge per GVOLTT. I didn't catch that the material had been in the infobox. Making it a section would be appropriate. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Billy Mays' article. It shouldn't be in his infobox (didn't even know that the products were listed there to begin with), but rather its own section, and having an article on a pitchman without describing at least some of the products he pitched would feel a bit empty. --GVOLTT ^{How's my editing?}\_{My contribs} 01:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Billy Mays The infobox may have been too long, but there is no reason the article itself can't have the section. Eauhomme (talk) 05:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is fine and makes perfect sense. The list is obviously significant within the context of Mays himself. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 13:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Billy Mays Not notable enough to be its own article, but it should be a subsection of his page. --CF90 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and revert Mays article to the version that had this. If it's "too long for the infobox" then make it a separate section in the article. Otto4711 (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Billy Mays - info on this page is not notable for its own page, but would fit well on his own article. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears notable and useful to me.--WillC 11:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 School_District_38_Richmond. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon Elementary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Currently in the process of redirecting/merging these non-notable school articles. This article is likely controversial, it was kept during an afd in 2006 but the grounds for keeping it failed to cite useful policy matter, and ignored the fact that this article is unsourced and fails WP:GNG and WP:N. Recently a decision related to school articles determined that most Secondary schools are notable and that only a select few pre-secondary schools are notable. Marcusmax(speak) 14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to School District 38 Richmond. Since the previous AfD the standard has changed and is broadly as outlined by Marcusmax. I have examined the sources and agree that this school is not independently notable. However, I don't agree with the approach being taken which is to simply redirect. Redirecting alone is not a merge. What is required is to make a table into which the key information can be merged, possibly as a subsidiary article. TerriersFan (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to School District 38 Richmond. I agree with TerriersFan. The info should be kept at the school district article or a Schools in article and in a format that invites expansion until there is sufficient V, NPOV, NOR content to justify its own article. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have halted all my redirects, I just figured that would be better per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY but merging or deletion is perfectly reasonable as well. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. There's no attempt to justify notability. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thrifty Beatnik[edit]

Delete. Non-notable term, no reliable independent references to the term (other than a clothing store). Possibly WP:NEOLOGISM or WP:MADEUP. WWGB (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism. Yes, it would make a good name for a business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is no reliable sourcing that discusses greek life in UCF so this clearly doesntr meet the GNG Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at the University of Central Florida[edit]

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well organized, decently referenced. (four of the eight references are from UCF, four of the eight are not).Naraht (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Central Florida Future is affiliated with the College Media Network which is simply the online version of the student newspaper. These are all self-published sources that cannot be used to demonstrate encyclopedic notability. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which still leaves two from sites that are very much not SPS.Naraht (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is not encyclopedic, and there is already an article University of Central Florida Housing which tell us where they live. Abductive (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not merge or redirect. The topic is already covered, and the redirect would be unreasonable. If more details are wanted, that's why the university has a web site--as probably do each of the fraternities and sororities. DGG (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the UCF housing article, since that article seems to list only those houses that are in a section called "Greek Park". I recognize that there are some other "Greek Life at..." pages, and I think those should be deleted as well, or merged into an article about student housing (i.e. dorms, frats, and sororities) at a university. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is reasonably well written, and there are non self-published references. The list is indiscriminate, and the article goes into detail about greek life at the nations 5th largest university.--Scpmarlins (talk) 01:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim and merge to UCF article. This most certainly does not belong in the housing article as this topic is much, much wider than just housing. But the complaints about a lack of independent sources seem to be spot on. --ElKevbo (talk) 04:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Ironholds (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to First Rudd Ministry (or whatever the current federal ministry is at the time), as per this AfD and linked discussion. Canley (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current Australian Commonwealth ministry[edit]

Per discussion at Talk:First Rudd Ministry#Cabinet of Australia, First Rudd Ministry, Current Australian Commonwealth ministry, duplication is occurring at Cabinet of Australia, First Rudd Ministry, and Current Australian Commonwealth ministry. Timeshift (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to First Rudd Ministry. Rebecca (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First Rudd Ministry, and in future as needed. The Cabinet of Australia one can be treated similarly but as it's a subsection, a ((main)) or ((details)) template should be used within that subsection. Orderinchaos 11:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 01:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eamon Kavanagh[edit]

No indication that this person meets either WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. It was proposed for deletion in 2007, but the prod was removed on the basis of a BBC article about someone of the same name playing in the semi-professional league in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; he didn't even play a game of professional football and it looks like he never will since he retired Spiderone (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non-notable footballer. --Carioca (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tuan Gemuk Athletic FC[edit]

Fixing incomplete nom by User:Frankie goh with the reason given "Article would have failed the notability criteria, as it is not a professional team nor one playing at the highest non-pro level.Frankie goh (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)". No opinion from me. CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nominator appears to be paraphrasing WP:ATHLETE, which is a criterion for individual players, not clubs. That being said, I can't find any substantial independent coverage from Google web or news searches. I can find no mention of either the team or the league it plays in on the Singapore FA site (the two hits for ESPZEN just list the company as an associate member of the FA). The seriousness with which this team takes it football can be seen from its slogan, but I suppose that shouldn't influence our decision. All the evidence I can find points to this being an unnotable park football team. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable club/organisation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Without prejudice against recreation if something happens to make this incedent retrospectively encyclopedia-worthy. Flowerparty^☀ 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compass Airlines Flight 2040[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and not WP:NEWS. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, pretty minor. WP:AIRCRASH does allow for unusual circumstances, but my £0.02 is that some smouldering towels doesn't really cut it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While a newsworthy event at the time, there is no hint of lasting encyclopedic notability. Reso lute 13:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor incident that was (barely) newsworthy, but not notable. Fails WP:AIRCRASH Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:AIRCRASH :-

General Criteria - It involves unusual circumstances (Cabin crew started fire deliberately) The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions. (The aviation professional was dismissed for his actions)

Air Carrier Criteria - It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier. (Compass Air is a scheduled or charter air carrier) It is the result of military or terrorist action, including hijacking, against a civilian target. This could be seen as a being on a par with terrorist activities. It is the first, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline or aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Maybe it merits a sentence at Compass Airlines, maybe it doesn't. It doesn't merit it's own article though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is somewhat unusual, with a flight attendant deliberately setting fire to paper towels in the bathroom to set off smoke detectors and force an emergency landing, but it's not worthy of its own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now A flight attendant allegedly starting a fire in a commercial airline flight is not the average news story about some minor mishap on a flight, such a "plane drops and passengers shaken up" or "drunk removed from plane." It meets two of the criteria in the essay WP:AIRCRASH in "It involves unusual circumstances" and "The aviation professionals are dismissed or severely reprimanded for their related actions." Fire on an airliner could easily have resulted in the crash of the plane. This event received coverage in May and July 2008[7], and the trial is scheduled for later this year. After the trial we will have the full picture of how notable the event turns out to be. One factor in the event is the practice of letting aircrews bypass security checks, which might have detected the lighter he allegedly took on board. If it is deleted without prejudice it could be re-created later if it gets more coverage and affects security rules. The Shoe bomber failed to detonate the bomb in his shoe, and the result was all passengers having to shuffle through security in their socks or bare feet [8]. Edison (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment keeping this now because it might be notable in the future violates WP:CRYSTAL, a deletion without prejudice would not. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No need to keep because it might be notable in the future. It already is notable. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Note that my Keep argument said it had adequate notability now, as well as noting that the trial has not yet taken place, so it was not a stale matter left in the past. Edison (talk) 21:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I've assessed this article against my draft proposal for a replacement to the current WP:AIRCRASH. As the proposal stands at the moment, this article gets a score of 1 (only very occasionally notable) with a possibility of getting another one when the outcome of the investigation is known; 2 points still doesn't make it notable enough for its own article in most cases. Comments on the proposed criteria would be great on that page. Thryduulf (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment The draft proposal is exactly that, a draft. It has no bearing on this discussion. The article currently meets four (and maybe meets five) criteria of WP:AIRCRASH which has been established for a long time. Mjroots (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until all flight attendants have to be searched for lighters, this has had no impact outside of the individuals involved. Note: had the plane crashed, it may have been notable, but I think that all aboard are quite glad that they weren't involved in that sort of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just not an encyclopedic event, another signal that WP:AIRCRASH needs to be read narrowly if used for guidance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable incident of arson. Notability is determined by reference to independent sources, not by voting here. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ear Works[edit]

Non-notable software product, pretty much just an advertisement, no reputable sources for any of the content, apparently written entirely by the publisher of the software akaDruid (talk) 10:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. --DAJF (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software product, borderline spam. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: All that I can find is two trivial mentions. Fals WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macrodevelopment[edit]

I searched for reliable sources for this evolutionary theory and came up blank. It seems to have some fans in the intelligent design movement, but it's not a notable scientific theory. Fences&Windows 15:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 15:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FRINGE. No independent reliable sources. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism for someone's one man theory: a biological hypothesis that proposes over millions of years the biosphere has nonlinearly unfolded taxa from generic forms to specific forms, in a manner analogous to the way in which a biological embryo develops in the womb. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per, er, everyone so far.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a "scientific theory" that returns zero hits on PubMed, unverifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Most of the arguments for keeping appear to rely on assumptions, novel interpretations or WP:IAR. While there is nothing inherently wrong with such arguments (IAR is policy, after all), it is difficult to afford them as much weight as arguments more solidly grounded in the fact that it lacks multiple sources that are reliable and independent. There are a few arguments for merging but they are not amply persuasive at this point. If someone can identify an appropriate target and obtain consensus at the talk page of said target that a merge there is appropriate I am okay with restoring for that purpose (and I am willing to provisionally restore for the sake of such a discussion if it takes place). Shereth 14:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Blue (Yale University)[edit]

Article about a student group. As attractive as it may look, the topic is non-notable. All sources are from the university website or YouTube. TM 15:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not mistaking 'External links' for 'References'? The majority of the references come from secondary sources -- primary sources have been inserted only where no secondary source exists. (Also, I'm not sure if comparison is an argument in-and-of itself, but Wikipedia pages exist for many other Yale a cappella groups, which makes me think this one should be acceptable as well.) Rofreg 17:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has now been edited such that 5 of the 8 references are external, and from credible sources such as a regional television station and the United States embassy in Ukraine. Equartey (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is very deceiving. Where is the "significant coverage"? The only source that is reliable and secondary is the news channel. Otherwise, everything is published by a school newspaper (either Yale or Choate) or not significant, like the mention on the US embassy website podcast.--TM 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just because Other stuff exists does not make this notable.--TM 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I'm sorry -- I suspected there might be a guideline like Other stuff exists, but I couldn't find it. Thanks for pointing me there. Still, I think this group should qualify as notable, as it's performed on national television and toured internationally, but I understand that as it stands the article is somewhat lacking. I'll attempt to assemble some more notable sources over the next few days. Rofreg (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Althought it seems like this group has been covered by several national and regional television programs it is hard to find sources not hosted by Yale Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to documented media coverage. Assuming the third-party multimedia references are significant, where they are hosted should not be a disqualifying point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An outcome consistent with Wikipedian policies and guidelines would be "Merge to Yale University". Reasoning: Because this is verifiable from reliable sources, WP:PRESERVE tells us we should retain it. But because it lacks coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject, WP:N tells us it should not have its own article. Therefore it should be merged, QED.
However, strong though that line of reasoning is in terms of policies and guidelines, I feel it should be ignored in this case, it being to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so.
Before I begin this next line of argument, I want to mention that it is in flagrant disregard of various arguments to avoid, and my reply is that I'm disregarding the said essay with all due forethought.
I feel we should keep this article because (1) Yale University is already more than long enough, (2) this article is well-written from a neutral point of view and I find it encyclopaedic, and (3) a cost/benefit analysis tells me this article is doing no harm and some good, attracting as it does visitors from a scholarly establishment, so I think it beneficial to retain it.
So overall, keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that this content is verifiable, that the subject fails WP:NOTE, and that it doesn't make much sense to merge this to Yale University for the reasons you've given. But rather than invoking WP:IAR, I think a better course of action would be to create A cappella singing at Yale or something like that, and merge this info there. I haven't looked for sources yet, but I find it hard to imagine that there are not plenty of them available covering the Yale singing group scene, so I strongly suspect that topic is notable. OOTB and the myriad other non-notable groups (both current and defunct) could be mentioned along with the Whiffs and other notable ones, and a discussion of the phenomenon in general could be included. That seems like the best way to handle this content. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~. A while back, I reviewed an article on another (other articles do, of course, exist) college singing group: this one. Unlike this one, that wasn't an a capella group, but there're similarities. I'm sure that one can be further improved, but was sufficient for me to pass it as a GA, and a passing 'crat I checked with concurred. A quick scan of this article shows much the same factors apply:

The group will have independent sources at inter-state or international level covering their appearances, that're sometimes at functions with various dignitaries; naturally there's only so much a source can say in its coverage.
Sometimes a neutral tone can be hard to reach because, inevitably, these groups act as a public relations showpiece for a school. However, it is possible.
Typically, these established groups will have released multiple albums. They may have competed at international level.
The groups may form an integral part of the university's history, or be tied up with its sporting background.

For this reason, they should be covered. Where covering them in sufficient detail would overburden the parent (institution) article, a sub-article is appropriate. For younger groups, or those having done less of note (at least as far as sources report), a brief description in the parent article can suffice. From my scan of the article, in this case that doesn't apply and the article should be kept and improved. –Whitehorse1 14:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Change from "Keep" to "Weak Keep" for now~~. The existing sources are mainly news media, though identifying what the journalists actually said about the group, or perhaps something like including a small quote from the transcript of news audio segment refs would help. –Whitehorse1 15:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Delete. I've wavered here. There are fifteen official Yale a cappella groups, aaand it seems each and every one has an article (inc. the youngest, Shades). Regarding this one, there is coverage. What matters is whether it's substantial (or at least many instances of it), to establish whether the article is sufficiently notable for a standalone article. While sources exist, they must be more than mere mentions. Having searched on Lexis-Nexis as well as Google News I haven't found much: Providence Journal-Bulletin (Rhode Island) March 4, 1998 Foodwise: Watch chef make Atomic Grill's Key Lime pie. Byline: Donna Lee mentions they're performing at "the River Room singing classics of Gershwin, Cole Porter, and Duke Ellington...". From that we can say...Past performances [i.e. 1998] saw a repertoire of classics such as xyz.." That is a mere mention. There's Rita Braver of CBS News, speaking in 2004 (CBS News Transcripts, "Cue the chorus; a cappella groups are enjoying a new popularity on college campuses"), which states collegiate a cappella has enjoyed a surge in popularity in the last decade, and how this can lead to groups vying for audiences. There are 2 or so news items like that, which generally cover the Rush period where students find out if they'll make it into a group. The presenters might speak to them briefly, asking what group they're from, or naming a few people and reporting what group they joined. There are multiple sources, like those, that certainly go further than mentioning Out of the Blue among a list of groups, or note that they're playing somewhere. But I was unable to find real significant coverage on closer inspection of the sources I could find. –Whitehorse1 17:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails every criteria in WP:MUSIC. If sources can be dug up showing that they meet one the criteria, I'll reconsider. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I'd mainly looked at this in terms of WP:ORG, looking at it from the point of view of a 'student org', rather than a 'band'. I'm not saying one approach is more suited than the other. It's just interesting to read how different editors address things! –Whitehorse1 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There aren't really any independent sources to verify information in this article and it is not particularly notable. The article seems mostly self promotional in nature. Rcurtis5 (talk) 22:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteorMerge I agree that the article is clearly self-promotional. The acap singing culture at Yale College is certainly notable enough to justify an article, but most of the individual groups are not. If this content is to live anywhere on Wikipedia, I would think it should live on a page with all of the groups at Yale like it. Unfortunately for this group, this article does not cite and significant sources except the one mentioned and does demonstrate being notable outside of the greater Yale acap culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.120.138 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 130.132.120.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MergeorKeep There are definitely many verifiable sources cited in the article, and a number of the sources seem more than trivial to me. I agree that they have trouble demonstrating significant notability beyond an an cappella sub-culture and their ties to Yale University, but I do not think deletion would be a suitable solution. Many articles related to collegiate a cappella seem to be in similar states of semi-notability (particularly in the case of other Yale a cappella groups, with the major exception being the Whiffenpoofs). To me, the question seems to be whether this group merits their own page, or if they would be more suited for an "a cappella" sub-article of Yale University, along with the other Yale a cappella singing groups. SmudgeTheFirst (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having quickly perused other Yale a cappella groups, I find this to be one of the more encyclopedic, though some of it does come across as self-promotional. I would lean towards Keep if the article could be rewritten and cut down, but again, after perusing the other Yale a cappella articles, I feel there is a bigger concern to be addressed here, as many of the others have been active as articles for far longer than this one, some with much less verifiable/non-trivial content. SmudgeTheFirst (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— SmudgeTheFirst (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Keep: The set of WP:MUSIC criteria by which the group should be judged should be “Others”, since it qualifies under the requirement “For composers and performers outside mass media traditions”. When measuring the group against the five criteria listed under “Other”, however, the unique circumstances of collegiate a cappella must be considered.

Collegiate a cappella often samples music in the ‘mass media tradition’, and so most groups would be hard pressed to fulfill the following:

(2) Has been a significant musical influence on a musician or composer that qualifies for the above list.
(3) Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre.
(4) Has composed a number of melodies, tunes or standards used in a notable genre, or tradition or school within a notable genre.

When discussing ‘notability’, it is helpful to take into consideration how the idea applies in the community under discussion. The largest competition in collegiate a cappella is the ICCA (International Championship of Collegiate A Cappella), and although there are hundreds of a cappella groups, it is groups which appear most often on the ICCA stage that are most recognized. One of the article references is the 2006 Results page of the ICCA website, where the group is listed as placing first in the Northeast Region 2006 ICCA Championship (the group was also awarded for best choreography).

Another measure of notability is the degree to which groups perform with more established artists. Here as well, the group exhibits notability, as evidenced by a reference to opening for the musician Ben Folds earlier this year.

A final measure of notability is the degree to which a group is referred to and consulted as an adequate source of information by reputable third parties. The group under discussion has been interviewed by or performed for WTNH Channel 8, WERS in Boston, CBS News Sunday Morning, and the Jane Pauley Show on NBC. This fact is as reasonably close as a collegiate a cappella group can get to satisfying requirements (1) Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique… and (5) Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.

All the links mentioned appear as documented references in the article. Arguing for deletion on the basis that the group fails to meet the requirements under WP:MUSIC is unreasonable, because the unique circumstances of collegiate a cappella makes it all but impossible for any group (save The Whiffenpoofs, perhaps) to make the cut. When notability is considered in the context of the collegiate a cappella sub-genre, however, the group under discussion performs adequately. Equartey (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC) — Equartey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yilloslime: Equartey, is the creator of the article, notified on their talkpage of this discussion, by the nominator.Whitehorse1 15:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehorse, s/he's still an spa, and the participants in this discussion and the closing admin may wish to take this fact into account. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yilloslime, I'm not disagreeing with the technical accuracy of your point, or suggesting the notice wasn't applicable. I'm not suggesting they haven't made few or no other edits outside this topic; although, they are new. We all know what that tag under a post "suggests" about the account. I only wanted to add a clarifying note for anybody who may be reading the discussion, including any closing admin, to make clear that as the article's creator they had, presumably come here in response to their talkpage notice. –Whitehorse1 16:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with S Marshall about the article lacking significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I consider that to be a reason to delete. PhilKnight (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Scantlebury[edit]

Non-notable actor, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No sources found for this article and even seen in a minor TV roles. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Minor actor lacking any GNEWS or substantial GHits. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. No reliable sources currently available to suport the BLP. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as obvious advertising and a possible copyvio of http://www.quicklockforum.org/pdf/QN.pdf Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HPQN Connector[edit]

No indication of how this product is notable. Reads like an advertisement. Provided references are either primary (to the developers company) or places you can buy the product. RadioFan (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, obvious advertising: The HPQN allows denser packaging and can be rotated 360º while mating, thus it is more flexible.... Because of the fast speed, convenience and high performance, HPQN is in widespread use. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Greenop[edit]

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 11:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)))[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he did sign a contract with the maple leafs as a free agent which is an indication that he likely will be turning pro. However this does not mean hes played professionally and even at the ahl level hed have to play more than a season. Im leaning more to deletion at this pint Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not disputing he will probably eventually play. But he hasn't yet which is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. There have been cases in the past of players having accidents between signing and playing and ending up having never played. -Djsasso (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 14:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Knodel[edit]

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alaney2k (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smashville's reasoning. Brian Reading (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fifth round selections are not notable unless they play a professional game. Fails WP:athlete and doesnt seems to have any notability outside the fact that he was drafted. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry D'Amigo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alaney2k (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but... based on previous precedents on players who have not played professionally not being notable outside of being drafted; however, Id say if he can be merged with the U-18 USA team (does that exist?) that would be more perferable Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levko Koper[edit]

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 11:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on previous precedednts on players who have not played professionally or are notable outside of being drafted Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 14:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barron Smith[edit]

Disputed Prod. Non-notable amateur player who has yet to play professionally so fails to meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:N. Also fails WP:HOCKEY's guidelines for player notablity WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. Can be recreated when/if he plays professionally or otherwise achieves notability. This is just the typical creation of junior players days after they have been drafted which has been shown by consensus time and again to not be enough to satisfy notability. Djsasso (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 11:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per smashville's statement.--Bhockey10 (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Alaney2k (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on previous precedents on players who have not played professionally not being notable outside of being drafted Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 00:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain national rugby league team[edit]

Not notable, fails WP:ORG and purely no sources in this article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I came here intending to huff and puff and insist it was an obvious keep, as an international side, but after a lot of Googling for relevant terms (including in Spanish sports papers like Sport.es, and for the French/Spanish alternative names "rugby de liga" and "rugby a 13"), I was surprised to come up with no coverage at all. No evidence that such a team even exists. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the AfD notice hadn't been added to the article page; I've inserted it with this edit. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've had my eye on this for a while, and for all the time I've spent looking for sources on mainland European rugby league, I've seen nothing at all about a Spanish national side.Rugbyhelp (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence whatsoever that such a team exists. No links are given, and I can find nothing online about a Spanish rugby league team. There is a Catalan rugby league team (for which a page already exists), and there is a Spanish rugby union team, but no rugby league team.--Timtranslates (talk) 18:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I saw this team play twice last year. I'd scan in my ticket but that would probably count as "original research. 174.146.255.7 (talk) 08:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Are you sure it wasn't a rugby union game? Please note there are two types of rugby: rugby league and union. The fact you had to buy a ticket for the game makes me think it must be union, because if a Spanish league side does exist, it must be in its infancy and would have been played on a local field somewhere without the need to pay to get in. Did they have lineouts (see: http://www.solarnavigator.net/sport/sport_images/Rugby_Union_Lineout_WvF_2004.jpg) when the ball went out of play?

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence they exist.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The nom makes a good case, and the article fails on at least two other speedy grounds (no context, and A7) Orderinchaos 12:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced article about a non-notable comic book character. No evidence of existence, let alone notability, provided. Mattinbgn\^talk 10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is a contested PROD, no reason for contesting provided. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt per WP:CSD#G4. Nothing worth keeping here. –Moondyne 12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This can't be speedied because CSD4 only applies to pages deleted via xfd. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per A7 - no indication for importance or significance. So Why 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taj Terra Productions[edit]

This biography of a musical performer has had two speedy tags removed (by the same SPA) and a prod removed by the article creator. Notability is not asserted and I can find no evidence of it from a web search. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, the article creator themselves should not be removing speedy tags anyway. They are also not being helpful, having removed the AfD tag many times now. I will put a new CSD tag on the article and hopefully this will be resolved soon. --Taelus (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming good faith, since the signed-in article creator has not removed speedy tags - that was done by an IP, and though it would be possible to jump to a conclusion about that I was refraining. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been speedy tagged three times now. Both the article creator and the IP removed speedy tags from what I can see in the history. Diffs: [[9]], [[10]], [[11]] --Taelus (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete (Author requested deletion). decltype (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finest Shield Game of them All[edit]

Contested prod. Prod reason: "This term is not notable and hardly verifiable, as only one source actually uses this name apparently (Matches Of The Century by Don Cameron). Nothing about this on Google News or Google Books. If one single commentator uses a term to describe one game, it is far from sufficient to use that for an article. Something should be commonly known under that description to have such an article." Prod contested because "I don't think it should be deleted just because its name has not been common or used, it is a title that could become popular because of this page." This of course is the opposite of what Wikipeia is for: we report what is already notable, we don't make things notable which were obscure. Apart from the one book given above, the term is not in use at all[12][13][14]. Fram (talk) 09:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I usually add my own rationale but Fram's nailed this one. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All deletes with some commments that didn't not change the consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Gurung[edit]

Notability has not been asserted within the article. Associated acts are non notable itself. Apart from that, its Unreferenced and Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Hitro 17:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If no reason has been given for notability, this should go to speedy deletion. Setwisohi (talk) 18:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article has been hanging around for more than 6 months and been edited by 3 or 4 different editors, I opted for AfD for better conclusion. Hitro 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a neutral party, I'm unaware of the subject's notability. However, as per WP:POTENTIAL, if we could get some Nepali Wikipedians to work on it, it might be possible to establish notability. --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you check "Ways to spot article potential'" within WP:POTENTIAL. What made you think that this article may have potential? First of all, if you are not sure of notability, then you should not tag an article with rescue tag just in the hope that some editor may find out something notable about the subject. I do not agree with you. This has been misuse of rescue tag. Hitro 09:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you this: Have you ever bothered to perfrom a simple Google search on her ?. I did exactly that yesterday. While I was able to find some sources within the first few pages, some of them were scattered and therefore I decided to leave it there and engage the RS.These are some sources I found (though there are more)[15] [16]. You have the liberty on thinking whatever you want on my decision to "rescue" the article. --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[17] --Roaring Siren (talk) 09:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had searched for the subject all over internet including Google Nepal.The references you are talking about don't make the subject notable. I hope you do not believe that anything that can be searched over Google should have a separate Wikipedia article. No matter you have thousands of Google hits, you can not be part of encyclopedia as an actor or media personality unless you satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER. I have clearly mentioned in my nomination reason that the subject does not have notable associated act and fails WP:ENTERTAINER. If you go through WP:GOOGLE, it is clearly mentioned there Google (and other search systems) do not aim for a neutral point of view. Wikipedia does. So we can not just depend on an Google Hits. Notability is a major criteria. Please read WP:GOOGLE specially "What a search test can do, and what it can't" then justify your act of tagging this article with rescue tag. I still do not believe that you had any proper reason for tagging this article other than testing the tag because you haven't left any comment at edit summary or AfD page until I asked you to do so. I do find one more article, i.e. Asrar Ahmad Adraak‎, you have tagged with rescue tag without any reason. I respect your effort and view but I clearly do not agree with it as of now. Hitro 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has it occurred to anyone that a contributor to this article, UserNepal (talk · contribs) is a blatantly obvious sockpuppet of article creator NepaliBoy7 (talk · contribs) who was previously blocked for sockpuppetry? Just curious. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Hitro 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't figure out why she's notable, apparently fails WP:ENTERTAINER. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. toyed with no consensus but the argument that the articled meets MUSIC#6 hasn't really been refuted and deletion arguments are based more on GNG then MUSIC Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:00, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baxter (punk band)[edit]

The band has only released one full-length album, is signed to non-notable independent record labels, and has not had any of its songs chart on a major music chart. In addition, the band is not covered significantly in reliable sources. It fails WP:Notability (music) Tim meh 03:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete including the three albums which I added. No notability per WP:MUSIC besides an otherwise notable member. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BAND criterion #6, with two notable members. The Chicago Tribune mentions their connection to Rise Against; I added that source just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#C6. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 10:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those who said keep under criterion #6 of WP:BAND should note that Neil Hennessy may not be notable. I've done a Google News search and found no significant coverage of him. Timmeh 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a member of multiple notable bands, Neil Hennessy is notable enough for our guidelines. (And that is documented in independent sources.) I know, it's the difficulty with these sorts of music articles when they come to AfD—we're suddenly having to research the potential notability of multiple articles' subjects all at once. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources you listed don't do much more than mention Hennessy, with three of four being Punknews.org articles. I think it may be wise to ignore the "two or more ensembles" criterion in this case; even though he is in at least two independently notable bands, it seems that he has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. An article on Hennessy likely wouldn't make it past stub class. Timmeh 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think he's sufficiently notable, as there are multiple brief but non-trivial mentions. There is also coverage of him in the Daily Herald (May 30, 2008. p. 5 and Jun 6, 2008. p. 5 – both articles talk about him being a member of The Lawrence Arms and of Smoking Popes). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suggest you take a look at the closing rationale for a similar AFD I nominated here. I think King of Hearts makes a very good point in his closing explanation. Just because reliable sources mention someone in terms of their involvement in a notable band does not necessarily mean the member is independently notable. Tim meh 19:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I did see that, and it is a reasonable position to take (as is your position), although I'm not sure why that one wouldn't have been closed as a "redirect". One difference, though, is that multiple third-party sources have made mention of the connections with these artists, which I believe was not the case with the related articles in that other AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe it wasn't closed as "redirect" because the band contained two members with articles. We'd be introducing bias if we redirected to only one or the other. You do have a good point about the sources, which makes me realize my case isn't rock solid. I'm sort of a deletionist, so maybe I'm biased when it comes to this, but I still believe the mentions of Hennessy are not significant enough to pass WP:N. Anyway, although we may differ in opinion on this particular case, you sure do make a good effort to rescue articles, and I applaud your good work. :) Tim meh 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I dont find the notable connection. WP:NOTADVOCATE. The artist referred to dont seem to quite reach up to notable so far. I did find one australian web news article reference. Tim McIlrath -article has lots of references, but mostly about gig dates, and do not really make for documentation on notable events, or musicians. Mindless lists of band members changing or tour and recording dates do not meet criteria for Wikipedia:Notability. Promo material belongs on other sites. Casimirpo (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Music (C6), and has RS with sufficient notability for inclusion. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidson Force[edit]

I have nominated this page for deletion because I believe it was created in error. The creator was referring to Kisdon Force in the same area on the River Swale, and I believe that Kidson Force does not exist. Mick Knapton (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It gets several hits from Google including Yorkshire Walks so appears to be correct rather than Kisdon Force which is further east. Keith D (talk) 13:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK Keith, I think it is a typo in that article, as the photo labelled "Kidson Force near Keld" is actually of Kisdon Force (I've been there). Its a similar photo to the top one in the Wikipedia article for Kisdon Force taken by me showing the main cascade and the top one in the background. However if you think Kidson Force exists I respect your decision but it is certainly not marked on the large scale Ordnance Survey maps. Mick Knapton (talk) 21:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kisdon Force as a likely misspelling. Note that the reference cited in the article uses the spelling "Kisdon." Deor (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kisdon Force per Deor. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are two separate waterfalls. Kisdon force is at 54° 24′ 14.35″ N, 2° 9′ 26.26″ ;, Kidson Force is at 54° 24′ 4″ N, 2° 10′ 0″ W. No need for a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above: ::That co-ordinate for Kidson Force is almost 500 metres South West of the River Swale on the B6270 road near Thorns Farm, how can it be a waterfall on the River Swale with a co-ordinate of almost 500 metres away from that River. Try looking on Ordnances Survery Get a Map. Mick Knapton (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Using the coord link on the page, then following the Geograph link, it brings us here], just to the west of a small stream where I'd suggest that the waterfall is. Mjroots (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting link that, it shows six photographs of Kisdon Force and one of "Kidston Force" which is obviously a picture of Kisdon Force. Why does the article say a "Small waterfall on the River Swale" if its on a small side stream. The photograph in the article does not look like a small side stream. Why not just admit it that its a spelling mistake. Ever been to Swaledale, I go there regularly. Mick Knapton (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may have driven through Swaledale at some point. I was going by the coords given in the separate articles. I accept that I may be wrong here, needs a local expert. I'll ask at WP Yorkshire. Mjroots (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting discussion Mjroots. My final point at this time, is that if it does exist and is not shown on the large scale Ordnance Survey map it could be deemed as not notable and could be deleted on Notability. All the other waterfalls on the Swale around Keld are marked, even the small East Gill Force is marked as a "Falls". Regards Mick Knapton (talk) 10:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The link here suggests that Kisdon and Kidson Force(s) are two different waterfalls. Hitro 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those entries are based on our List of waterfalls of the United Kingdom (which includes both names because of the existence of the article we're discussing here). All that the EyePlorer page suggests is confusion on Wikipedia. Deor (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Bad !!!! :( Hitro 16:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Deville (Talk) 02:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rele[edit]

Article about a musician that doesn't assert or provide evidence of notability; I've been able to find none via Google Search. A PROD tag was removed by the article's creator, whose username suggests he has a conflict of interest. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm unable to locate a RS. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. APK coffee talk 10:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible for a Speedy Delete A7? Article says the subject wrote songs for a famous musician and has nothing to back it up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even a stub. WP:NOTADVOCATE, no references, 0 news articles on google with "Matthew Rele", not (yet) notable historically. Casimirpo (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNG Refueling Station in Gujarat[edit]

WP:NOTE. Article covers one petrol station, not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete quicker than I can refuel my car. For policy WP:Indiscriminate. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not sure whether this covers one gas station in Gujarat, or a whole series of them. Either way, there's no showing that any of these businesses are notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Page was once deleted by PROD once before, six months ago, under the title CNG Refueling Stations in Gujarat, same creator. So titles might be worth salting. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brownge[edit]

Prod contested by IP (only edit) without improvements or edit summary. Prod reason: "Neologism that hasn't received any significant attention in reliable independent sources yet. The two external links at the bottom are completely unrelated (and not reliable anyway), leaving us with a video of someone who coined the word. This is insufficient to be included in Wikipedia". Brownge has not received attention in reliable independent sources, with no Google News hits[18][19] or Google Books results[20][21]. Fram (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a neologism that doesn't appear to have gained traction; no reliable coverage under the equally charming synonym "brounge" either. Gonzonoir (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. This word, under either spelling, does not appear to meet Wiktionary's Criteria for inclusion so don't bother transwikiing it. Note that "Brounge" is seemingly a common OCR error for Brouage, a place in France. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism lacking sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Cnilep (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. No mention at all that I can see in reliable sources. Also, two links at the bottom seem to be commercial links. If this somehow survives, they likely need to be removed. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 West Java airliner crash[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and not WP:NOTNEWS. Only a minor airliner accident appeared in local news. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 07:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a MINOR accident? This is hardly four or five wiped out in a car crash. Twenty-four people, though I like many others hate the idea of using a body count, makes pretty much any accident notable. WP:AIRCRASH states "Loss of life is not necessarily a valid criterion" and the key word is 'necessarily'. Twenty-four is easily enough. To use a touch of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which I know isn't really valid, 2009 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash was on WP:ITN when the death toll was being reported at twenty-six; no-one questioned notability that I can see. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that accident (2009 Pakistan Army Mil Mi-17 crash) was notable because it was a large loss of life from a alleged terrorist action rather than a military training accident. Rcurtis5 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Large loss of life in an accident is definitely notable. -Marcusmax(speak) 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Both of these keep comments make a WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE argument with regard to the amount of people killed which by itself does not make an article notable. Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well guess what Essays are not policy (okay that was a joke) but seriously per WP:AIRCRASH fatalities are important in determining if an article is notable, other than this WP:N will take care of the rest using the independant sources I provided.-Marcusmax(speak) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THISNUMBERISSOHUGETHATITISANUNUSUALCIRCUMSTANCE is an essay, though Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only saw that after posting, I thought it was a guideline in WP:AVIATION. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All the information is this stub article should be moved to the list of incidents related to this particular model of airplane (Fokker_27#Notable_accidents). Enough content and sources on this incident do not exist to enable the creation of a separate article and everything is this article can easily be expressed in a bullet on the incidents list. In addition the inclusion of the phrase "airliner crash" is misleading as it suggests this was a commercial flight when in actuality it was a military transport. Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't realize the plane crash was already included in the bulleted list in Fokker_27#Notable_accidents because the dates conflicted, I fixed the date in the Fokker 27 article. All the data from the 2009 West Java airliner crash is replicated in Fokker_27#Notable_accidents therefore this article is superfluous and should be deleted Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine and such but this is common practice when a major incident involving loss of life happen tipically there is a separate article and then a smaller version of the article is listed at the aircraft or airline page. In this case the article needs an expansion, infobox and better sourcing all of which the WP:AVIATION will likely be able to do. If references are needed then use these [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. Issues remain, first off this should be renamed as this was not an airliner as the article suggests. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the essay on notability in WP:AIRCRASH focusing on the section on military aircraft this article is not notable. Every reference included here contains very little information because there was nothing unusual about this accident to make it notable in the media. It is important to remember that a loss of life aboard a military training flight is not particularly unusual especially as one of the articles you mentioned discusses Indonesias relatively poor safety record. In addition all of the references provided will not provide enough information for this article to grow beyond a stub. I agree this incident should be included on the plane model's incidents section (Fokker_27#Notable_accidents) but it is simply not notable and out of the ordinary to have its own article. Rcurtis5 (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - military accidents are not normally notable, summary at Fokker F27 and List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (2000–present) is all that is required. MilborneOne (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This accident, although involving a military aircraft, is sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In addition to the 7 sources above I will add a few more in; [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37] There is easily enough here for a DYK and we should look to expand this as a whole. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources added to this article which easily demonstrate passing WP:NOTABILITY. And an accident involving a national air force that includes 24 fatalities is not "minor."--Oakshade (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rcurtis5. This seems to be the most logical way to handle the situation. Tavix | Talk 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Given the death toll and the news coverage, this is clearly a notable air crash. 174.146.255.7 (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep simply on the basis that Indonesian air safety issues are significant and notable in themselves - with loss of life or non commercial flights - even more so - there may be general notability issues for the wider wikipedia - in the Indonesian context it is better an article than being subsumed into a non country specific list SatuSuro 11:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like perfect reasoning to merge this to an article about Indonesian air safety issues. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would have thought the opposite - there is no such article - each crash is treated separately as an article as the issue of Indonesian air safety has a wide range of factors (it would not be easy to synthesise the range of contributing factos) - the current category hardly touches the full range of actual air crashes in Indonesia over the last 50 years - if anyone ever decides to create an accurate list of Indonesian air tragedies - that is another issues again and not relevant to this afd - an article would require very good local knowledge - and as fas as I can see at most afds - there is little or no knowledge about Indonesia and its context Satu Suro 13:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You know, if 24 people were killed in an airplane crash in Indiana, there would be no question about keeping the article. But if it happens in Indonesia, on the other side of the world, it's "minor", right? Bad news, there were 24 people killed. But the good news... it wasn't anybody you know. Mandsford (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no-brainer, and Mandsford's observations are insightful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled debut album by Jason Castro[edit]

Violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article itself doesn't seem quite sure that the album will be released in the fall of 2009. No source is given that mentions the exact date. And almost all of the sources are blogs and Twitter. Knowing how these things goes, it could be literally a year before anything is released. Just way way too vague and early for this User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to remaking the article when more information is available. Also consider the TenPoundHammer principle -- the album doesn't even have a confirmed name or release date. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this is when we send for the Wp:HAMMER (especially with no title or release date). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chloe Sonnenfeld[edit]

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. most of the coverage relates to passing mentions for appearing in 1 movie [38]. LibStar (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with LibStar. The article fails WP:ENT and I'm unable to locate a RS (other than brief mention related to her role in RV (film)). APK coffee talk 10:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:BLP1E. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Though she's been acting since 1997, her career is quite minimal... as yet too brief to have any decent sourcing for the BLP. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Schmidt. Iowateen (talk) 03:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volha Satsiuk[edit]

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO. nothing on google news [39] and google search is mainly mirror and directory listings for appearing in Junior Eurovision. so WP:ONEVENT also applies here. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She has done more than one event. There is information available if you search in Russian. She's been recognized by newspapers (as quoted in the sources), and appeareed on TV numerous times. She has done music commercially, as she has relesed at least one music video (as shown by simple Youtube searches). Placed high in competitions. Clearly notable according to WP:MUSIC! Moorvis (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Moorvis claims there is notability and I'll AGF, but I don't see it. Yes, I know that non-English sources are valid, but the whole "search in Finnish/Russian/Czech/whatever" idea always annoys me. This is the English WP, not the Russian one. I can't WP:V a source that I can't read. So while notability may be there, if it the notable coverage is in a language I can't read, I can't verify it, so it fails WP:V for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your point. But the correct solution would be to add the citations, not deleting. By deleting all the current work gets lost and that if something would discourage editors to improve articles. I don't just have time to do it properly at the moment (I don't know russian either), but it seems clear to me that she is nationally notable. Being English Wikipedia means that the articles are in English, not that the persons have to be notable in the English-speaking world. Moorvis (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of verifiability isn't that every reader should be able to understand every source used. I probably wouldn't understand the sources used in "polymerase chain reaction" or "exogenous growth model" but that doesn't mean that the sources are not verifiable, just that it needs some expertise in the field to verify them. I happen to have a reasonable understanding of Russian, so, for me, Russian sources about a non-technical subject are more verifiable than English sources about technical subjects in areas where I have no expertise. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it presents things in a manner, whether a language or a register, that is more understandable to the readers than its sources. If we were to limit ourselves to sources that everyone can understand then this would be a very dumbed-down encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've added a reference to a source that confirms the main claim to fame, but I don't see that that's enough for notability, and looking through the sources found by a search in the cyrillic alphabet I can't see anything beyond passing mentions. I can't claim to have a great knowledge of Belarusian language (despite having spent a month on a language course in Minsk in 1978), but from my knowledge of related languages I can make enough sense of those sources to see that they don't provide substantial coverage of the subject. I would encourage Moorvis to identify any print sources that contradict this argument. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Chali Sasariye[edit]

Fails to show notability (WP:NOTFILM) and I'm unable to locate any RS. APK coffee talk 06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am sorry to say but if you want, you can delete this. As this movie is in regional language and that also in 1988. So I can't give any online proof to show you that how much importance of this movie in Rajasthan. In my town (population is more than 15000), but you will find internet only in one or two places. That will also opened sometimes to see the exam results or any other purpose. Then how can all information can be availble online. Some can see wikipedia, but here also if like this will happen then what will be the source for the information. I am not doing mis-use of wikipedia.
If you want to see the importance then you can come to Rajasthan villages and can ask them if they know about this movie. Still you can see the popularity of songs of this movie. Thanks for your support.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One indication of its encyclopaedicity is the fact that it already has an article in another encyclopaedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMHO, it still doesn't meet the notability guideline. The source you've added is helpful, but "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." (emphasis mine) I still can't find a newspaper article discussing the movie, but maybe someone else will have better luck. APK coffee talk 14:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? So since Wookiepedia and Conservapedia are "encyclopedias" in the same vein as this one, everything in them is automatically notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, in this case, really. Please place your comments in chronological order and please refrain from constructing plainly silly straw men based upon clearly false premises. The encyclopaedia referenced is neither Wookipedia nor Conservapedia, nor is it authored in the same manner. And it is one indication of encyclopaedicity, as I wrote. Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that you've decided to throw WP:CIVIL out the window ("silly straw men", "clearly false"), I'll do my best to not to respond to you in the same ignorant manner you used. I will continue to place my responses near the edit I am commenting on. It is logical to do so. As for the avoidance dance that you did while trying to misrepresent what I actually said...you said inclusion in "another encyclopaedia" indicates its encyclopaedicity. I pointed out two examples of encyclopedias that disprove that statement. I'm sorry that you missed the point or that your feelings got hurt when your fallicy was exposed (take your pick as to which one it was). If you have any other gripes or complains about where I place my responses or feel the need to make anymore personal attacks, please move to my talk page and stop littering this dicussion with your grafitti about your opinions about my choice of locations to respond. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single mention is a book, "encyclopedia" or not, doesn't sound like "multiple independent sources" to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An article is not a "mention". You clearly haven't looked to see what is in the encyclopaedia. (Ironically, the film is mentioned, in other articles in the same encyclopaedia.) Nor do you give any indication of other instances of looking, including looking for sources yourself, as would be reqiured to underpin an argument that the encyclopaedia article cited was the only source in existence. Did you make any such effort? What effort did you make? What did you look for and what did you find? Uncle G (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference itself states that the article on this film is contained on a single page, so I called it a mention. I really don't care if you like my choice of wording or not. Further, other "mentions" (your choice of words, not mine) are irrelevent to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that to keep an article in encyclopaedia, do we need a single person's choice or if it follows the required citation, then there is no question for notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lalit82in (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article has enough sourcing to show it as the most successful Rajasthan film in the period from 1990 through 2005. Considering the area is not known for their film industry, I am encouraged to remember WP:CSB and that it does not matter to wikipedia that it might not made splash headlines in the New York Times. Anybody have a copy of the 1988 Rajasthani Gazette, or whatever non-English sources covered their most successful film in 15 years? And has anyone checked the various spelling permutations that occur with translation to English? The article may never be more than a stub, but it's an acceptable and encyclopedic stub. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The movie is one of most successful and popular Rajasthani language films. I have grown up in Rajasthan and can vouch for its popularity and notability. There may not be hundreds of thousands of internet citations because the internet was not in much use then in 1989 and even now in that region. Please read 438 and 446 of Encyclopaedia of Indian cinema By Ashish Rajadhyaksha, Paul Willemen, National Film Archive of India to know more about the film.Shyamsunder (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above plus the fact that the movie created a history in Rajasthan cinema as it ran for 100 days. Salih (talk) 13:04, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Pelosi[edit]

Footballer who apparently fails WP:ATHLETE. Although he started his career at Hearts, he never played in a competitive match per Soccerbase or London Hearts. He played in pre-season friendlies and was only an unused substitute in a few SPL matches. Subsequent to that he played on loan at East Fife and then Raith Rovers, who were playing in either of the two lower semi-professional divisions of the Scottish Football League. Not otherwise notable. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It doesn't matter that he fails WP:ATHLETE because he passes WP:N with significant media coverage such as [Looks notable to me [40]. Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he easily fails the notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH, having never played in a fully-professional competition. Also fails WP:GNG, as there are no secondary sources about his playing exploits. An article on the BBC website about recovering from injury is far from meeting general notability guidelines, the BBC gives thousands of short articles about non-notable footballers. --Jimbo^[online] 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Holmes[edit]

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. only 1 gnews hit for appearance on Coronation St (his supposed claim to fame) [41]. LibStar (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to fail WP:ENT. A small part in a show isn't notable. Other appearences are trivial. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found that one article too. Cannot find enough else to source the BLP... even for his theater work MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 01:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frontside Promotions[edit]

Article has no independent sources, and was so-tagged since Dec 2008. So, it fails WP:CORP. Article is mainly promotional. They've worked with famous groups/people, but so have lots of other non-notable organizations. Rob (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Rob (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems like they worked with a lot of well known and famous artists on a professional level, but it sounds kind of like name throwing. Should have more research to keep it alive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlh56880 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. I presume that a publicity firm will know the value of Wikipedia for search engine visibility, and as such lawyering over their notability is a side issue when the article in question also reads like obvious advertising: ...an independent promotions company in Vancouver, BC, specializing in all areas of the music industry, including but not limited to Commercial/non-Commercial Radio Promotion, Publicity, Street/Lifestyle Marketing, Online Marketing, and Artist Management. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the umlauted editor above. Obvious advert, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Keep. As the primary purpose of a promotion company is to help promote the client's brand over that of the company itself, there will necessarily be fewer independent, secondary sources describing Frontside with which to work. That being said, I have come across articles on Frontside, and it is my intention to prove notability based on what I was able to find.

That the wording reads like an advertisement is something that can and will be changed, but I do not believe that this justifies the deletion of this article. First and foremost, Frontside Promotions Group IS the largest independent promotions company in Canada. This statement is based on the fact that the promotion for most major U.S. artists is either handled in-house by an artist's record label or through a U.S.-based promotion company. It is also based on Frontside Promotion Group's client list, which includes Motley Crue (publicity, radio promotion, and Crue Fest promotion), Barenaked Ladies (publicity and radio promotion), Sum 41 (radio promotion), and Hinder (radio promotion). Frontside is also hired by the Canadian government to promote Canadian Blast ([42], [43]), a government-led initiative that highlights Canadian music internationally through media and live performances.

Aside from a list of clients (that can be found in this article), the most relevant evidence for the notability of Frontside Promotions Group would be their radio chart numbers (Billboard, Nielsen BDS, & Mediabase certified), and I will post those numbers once I have received them. As of now, I only know that Frontside has brought Sum 41, State of Shock, Drowning Pool, The Airborne Toxic Event, Metric, The Midway State, and Hinder to Top 20, Top 10, and #1 spots. Exact years and highest rank on radio charts per track will be posted when they are made available to me. Evidence of affiliation can also be found for the following artists: The Proclaimers (prominently featured at the bottom), State of Shock (within the biography), and House of Doc.

External organizations that have recognized Frontside's work include:
- SOCAN (Canada's Performing Rights Organization), for whom managing partner Gary McDonald has given lectures on marketing as well as presented for their "Dinner Music" web-series.
- The Music BC Industry Association's Board of Directors, to which managing partner Geoff Goddard has been accepted.
- The PEAK Performance Project, for which Frontside's product manager Erin Kinghorn is a member of the faculty.
- The Western Canadian Music Awards, which nominated Frontside Promotions Group for "Independent Publicist/Radio Promoter" of the year in 2004, less than 1 year after Frontside was founded.
- The Transmission Music Conference, which selected a Frontside managing partner as 1 of only 29 delegates from prominent Canadian music companies to attend the conference in China.
- Canada's International Music Convention "Canadian Music Week," which identified artist manager Vince Ditrich in their list of "Movers and Shakers."
- The New Music West - Music Industry Conference, at which multiple members of the Frontside team have presented to other music industry professionals.
- Freedom To Groove, which awarded Frontside a PromoFACT award in April 2004, and for whom managing partner Geoff Goddard served on a panel in November 2004.

I hope that you have found my response helpful and will reconsider the deletion of this article. Thank you.

User:Red Vinyl 8:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

None of the links involves substantial coverage by an independent source, which our notability guideline requires. One shows Frontside *didn't* win an award. Most show people who work at FrontSide have worked at other companies. One seems to shows a "PromFACT award" by a fellow non-notable marketing company, who shares a senior employee, which makes the source non-independent. Please DO NOT post anymore unsourced information about Frontside. Please only add material that's sourced to independent third-party reliable sources. If you personally work for Frontside, it is recommended that you mention that, and you not write about something you have a conflict of interest in. --Rob (talk) 09:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not employed by Frontside. I am currently working in performing rights and have worked for management companies in the past. At each location, there have been multiple artists whose Canadian promotion, radio promotion, and publicity have been handled by Frontside, and it was through these connections that I came to see Frontside as a major player in the music industry, especially when Canada is involved. The purpose of mentioning the nomination - while it is true that they did not win that award - was to show that they were considered noteworthy despite having only recently formed less than 1 year before. The other links do not involve past employment, but instead requests by those companies for outside industry professionals (ie, the Frontside staffers) to share their knowledge and outlook on the music industry with other professionals in music. --User:Red Vinyl 15:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~~Bad faith nom.~~ Nom apparently made in good faith, but with bad timing. Smashville^talk 14:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairmount Cemetery[edit]

This is a disambiguation for a cemetery in which only one blue-linked article exists along with a red-link. Even if both were blue, it should be handled with headnotes. See WP:DISAMBIG. This should be a routine housekeeping matter. However, it was created by a serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages and it is going to take weeks to go through them all. Delete Drawn Some (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are doing more wikistalking. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the stalkee or "serial creator of inappropriate disambiguation pages" in this and several other AFDs over the past days. User:Drawn Some appears to be trying to punish me for refuting his arguments at the bilateral relations AFDs. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two are currently blue links, and neither one is obviously more important than the other, so a dab page seems reasonable to me. (Yes, the article on the Newark cemetery is longer at the moment, but the Denver cemetery seems to have some historical significance, as well. [44]) Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I mean Keep. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, this is exactly what the page should look like. I'm quite stunned this was nominated actually. -- Banjeboi 08:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - its a dab page, its needed. I thought that was basic. Patchy1Talk To Me! 10:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benji. Crafty (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per all the above. This is one of multiple articles started by Richard Arthur Norton and nominated for deletion by Drawn Some. The two have some sort of dispute. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Recommend a new AfD to garner more consensus if concerned. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID Flow, Label Flow and Lobby Track[edit]

Three software products from the same company. Little evidence of notability for any of them. Sgroupace (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nomination. These articles appear to be produced from a text template. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Articles are hand-written from several sources. Products are referenced on other significant pages. Speedy deletion was already refused. Nuschler (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @279 · 05:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Two deletes (including nom) and three keeps, hardly consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 07:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Abu Bakar B Taha Alsagoff[edit]

Delete, non notable zero hits There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems like a tribute article for a long-since-passed-on person who has no notability outside of being what seems to be a damned good educator. Unfortunately, being damned good doesn't always mean notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have moved the article to Abu Bakar bin Taha, which is the subject's birth name without the Syed honorific. Hopefully that will help people to do the searches that I don't have time for now. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that he is long dead doesn't make him the less notable, just makes it harder to find refs. This needs some expert attention. And with the right name, I immediately found a ref in GScholar. Beyond this, it will probably take print. DGG (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I see DGG found a good reference. I'll take a look for some myself later. Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @277 · 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems like a clear keep per refs in article and DGG's. Obviously an arabic or malay speaker will be needed to improve it. 21:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. F&W's recent improvements to the article are enough to warrent the keeping of this article. (X! · talk) · @033 · 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hands Off the People of Iran[edit]

Questionable notability/encyclopedic relevance, entire article is pretty much unsalvageable biased/vanity material. Delete, but if you must keep, stub--Tznkai (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've tried to strip out some of (what I think are) the more egregious breaches of WP:NPOV with a view to salvaging this marginal article. I've noted as such on the article talkpage. I'm not yet persuaded that it deserves to survive this AfD, ~~so I'll hold off with a !vote for now.~~ Crafty (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ORG, does not even appear to avoid WP:V's "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: For the reasons stated above and especially egregiously bad sourcing. If crafty or someone else can find some third party sourcing for this group, I might change my mind, but i really have my doubts that this group ever amounted to much. Bonewah (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sourcing of this article has substantially improved since nomination, im still not convinced the group amounts to much, but at least we know they actually amounted to something. Bonewah (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources, my 3 minute google search turned up few links that aren't primary. Good chunks of the article seem to be cut-and-pasted from HOPI's official website, though there is significant other material so G12 doesn't apply. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that this is cut and pasted article. I can't find anything that doesn't come from the org itself or is a simple rewrite of what they have on their pages.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for WP:ORG - no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" --Saalstin (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:ORG, clear case IMHO, borderline speedy ukexpat (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm taken aback by the blase nature of some of these deletion arguments: "My 3 minute Google search", "Borderline speedy". Please take a little more effort in considering deletions, it's just so easy to pile on. Cut-and-paste is a shoddy way of writing an article - thank you Craftyminion for stripping it out - but that shouldn't be taken into account in considering notability. I've added some sources, some of which were already mentioned on the talk page. The group has received coverage in the British and Irish press, so this is certainly not just a vanity piece, and HOPI does have significant support from the British left. It's not just a couple of random activists. Even if it is decided that the organisation isn't notable enough to keep, per WP:PRESERVE we should merge content to Opposition to military action against Iran rather than just deleting it. Fences&Windows 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 21:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recent edits by F&Ws not only expand the piece but add much needed references. Failing a keep I support Merging relevant content with Opposition to military action against Iran in the manner outlined by F&Ws. Crafty (talk) 21:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: much of these new additions appear unsourced. The only material that demonstrates potential for "significant coverage" in third party sources, the Dublin protest and the expulsion, get only minimal coverage in the article (making their true impact uncertain). I see nothing as yet to make me change my above opinion. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add anything without a source. I'll look for sources on the date of the conference and the affiliated groups. Fences&Windows 14:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the unsourced material was pre-existing. However, it does constitute the bulk of the article, with your new sources only verifying a very narrow slice of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the HOPI website verify affiliations and supporters? Fences&Windows 01:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does, but it is not third-party, so confers no notability. And that still leaves large swathes unreferenced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article can be whittled down, but I believe this meets notability requirements, and is a reasonably large movement with clear potentiality for encyclopedic documentation. -- QUANTUM ZENO 21:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Hopi has received plenty of coverage, not least from people opposed to it. This needs to be more laboriously sourced, perhaps, but it is certainly a medium-sized fish in the pond of the British anti-war movement. A deletion would be pointless. Commander deathguts (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are good enough and this is a notable subject.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish Delete I am not entirely certain why english language encyclopedia should contain article on the several hundred people strong movement based in United Kingdom that have managed to organize an demonstration once? Is there some historical effect achieved, I cannot find, and such are not recorded in the article either, so notability is questionable. Casimirpo (talk) 22:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources can be expanded upon, but what's there at least to me gives notability. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - has been significantly improved. Artw (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted WP:G10 by User:DGG. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbski[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for neologisms, especially racially inflammatory ones. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 05:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This can be speedied, I think.--Tznkai (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not just redirect the page to List of ethnic slurs? -t'shaél^chat 05:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't any sourcing here. The ethnic slurs page requires sourcing. I think this is just made up. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced, possible vandalism. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the nominator and ~~t'shaél~~ [Ray-Ginsay, Tznkai, and now t'shaél], it should not be redirected unless there is a sourced entry at the list.Synchronism (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)Synchronism (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search has results, but none that reference what the creator says this word means. Since a redirect requires sourcing, I must say delete. -t'shaél^chat 05:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced one liner that is derogatory. Has no place being its own page on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlh56880 (talk • contribs) 06:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find the use of the term in this manner outside forums which doesn't count as reliable sources.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Essentially split down the middle and its 2nd nomination. Give it a rest for a while or work on the article to fix issues. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senior G8 leader[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced, original research imho. Moreover, the article doesn't make clear what's the relevance of this role. Jaqen (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Jaqen (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments against deletion

1) Sources -- Most of the information on this list is based on readily verifiable information. I will add references.

2) Relevance -- What is the relevance of "List of State Leaders by Date"? Of "List of current United States governors by denomination"? List of "Deans of the United States Senate"? All of these have no practical "relevance", so to speak, but merely serve as references for those interested in a particular subject (e.g., journalists, writers, students, commentators). A quick Google search for "Senior G8 leader" should indicate how often that title is cited and used in other articles.

3) No "quick trigger" reflex -- As a matter of policy, we should be careful not to be so hasty as to remove articles such as this one: it's been around for a while (over 2 years), has been edited frequently by a number of commentators, is the only compilation of its kind, and is a topic of international interest. Wikipedia policy has been and should be to remove articles only when they are narrowly focused, edited infrequently, and do not have a long history -- in other words, when they are so insignificant and/or personal to the author that they are clearly not of general interest. It is dangerous to be so rash and remove broad-based, community-edited, general interest articles for no real reason.

Memworking (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Memworking[reply]

1) I'd be happy of that!

2) 218 results... State leaders do have relevance, G8 leaders obviously too. The problem is that it is totally unclear what's the specific relevance of the senior G8 leader. Should we create also Junior G8 leader?

3) More that 2 years and still the article has no sources and no information about the relevance of the role... Anyway, there's time to discuss. --Jaqen (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO - "A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." Corpx (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, WP:NEO applies. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Memworking's arguments, as well as the arguments of Dhartung under the original AfD two years ago. OCNative (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per above. The Terminator (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a helpful list.Biophys (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. First of all the name is horribly misleading. It implies some sort of additional powers that the person has when all it is is the longest serving leader in the G8. The previous AfD indicated some sources that seemed to show that the length of service was a factor in an "order of precedence" at G8 summits. The best source I can find for this seems to be here [45], which is confusing because Tony Blair is listed first, not Jacques Chirac (who was the longest serving leader at the time). I presume this is because it was the UKs turn at hosting the summit so they were automatically at the top of the pile as it were. Importantly, I can't see any sources that particularly explain this 'precedence' and there is no evidence that it actually affects anything. Looking through the photographs from G8 summits it doesn't seem to come into it with the order they stand (another point from the previous AfD). The other sources that were quoted in the previous AfD all just note that a particular person has been the longest serving - given the amount of news around G8 summits it's not surprising that this gets mentioned occasionally, but it's not exactly extensive coverage. I can just about see the benefit in the list, as it is easily verifiable information that may be of interest to some. (Incidentally, looking at the traffic for the page it went up about 10 times once it was listed for AfD! - [46]). I suggest that the article is renamed to List of longest serving G8 leaders. Quantpole (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There do not seem to be significant sources to support this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Geiss[edit]

This article is unreferenced and a possible hoax. Google returns no references to a James Geiss associated with whaling, except for Wikipedia mirrors ([47]). Google Scholar ([48]) and Google News also turn up no mentions of this person. I've also been unable to find any references in Factiva to substantiate any of the article contents. His mention in the Whaling article was added by a SPA with no other edits (diff). Suggest deletion as either a hoax or a person who doesn't meet WP's notability guidelines. Muchness (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Bumped into this while looking into the suspected hoax tag on [Bjorn Sigurdsson]. That discussion and this one may end up being related...? Commentors might want to glance at the (small) discussion running on that article's talk page as well; maybe someone can shed light on both at once. Coanda-1910 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Transwiki The nominator is correct that google is only able to find reference to this name in wikipedia mirrors, but that in itself isn't evidence of a hoax. Regardless, there are no citations or evidence that the individual existed so it should be either deleted until references can be found, or transwikied to the creators sandbox. -Markeer 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has no references at all and apparently no one can verify that James Geiss even existed. I looked up one of the references listed in the Bjorn Sigurdsson article and discuss what I found on that article's talk page. I couldn't find Geiss in the book's index or in the relevant chapter of the book. I doubt he even existed.-Schnurrbart (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a hoax, and a long-lived one at that. It lasted just over 3 years before it was caught. I think that might qualify it for the list of notable hoaxes - it'd be towards the top. - Bootstoots (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Spaniolo[edit]

DELETE due to an extreme lack of notability. I find it rather ridiculous that this WP:BLP article is citing a self-published book and a myspace page for sustenance. JBsupreme (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Agree with nom. I see no notability Corpx (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC) ~~:This interview with the guy does provide some coverage, so I'm changing my vote to Neutral Corpx (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep Clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) criteria. The article itself however does need improvement. Just looking at the Twiztid sources provides some sources for the artist.Juggalobrink (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:MUSIC grants notability? Corpx (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The artist passes:
  - 2. Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart. (Phatso)
  - 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
  - 6. Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians. (Psychopathic Rydas, Dark Lotus, Twiztid) Juggalobrink (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Juggalobrink, the source you refer to is a myspace website. http://www.myspace.com/twiztid. That, coupled with a self-published book, is simply not permissible under WP:BLP policy. JBsupreme (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually refering to sources within the Twiztid wiki-page itself, with two interviews with Jamie where he speaks briefly on himself and his early career (sources #9 and #16). But that's just from the article, there are more citations to be found on the web, I was just refering to the article as an example. Juggalobrink (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has that been confirmed by a reliable secondary source? What chart did the album/single chart on? Corpx (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The positions are confirmed by Allmusic which doesn't require a secondary source, but yes it is also confirmed by Billboard. The album charted on the Billboard 200, Top Heatseekers, Top Independent Albums, and Top Rap Albums. Juggalobrink (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good enough for me. Keep Corpx (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proxio[edit]

No further sign of notability, no sources. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced article for non-consumer software, hopelessly non-neutral and promotional in tone: The company specializes in software that reduces transportation cost and environmental impact for transportation buyers. Not worth lawyering over notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I copedited it and made some additions, so I think it is in better shape now. Tomas e (talk) 16:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No third-party sources presented, and all I can find on google is several hundred copies of the same press release. (Most hits for Proxio are for a different company.) No notability independent of its parent company Volvo, in whose article it doesn't merit a mention; and even a redirect would be improper, since there's at least two other companies named Proxio that are at least as notable. —Korath (Talk) 14:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rainbow Lounge raid[edit]

~~Non-notable bar, One Event, and Recentism. Article should be deleted as it is one event and recentism. Thanks.~~ Ism schism (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sorry, this is huge news coupled with the poor timimg with the 40th Annivesrasy of the Stonewall riots - which were sparked by a ... police raid on a gay bar. An abundance of reliable sources exist and the event has already sparked an investigation and a new group forming - Fairness Fort Worth. There is also the likely lawsuit from the brain damage and two other patrons who had bones broken by the police. This is not going away. I'll work on the article. -- Banjeboi 07:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete non-notable event. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article is about the event, not the bar... so we should follow whatever the going standard is for articles about events (will defer to more knowledgeable editors there). Recentism by itself is not a reason for deletion (at least according to the essay). By Wikipedia standards: the bar is not notable, nor would be the event by itself (if it had stopped there). What would make it notable is the public's reaction to it, which led to the NY Times and LA Times reporting the story. Wikignome0529 (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% Recyclable - I have to agree with Wikignome0529, yet will add that since such a type of persecution/event is still happening 40 years later and the fact that it made headlines because of the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, the entire contents should be incorporated into the Stonewall Riots article. --CJ Withers (talk) 11:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The Stonewall riots article should remain focused on the events of 1969 and what were spawned from them. There are two sentences about the Rainbow Lounge raid in the Stonewall riots article now. Including more would be recentism. I do not yet have any opinion on the Rainbow Lounge raid article, as there are many issues still unclear and are not being reported quickly. Merging it into Stonewall riots, an FA, is something I do have an opinion about. It should not be done. --Moni3 (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to ask: on what planet is this non-notable? This passes the general notability guideline, in spades, and you've only got to look at the list of references to see that.
WP:NOTNEWS would be a good objection, except for the minor issue that this article doesn't contravene NOTNEWS in any respect whatsoever. (Read it).
I therefore feel we should keep this article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does this apply to "NOTNEWS"? It is not "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism". As well, the event is being covered, not the non-notable persons or places contained within the event.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.108.186 (talk • contribs)

I have read it. Have you read WP:AGF? Being condescending always fails to convince me to change my !vote. Use WP:ONEEVENT if you want. All the coverage all comes back to one event. Without that one event, this would be just another gay bar that nobody outside of the local area heard of. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.108.186 (talk • contribs)
That's why the article's about the event rather than the bar.
I'm afraid that where I come across a policy being cited that doesn't actually support the argument, I have an unfortunate tendency to sarcasm. Sorry. I'll try to curb that in future.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the time being, but watch; the news may fizzle out . This event has been fairly well covered in the press since it occurred . I have seen a lot of discussions in blogs and the like . It is certainly not WP:NOTNEWS. -- Scheaffer Sirls user talk —Preceding undated comment added 19:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comments I don't know enough about Wikipedia's critera to say for sure if this article meets it's criteria for a separate article. The investigation is continuing and the US Attorney is now investigating, so I would ask that we wait a few weeks and see how that goes before deleting it. Markg65 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment about the 651 (Rainbow Lounge) history I have some comments about the Rainbow Lounge's history that the press hasn't mentioned yet. The Rainbow Lounge might only be a couple of weeks old, but the very small building it's in (1200 square feet?) has quite a local history to LGBT people and Fort Worth police. The address is 651 South Jennings, just south of downtown Fort Worth. It was Fort Worth's first gay bar in the early 80's. Gay bars were still illegal in Fort Worth when it opened. The first bar was a Country Western bar with no visible signs in an abandoned industrial strip. It was called 651, completely dark with just 651 over the door which was the address number. It was raided and harassed by the Fort Worth Police for years. Gay bashing was popular as the police would stand by and laugh as people drove by and yelled and threw things at people going into the bar. There was an incident where two customers were shot and killed walking from the 651. A local judge gave them a light sentence and specifically said it was because they had killed gay men to keep them from spreading aids. The bar has a history of closing and reopening, mostly because harassment of customers. (People just drive to Dallas's gay strip instead). The 651 had been closed for about 2 years and just re-opened as a dance style bar (not Country and Western as it previously had been). Many locals believe the Fort Worth police raided the first week to scare everyone off and get the bar closed again. I really wish the national media would report on this history. Markg65 (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. The bar may not be notable, but the event seems to have enough coverage for inclusion. I say we reserve judgement for later, i.e., when more information is in the article - but even then, with the links, I think we've got a keeper. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, NN bar but notable event - see News search. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Reprint of details added to article's discussion page:

1) Is the event important or newsworthy? YES: Multiple major news networks are covering the event, and it touches on strong themes in society such as (unverified) police brutality and (unverified) gay persecution.

2) Does the article site sources? YES: All major points in the article are sited in the appropriate footnotes.

3) Does the article take a neutral voice? YES: Though this could be cleaned up a bit, and additional information added, there is no definite bias to the information presented, nor is the tone of the article in first-person, third-person, etc. No "weasel words" are used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.50.246.246 (talk) 21:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may not survive the test of time but, for now, it is notable and has had non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wperdue (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Keep, notable event. --Alynna (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since nominating this article for deletion, a few days ago, a lot of news coverage has come out on both this event and various reactions. Specifically two articles in the Dallas Voice Protests continue against Fort Worth police raid, and New group forms in wake of raid at club show that this is ongoing, and more than one event. I saw the news story about Chico's Tacos in El Paso, Texas called Protesters Vent Their Frustration With Chico's Tacos and it put this raid in perspective. That might become a notable article too. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enormous amount of non-trivial coverage available. Not sure why is before us. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin Nominator changed vote to Keep. Numerous reliable sources have appeared since the nomination. This is an easy Keep, as it is way beyond one event or recentism. I should have waited, and let more time go by, before nominating this article. It should be Kept. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here in Texas, outside of Dallas, Houston, and Austin, the police have been mistreating the LGBT community for years and are still able to do it. Finally, it's getting some attention from the media. Events like the Rainbow Lounge Raid and the Chico's Tacos event where the El Paso Police attempted to arrest someone just for being gay (a law ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court). Markg65 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another Follow Up Related Story - The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission raided another gay bar last night. So, even with all the national and international media attention, Police sponsored gay bashing still keeps going on here in Texas. Markg65 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a friendly note. Please remember that you don't want to turn this into a soapbox issue. This page is for discussion of whether to keep or delete the listed entry. It looks like a clear keep, so adding related stories and opinions not directly related to the current discussion isn't the best idea in my opinion. Wperdue (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Comment I understand what you mean. The only reason I put them here is that I felt like they are direct fallout from the Rainbow Lounge Raid. But if you feel they are too far removed, you can remove them. Thanks, Mark Markg65 (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Heart of America Foundation. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Halamandaris[edit]

Notability only in relation to The Heart of America Foundation. Page right now reads a lot like self-promotion. I suggest Delete and merge any relevant info into the foundation page. Sasquatch

Merge This one is borderline there is a possibility of notability here but if it cant be demonstrated in article of that length and with that many relatively minor awards, it needs to be merged in the The Heart of America Foundation--RadioFan (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear cut example of a vanity page.-Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold I am still pulling together more biographical information to support the notability. Booksforkids (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Insufficient notability to meet guidelines for stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the week and the new content, I'm still inclined to say Merge because notability is almost wholly related to the running of her foundation. The foundation itself is already on sketchy ground and I see no need for this biographical article which includes information only on her foundation and some minor charity work... Sasquatch t|c 21:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certified (Lil' Flip and Gudda Gudda album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Certified (Lil' Flip and Gudda Gudda album)

NN album, hasn't charted. →ROUX ₪ 21:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, but MERGE into Lil Flip. "Charting" is not in itself a criterion for deletion. Policy for music albums: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia" (see music notability guidelines). However, it is just a tracklisting at this point, so consider merging into Lil Flip (especially since Gudda Gudda is perhaps NN and only featured on the album).--Junius49 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Lil' Flip article. Blackjays1 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 03:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimo Wall[edit]

Non-notable martial artist, unsourced BLP. JJL (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that he passes WP:BIO. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MANOTE. Also, his choice of naming may cause a search problem. He named his art Kodokan, which is the same name as the famed Judo Institute that essentially governs the sport of judo. So if looking for sources, please be aware of that. I found a couple of schools using the name that are most likely related to his lineage, but nothing I can call notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, thinly veiled or cleaned up advert --Nate 14 81 15:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grenada–Russia relations[edit]

hardly any coverage of actual bilateral relations, almost all multilateral. [49] Pre 1990 relations can be covered in Grenada-Soviet relations. For those who love to scrape trivia into these bilateral articles, there's a Russian band called Grenada, I sincerely hope no editor thinks helps establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and handle by the Foreign Relations of X convention. JJL (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I chuckled about the part of the article that says Grenada was a Soviet colony. However, it is very harmful to the encyclopedia to have such misinformation included, it really strikes a blow at our reliability and credibility. The same is true for having an article like this on a topic which does not meet our standards for notability, it subtracts a couple of points from our respectability. The topic fails WP:NOTE so should be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close, but not quite. There is no actual notability established. I'm also not sure that any dealings with the former Soviet Union really count since it is vastly different than the current (and pre-Soviet) Russia. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a little bit artificial to segregate Grenada-USSR and Grenada-Russia relations (the 1983 discontinuity in the Grenadian government is probably far more significant that the 1990 USSR/Russia discontinuity). Since it's the relationship between Maurice Bishop's government and the USSR that's notable, the article should really be there, but it would be worth adding a note at the end of that article (which could actually grow into something quite substantive) about any verifiable interactions between Grenada and Russia. So I'd say weak merge, and redirect (regardless of whether anything is merged from the Grenada-Russia article). Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article User:Russian Luxembourger was not notified of this discussion by the Afd nominator. I have alerted her to this discussion per WP:CIVIL--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grenada - Soviet Union relations. There's no reason that the re-establishment of dialogue with Moscow can't be referred to in that article. Yes, I know, the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, but since there exists an article that can be linked from the "Foreign relations of..." pages for Grenada and Russia, it's logical. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. The facts mentioned belong in articles on the subject (Grenada). Is Grenada important to Russia? No – there are no relations. Johnuniq (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Furniture Warehouse[edit]

Page reads like an advert. The previous version (April 2009) did not assert notability, and was little more than an advert. Martin451 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been almost completely rewritten and nominators concerns seem to have been alleviated. –xeno^talk 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - national chain. Needs a cleanup. –xeno^talk 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That reads much better now, and my concerns have been alleviated. Martin451 (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone provides reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Running TV ads does not provide inherent notability in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please take another look. I'll be working a bit more on it, but as you can see it's easily sourcible, and obviously notable. –xeno^talk 03:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major national chain, hasn't everyone in the nation heard of this? If you delete this, then you need to start deleting stuff like Target Corporation. Easily meets WP:CORP Nfitz (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If that is your standard, then I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF IT. Edison (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't you in the U.S.? –xeno^talk 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It got a little coverage when its U.S. operations failed and were closed. Only television viewers in the few states it operated in heard its supposedly "catchy" jingle. Whatever nation it operated in before its massive retrenching, someone in AFD asserting that they are familiar with it, is still original research and does not satisfy the requirement for multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage required by Wikipedia's notability guideline. The limited coverage of it does not seem up the the level of coverage we have required in the past for businesses. Edison (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at the article again since you voted? –xeno^talk 14:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that that it's a major national chain, and that would have though that everyone in the nation has heard of it. As the company is Canadian, if you haven't heard of it, then you are likely a foreigner ... Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, someone from out east might not have heard of it, but based on Edison's contributions I would hazard a guess he's American. I've queried him on his talk page as his comments subsequent to the re-writing of the article give the impression he hasn't actually looked at it. As the nominator has affirmed that his concerns have been resolved, Edison's !vote is the only one holding up a snow closure. –xeno^talk 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep National Canadian chain, satisfies WP:CORP easily. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The six provided sources are reliable and independent Rirunmot (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really like an advert at this point. Verifiable and notable. What more do you want? Ntsimp (talk) 20:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above arguments. The chain is quite notable. --FlyingPenguins (talk) 01:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above chain is very notable. --Kyle1278 03:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My memory isn't always five-star, but didn't this chain also have stores in Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota for a while? They've been in Southern Ontario for at least 15 years, and in my city for about 5. They're going pretty strong and they're well-known in Canada. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 07:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Clint Eastwood#Relationships and family. BJ^Talk 03:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Eastwood[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. She has only had two films appearances and it was only as extras. Fails WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk) 02:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge maybe she can be mentioned in her parent's article? But there is no way near enough ntoability for a stand alone article unless there are some major projects not mentioned. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Clint Eastwood#Relationships and family per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Met90. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as subject fails notability requirements. Create redirect as potential search term related only to her father. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Met90. Not enough af a career yet to even sneak up on notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @033 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time

Twice deleted article that is a blatant copyright violation. CarbonX (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a blatant copyvio, then it is WP:CSD#G12. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable lists. I suggest including Ring Magazine's list of the 80 Best Fighters of the Last 80 Years for the same reason. TJ Spyke 04:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COmment Probably worth mentioning the highlights in the boxing article if not already included there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All the see also articles into one about RIng magazine. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has to rely entirely on copyrighted material. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this is of interest, Ring Magazine's website doesn't seem to provide any link to its 2003 list, so I can't say that this would be authorized use. At the moment, it's the classic indiscriminate list, with no information about the boxers listed (other than their ranking). Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UNSURE....Since i created the article I guess I should put my two cents in to this conversation. I created the article because I thought it was a cool list and interesting. I am really not an expert on copyrights and what belongs and doesn't so Im not sure if it should stay or not. I will say that there are some other similar articles from ring magazine and many similar related to other sports/subjects. Garkeith (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Not sure lists of names can be copyrighted ⟳ausa کui ^× 01:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why couldn't the list be copyrighted? It is their list, compiled by their writers and published in their magazine (which is copyrighted). Even the title tells us the list belongs to Ring Magazine. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. It is a pretty subjective list created by the writers of Ring Magazine making it a creative work and subject to copyright. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 03:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist (disambiguation)[edit]

Do two Articles really warrant a disambiguation? KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. Delete, just put hat notes in the articles. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just typed "atheist" in the search, and it appears that there are 6 or 7 articles that begin with the word. I think it's just a matter of adding those to the disambig page. Blackjays1 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use hatnotes; other uses shown in search don't need a dab--they should spawn from the use of the term to mean nonreligious. JJL (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Tznkai (talk) 06:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the dab was created "to remove band hatnote from Atheism", which is like having the article Secularist start with "For the fictional character from the radio program Boobylala see Secularist (Boobylala)". -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-07t10:49z
Just use a hatnote. Fewer clicks to access content is a usability issue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in favor of the hatnote. There is nothing wrong with a hatnote, even to a band, on Atheism, any more than there's anything wrong with the Boobylala example (if such a character on such a program exists). -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Atheism/Archive 7#Band at the bottom for a previous !vote on this topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, a discussion from 2004 could easily be overruled here; consensus can change, and since 2004, frequently has.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing unfair; no more-recent consensus has formed (or been considered for formation) until this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the hatnote suffices. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hatnote suffices, especially since there are only two listings for athiest, it's not like Jesus where a link to a dab is necessary. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add links. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
erm, which links do you think should be added? Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and use hatnotes. older ≠ wiser 21:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of other articles that begin with the term "atheist" and use the term in such a way, it is worth disambiguating them. Besides, in an article with the seriousness of atheist, it does not look so relevant to have a hatnote for Atheist (band). Sebwite (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are not lists of articles that begin with the same word. And the purpose of hatnotes is not to tie together articles of similar seriousnesses. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two articles doesn't require a disambig page. Go back to the hatnote. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Ireland relations[edit]

noting that Ireland doesn't have an embassy in Chile (even though Chile is one of the economic powers of South America). distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly sport and bilateral [50]. there's this article but it would be pure synthesis to say that actually means bilateral relations. and their football sides played in 2006, and I know of at least one editor who would think this counts for notability, clearly not. Coverage of acceptance of refugees...Western European nations since WWII have taken refugees from wars and political turmoil from all around the world, we don't report every instance in Wikipedia, especially a relatively low number. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, Chile and Ireland don't have relations that are notable through our standards, WP:NOTE, which states that the actual topic of an article must have significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to be included in the encyclopedia. Google, Google book, Google scholar, Google news, nothing shows up. Perhaps one day in the future these countries will develop notable relations, establish embassies, discuss their relationship in a meaningful way, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and handle by the Foreign Relations of X convention. JJL (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not a lot more to say.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual notability is evident. Minor, pedestrain functions and some sports interaction doesn't appear notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all previous commenters. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Granted, Bernardo O'Higgins was the greatest Irish-Chilean of all time, but that's not really about relations between Chile and Ireland. At first, the information about acceptance of Pinochet coup refugees seemed like something unique, but the article cited notes that "Ireland and Luxembourg were the only remaining members of the European Union that had not accepted Chilean refugees" after the 1973 coup. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bernardo O'Higgins, according to his article, seems never to have so much as set foot in Ireland, so it's hard to see him as being a catalyst of Irish-Chilean relations simply by his ancestry. Lots of countries accept refugees from specific conflicts... why is this number accepted from Chile by Ireland significant? Not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. The number of Irish people living in a country becomes significant only when a secondary source says it is. Johnuniq (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Baldermann[edit]

Non-notable politician who serves as the "part time" mayor of a small city in Illinois of about 20,000. Seems to fail WP:N criteria, could possibly be merged into the cities article but even that doesn't seem all that possible. Marcusmax(speak) 02:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No there is no indication of notability - the article seems to have been produced based purely on the understanding that being mayor is sufficient. It isn't. Fails WP:BIO--AssegaiAli (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looking around, it appears that the most notable thing that he did was drop out of a race. I suppose if he had dropped out for some infamous reason, there might be something there. But there isn't. Nothing remarkable turned up about his career as mayor. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It is possible that this person is notable and the article hasn't been very well written. Wikipedia guidelines says congressmen qualify as notable but doesn't mention mayors. Likewise, high schools are deemed notable. An internet encyclopedia could easily declare that all mayors are suitable for inclusion. By the current WP standards, inclusion solely because of mayorial status is insufficient for keep. However, it is possible that this mayor has done some locally notable things and the article just doesn't say it. User F203 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor coverage in the local papers (who have to cover local events) doesn't say notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @034 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Conviasa Boeing 737 crash[edit]

Not notable, fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It was a crash, and although most plane crashes will never be on this site, this one involved a commercial airliner. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, the NOM is right - it fails WP:AIRCRASH. Just being a commercial aircraft doesn't qualify it. Note, here, that it also wrecked while deadheading - the article doesn't explain what happened insofar as cause or aftermath effect, only that the crew of 3 died in the wreck. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In addition, this is probably the weirdest and most extended-out WP:COATRACK I've seen. The article explains that this bird with this tail number wrecked into some South American volcano, and then describes the history of the particular bird, as if it were a history for the plane. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep. Somebody rewrite the article? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I just looked through the history of the article and didn't see anything about a bird in any of the recent revisions. Can you check them to let me know what you're talking about? 174.146.255.7 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - By bird, I mean this. It's slang. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Illiniza, as it certainly is a notable event for the volcano. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH; "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier" which Conviasa certainly counts as. The guideline does not - and as I recall, deliberatly so - state that the airline must be performing a scheduled or charter flight at the time of said accident. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem I have here is that 1) from what I can tell, the intent doesn't mean that every wreck - deadhead or otherwise, pilot error or otherwise - should be included, and 2) it doesn't fall into the general rules at all. Other than that the bird wrecked, there are really no unusual circumstances documented about this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The general rules are additional criterea that can be applied to all modes, they don't need met. Only one of any criterea listed there needs met to meet that guideline (or essay or project guideline, or whatever these things are presently called). "An occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition"; see also the definitions at aviation accidents and incidents. 'Every wreck' does indeed fall under the guideline as it presently stands. There aren't really that many beyond the obviously notable ones with large fatalities, WP:NOTPAPER therefore applies. Including two-three more per year is relevant enyclopedic information without risk of turning us into a directory. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given your explanation, I think I can defer to that. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Newsworthy but WP:NOTNEWS. I also don't think that WP:AIRCRASH intended to include events like this. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I helped develop it, and I think we did. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Niteshift36. WP:AIRCRASH should not be read too literally, and non-passenger flight accidents of planes owned by carriers should not be automatically notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - despite what is claimed in the nom, this accident does meet WP:AIRCRASH. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOTNEWS and fails the spirit of WP:AIRCRASH - the only criteria it meets is "It is an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier." which considering the rest of the criteria seems unduly weak. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I helped develop WP:AIRCRASH. It meets both the intended spirit of the original authors and the letter. Given the definition of 'accident' I would hardly consider that to be 'weak'. Since when is "I don't like the way this essay is written" a valid reson to say it violates said essay? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you've pointed out (at least) twice that you helped write it. Great. Then I'll change what I said. I'll say that I feel your criteria is wrong and is too broad if it includes an event like this. Then point out that it is an essay and not a policy so, while helpful, it does not have to be followed, therefore can't really be "violated". Better? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Obviously, I disagree but you now have a good argument to support your point of view - one that stands a much better chance of getting the article deleted! And, yes, I was getting fed up repeating myself to people who felt what it said wasn't what it really said, if you get what I said... ;) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 10:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, not policy. Essentially, the suggestion from the essay is that all instances, where any employee or a passenger on an air carrier is killed or seriously injured by the crash of an airplane, should be inherently notable. ("an accident which involves a scheduled or charter air carrier" and "an occurence that results in serious injury or loss of life is an accident by definition"). That's a much broader exception to WP:N than most projects ask for. This falls under WP:NOT#NEWS, and if the article can't pass under anything other than an opinion that all fatal accidents should have their own page, it should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Reply for Mansford: When a fatal airliner accident occurs, a country's aircraft accident investigation authority (sometimes the same as the civil aviation authority) will investigate it and determine why it happened, and come up with measures to prevent it. Because of the inherent processes from civil aviation authorities and accident investigation authorities to come up with measures to prevent future occurrences, all fatal aircraft accidents are notable. This is why the WP:AIRCRASH essay is used by the project. Check the Venezuelan aviation authority's pages to see any announcements about this incident. Also, check Spanish language newspapers, who documented this incident. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several of us who believe that WP:AIRCRASH sets the bar too low. We are discussing a revised version on the talk page, and would value your input. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could see in what ways WP:AIRCRASH could be changed. IMO it sets the bar right in terms of fatal accidents. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep commercial airliner on an international flight crashes into volcano, no doubt will have much coverage and investigative reports from both countries and the country of manufacture as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @034 · 23:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Haunted Villa[edit]

No coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:NF. Previously deleted via PROD but recreated by same user. PC78 (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. As an aside, that plot summary is hilarious.--Talain (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have done what I could in sourcing and expanding the article, and have tagged it for input from Wikiproject Korea, as there are few if any English language sources available for a 28-year-old South Korean horror/drama/mystery. I will await input from those expert in the language. Is there a South Korean Wikipedia? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedias are done by language, rather than country. The Korean one is at http://ko.wikipedia.org/ --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope they come forward. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability and coverage in sources. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Brandt[edit]

The only thing in the article I see as a possible claim for notability is the "Freshman of the Year" award by a magazine. Lacking any other secondary sources that give more coverage, I'm hesitant about this, considering the amount of original research in the article. The books mentioned (and cited) are from a primary source - the movie production company itself. Corpx (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:PORNBIO criteria of "starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature" Senatedems (talk) 05:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which movie is iconic/groundbreaking/blockbuster feature? Corpx (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. His "award" was a fan vote from a magazine that I'm considering nominating for AfD after looking at it's article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bradley (pornographic actor)[edit]

Gay pornstar with no notability Corpx (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence he meets WP:PORNSTAR --Saalstin (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Many questionable !votes from new accounts muddy the consensus. BJ^Talk 03:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lombardia Autonoma[edit]

New politic party without notability, nor any representation. See also [51] , AfD in it.wiki Invitamia (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On it.wiki, +1 is a vote to delete and -1 is a vote to keep, for those who follow the link.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 14:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as there is no notability for this that I can find, particularly for the English speaking world, but also on the whole.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 14:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

allow me to spell it out further. This is a brand new political party that has run in two city elections in Italy and received less than 1/2 of 1% of the vote in each. I personally have participated in the creation of political parties in the Buffalo NY area that run for election in a city once or twice and receive many times that vote, and I would never dream of creating a Wikipedia page for the Integrity Party or the Sardinia First Party.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 14:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The party has some clout in Italy and its leader gained many votes in list with the Pole of Autonomy in the last European Parliament election in Lombardy. As it.Wiki is almost an unreliable source, I don't see how a deletion there can be a reason for deleting an article in en.Wiki. The party is notable and it is useful to understand the various splits of Lega Nord. --Checco (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just one like hundreds of splinter parties in Italian history. Nobody knows how many months longer it will exist. --Invitamia (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It contested an election, that is grounds enough for notability. —Nightstallion 15:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Pointers to significant independent coverage by recognized, serious and reliable sources would help one decide. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Next year it will be present to the Lombardy regional elections, what will we do then? Obviously reopen this page. So at this point we can already leave the page. --Stefand (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Lumage (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a young political movement, but expressing new ideas coming from the Lombard society. It will be present to the next regional general elections and thus it shall be menetioned again in the close future. Moreover deleting political parties does not respect the freedom of expressions in my opinion. --Tbusato (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has presented a list for Milan city council, and it's part of Pole of Autonomy that contested last European elections in Italy.--79.35.129.214 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Where are the reliable sources for this? I'll change my !vote if sources come up, but I'm just not seeing any. Tavix | Talk 02:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I'm going to interpret Peridon's comment as a "weak keep" so I don't have to say "no consensus". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tobias[edit]

Non-notable small-scale investor and self promoter, so fails to meet WP:N. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJeffMa (talk • contribs) — WikiJeffMa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strong Keep I agree that the article is poorly sourced and needs desperate work. But a wealth of good sources exist, and the article could be easily cleaned up--and I don't think comes close to a candidate for deletion. google news archive search shows a wealth of articles in high-profile publications, including some written about him in depth: [52] in BusinessWeek. Articles cover him in all different regards, as CEO of Imperial Renewables: [53], others discuss him as an investor, his ability to raise funds: [54]. This is above and beyond what is required to establish notability: detailed coverage in multiple reliable sources, found with very little effort. Cazort (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One source not listed is http://cleantech.com/news/2238/martin-tobias-out-at-imperium (perhaps not surprisingly). This would seem to support notability, although probably not in the way the creator of the article intended. There's likely to be more like this out there, if anyone cares to dig. I might do a bit more tomorrow when I get back home. Peridon (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the sentiment, in my scan of the sources I found, there was negative coverage too. I think it is important to incorporate this sort of material into the article as well...NPOV means presenting all perspectives that have substantial coverage in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 03:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chkeiban[edit]

Jared555 (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was nominated for speedy deletion under criterion A7 by user:SchnitzelMannGreek, but this was declined by Aqwis with the comment "not eligible". Jared555 then nominated it for deletion here but did not add the AfD tag to the article, which I have now done. Earlier today an almost identical version of the article was nominated for speedy deletion as a test page (G2) by user:GainLine, which was carried out by Nehrams2020. Personally I don't think that this falls under the spirit of a G4 speedy deletion for recreation of deleted content.

The article itself is a sub-sub-stub about a Lebanese family name, but the author does not know the origin of the name or the family. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Appologize for not listing a reason. I nominated this as there are no references and no indication of this being a notable subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jared555 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can do a better job of finding sources than I did.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly non-notable, unreferenced entry. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. SOS[edit]

Fails WP:MUSICBIO Tan | 39 19:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Offline, his freestyle battles became the catalyst for national attention, with everyone from local radio stations like 99 Jamz to The Source Magazine vying to give him exposure. A controversial appearance on the televised Source Soundlab’s Unsigned Hype Battle was the catalyst for a brief battle with Benzino over a fixed win and money owed. The beef was diffused, and SOS appeared on The Source’s Unsigned Hype DVD, as well as the Beef DVD series."^[1] Messs17 (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —LedgendGamer 00:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as "an article about a rapper that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." - 2 ... says you, says me 13:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Two deletes that are good as based on inclusion criteria. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollin 30's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rollin 30's

Delete. Lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. I'm not impressed by the current limited sourcing, either. JBsupreme (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Lacking in reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmini Peries[edit]

Article has WP:COI issues and shaky references at best; does not appear to be notable based on google search results and its WP:ORPHAN status. Appears to be an article of self-promotion or other similar un-wikipedia-like nonsense. I just cannot find any valid reason why this article exists. Timneu22 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reads like a resume and two of the reference links are dead. Hasn't been mentioned in any reliable news sources. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sacramento Public Library. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folsom Public Library[edit]

AfDs for this article:

3rd nom, last closed as withdrawn by nom for procedural reasons. However, consensus seemed clear-ish for a merge, which is what I'm advocating here. However don't want to implement unilaterally following 2 AfDs. I don't think there's independent notability as there's no evidence this is anything but a run-of-the-mill library, which lacks inherent notability. Thoughts? StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 01:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question- If you wanted a merge, why are we here? Why not just open up a merge discussion? Umbralcorax (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer because it's been here three times and discussed by people who aren't necessarily watching the article. I think it's only fair to get general input (such as those who have !voted before) rather than the small subset of those who watch the talk or requested merges. StarM 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as usual--I think with Sacramento Public Library, with which it is affiliated. Folsom is a small city of 70,000, and public libraries in such places are usually not notable. DGG (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per DGG. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage to comply with WP:BAND. ~ mazca ^talk 17:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needmore (band)[edit]

Delete fails WP:BAND, seems to be more an advertisement for the band than an article about them, sourced to their website, youtube, and myspace, but no independent references or indication of notability: the authors of the page have a clear COI and while the article states that the band "strives to constantly push eachother to emotional breakage points, always taking their songwriting to the next irritating level", that is not particularly notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 16:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only sources that I can find are the ones that are already on the article. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close and Delete since its been over a week. "The neediest unsigned band in Ohio". It really says that.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Three deletes. If the editor who wishes to merge wants I will make the text available to them so that any text that passes inclusion criteria can be merged. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Australians Tourism Association[edit]

fails WP:ORG. no third party coverage [55]. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tourism Western Australia. Both stubs would be better with one article; essentially two organizations with similar missions work together. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. See also Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Merging. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose merge as Tourism Western Australia is an official Government agency (thus would have an annual budget, annual report etc) whilst Young Australians Tourism Association is basically a club. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks third party references from independent sources. Appears to be more "non-notable association running networking events" than "peak industry body". Murtoa (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Murtoa. Can confirm Tourism Western Australia is an official arm of the Government of Western Australia; this is more akin to a student guild or limited-membership social organisation. (They have nice breakfasts, though.) Orderinchaos 11:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hezekiah M. Washburn[edit]

While I am sure that he is a fine human being, I can't see where the subject passes notability standards. As an author, his book A Knight in the Congo (also nomintated for deletion) ranks #3,701,636 at Amazon and there is a lack of reviews or reliable sources on it. Ghits for Washburn result in just over 500 returns, mostly wikipedia, its mirrors and geneology sites. Gnews comes up with no returns. The article itself asserts no notability aside from the aforementioned book and allegedly being called a knight by the King of the Congo, but the article can't source it and can only approximate what year it happened in. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Writing one book and being a missionary does not satisfy the guideline for biographies or notability in general. Found nothing promising at Google book search, or at Google News Archive. Agree, he sounds like he was a fine person. Edison (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. No assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The two deletes I agree with. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester White[edit]

Non-notable, further evidence of finding reliable sources. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is purely promotional and contains no encyclopedic information about the organization in question. . .Rcawsey (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhanshu ji maharaj[edit]

Borderline promotional of the subject's philosophy and philosophical centers. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems to be somewhat notable: [56][57][58]. utcursch | talk 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @034 · 23:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grapefruit—Juicy Fruit[edit]

contested redirect (to album article). Doesn't meet WP:NSONGS, no indication of charting or awards. RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with A White Sport Coat and a Pink Crustacean, the album that contains the song. youngamerican (wtf?) 12:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Nothing to merge due to the lack of reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it does have notability per it's a single, it has charted, it appears on numerous compilation and live albums by the artist, and it has been covered by Carnival Steel Drum Band, Hanna's Reef, Rob Ickes and Chuck St. Troy. Geeky Randy (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not finding chart history for this song on Billboard's website and the reference given in the article is to a blog, not a reliable source.--RadioFan (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The covers you mention dont do much to establish notability here either, WP:NSONGS asks for covers from multiple notable artists.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with everything Geeky Randy said.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Argh. I keep finding sites stating it charted at #23 on Billboard's Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks (Or Easy Listening, as it was called at the time) chart, but I cannot find anything I would consider reliable sourcing for it and Billboard wants several hundred dollars to access chart listings from that long ago. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you search Billboard's site with a song title, you can access summary chart info for specific songs for a specific week without a membership (you are correct that an expensive membership is required to see the entire chart for a particular week). That archive goes back to at least 1950. The fact that no chart information is coming up for any search combination I've tried on this title leads me to believe that it didnt chart as is claimed by the fans sites in question and that incorrect info has spread as new fans sites copy this information from others. Fan sites are not known for their fact checking.--RadioFan (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd go for a redirect or merge (sans chart statement) into the album article. Grandmartin11 (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just because the information sought for wasn't found at one particular source doesn't mean the other source is unreliable. It's common knowledge you need a membership to access. Obviously not all records are shown on the free trial. What's the point of that? Furthermore, did anybody think to contact the cited sources which supposedly "aren't reliable"? Perhaps they could steer you in the direction to convince you of reliability? Probably wouldn't be good enough anyway. Well in that case, you got a long list of Beatles songs to delete since they didn't chart and have articles out in wikipedia. I mean, that's what you're here to do, right? You're not here to help expand, you're here to throw away. RadioFan claimed earlier that s/he couldn't find any charting information. I show charting information, and it's not good enough. What a joke. Did you ever consider maybe putting in a little more effort than to delete stuff? Obviously you're not researching hard enough to find notability when it's pretty easy to find. When the work is done for you, it's not good enough. These standards are laughable. I can't believe this is like a city counsel meeting. You guys must feel really important. Geeky Randy (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there - One, sources don't get to "convince" us that they're reliable -- they either pass WP:RS or they don't. Two, the onus isn't on AFD discussion participants to run down reliable sources that support your claims -- everything in the article needs to be verifiable. Three, the smartassery and outright accusations that we're here to "throw away" things is an absolutely unacceptable violation of both WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to album, not independently notable, chart position seems bogus. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Lacks reliable sources to verify notability, article is completely original research. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems to be a general agreement that the subject does not yet meet notability requirements. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Hendry[edit]

Concerns about notability - no obvious assertion of what makes him important or encyclopaedic (I now live in fear of thespian 'pedians thwacking me ;-)). Had been speedy'd around July 5th, was recreated and new speedy tag was declined due to presence of sources. Saalstin (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources aren't about the subject, just mention him/her. A 25 year old associate producer of non-major productions - not yet notable, maybe someday.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree - yes there are sources but they're not actually directly related to the subject's notability. -- role^player 10:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He is a producer of some of the West Ends major productions, including Legally Blonde the musical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weclix (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep due to some of the productions he's been involved with. I would like to see some more third party sources actually related to his notability so that this can be properly expanded. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Working on being notable, but isn't there yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United We Serve[edit]

Unclear of any notability claim; this seems to be just an incidental web page that collects information on government volunteer programs LotLE×talk 06:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or claim of notability. JJL (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... I guess per nom, since that's me :-). LotLE×talk 21:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JESS3[edit]

Notability is questionable. Fails WP:CORP. Was PRODed, but contested, so it comes here. Also worth pointing out is that the author is affiliated with the organization (per his user page), so if this is kept it will most likely need to be re-written. T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC 04:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -T'Shael,The Vulcan Overlord 16:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources check out and notability is established, IMHO, by their Webby nomination this year.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am the author of this page and I would like to defend its inclusion on Wikipedia. Regardless of my conflict of interest, I have included numerous sources and I believe JESS3 is worthy of an article on the site. The company has had several high profile clients over the years. In addition, it has been nominated for a Webby Award. I can include another reference, a link to a story about JESS3 and one of its projects in Communication Arts, if that would help support this article. I'm reluctant to do so because of the discussion regarding my conflict of interest. -Maxjammett, 7/7/09

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Crime Association[edit]

Fails notability. The article, I believe, is written by someone with conflict of interest as shown by the contribution history of article creator. Also, the entire article reads like an advertisement. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete whilst lightly promotional, this organisation does not appear to be notable per WP:ORG Ohconfucius (talk) 09:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there's really no third party info.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Private Show (Blaque album)[edit]

Since this article has no references, I Googled for some myself, and while it appears that there are a number of Ghits, the links lead to sites that either state something about the album coming out soon and nothing else, or they talk about unrelated topics called Private Show. And although various sites claim to have lyrics for the supposed songs on the album, when you click the links to each respective song, you won't find any lyrics. Basically, while there is some hope of the album coming out in the future, right now the article is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL (and possibly WP:NALBUMS). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I sense crystal ballery, considering there's absolutely no release date. — Σ xplicit 05:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak procedural Delete I found a lot of info on it on first party sources, but no third party reliable sources. This is the kind of deletion I don't agree with but the community does. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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