< 8 November 10 November >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheyenne (Amtrak station)[edit]

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

This was a Thruway Motorcoach stop with connecting service to Amtrak's California Zephyr until December 2007 when the carrier, Powder River Bus Company, discontinued route service in Wyoming and three other states (see [1] and [2]. Black Hills Stages does still provide service to Cheyenne, but it runs out of the Rodeway Inn, which is on the other side of town. It might be worth a mention in the Zephyr article, but a former bus stop probably fails WP:LOCAL. Mackensen (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the CZ never served Cheyenne. The San Francisco Zephyr served it, followed by one version of the Pioneer. Mangoe (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to the affiliated Thruway Motorcoach service, which connected the CZ with this particular location. Mackensen (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be difficult or anything, but where was the connection made? Mangoe (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per this the connection was in Denver. Mackensen (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm... That would seem to leave us, possibly, with three Cheyenne stations, since I don't think the trip-to-Borie storefront station was at the same location as the now-discontinued Thruway service. Besides the problem that the SF Zephyr needs its own article anyway, I don't think we can say that Cheyenne, as an Amtrak stop, hews only to the CF; it's actually connected to three different train names. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hall Effect[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain management[edit]

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

This article has existed without citing sources or references for over two years. That is too long, so it is time to have the article deleted. Onthegogo (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge can be discussed on the relevant talk pages, since the target for such an action is not clear from this discussion (Fear of the Lord would be an appropriate target when the article only covers Christianity, Fear of God (religion) if it covers multiple religions). Regards SoWhy 09:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of God (religion)[edit]

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

WP:QUOTEFARM, even the superficially prose introduction. If someone thinks this topic deserves its own article, can they expand the relevant part of the God article first, before spinning it off if it gets too big Newman Luke (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paysage D'Hiver[edit]

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

This was prodded with this comment: "No evidence of passing WP:MUSIC. Name is a common phrase in French, hence Google is unavailing." However, a Google search does turn up mentions of the band, and the musician behind the group is part of Darkspace (band) who have an entry on Wikipedia, so there seems to be some room for discussion. This is a neutral entry. SilkTork *YES! 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green building by country[edit]

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

I split this article out from green building since it seemed like a good thing to do. After creating some categories and a few articles such as Green building in Canada and Green building in New Zealand I thought I may as well go the whole hog and create articles for all the countries on this page. I would then want this page deleted since there would be no need for it. The "Green building in Foo" articles will only grow in number over time and make this page get out of hand in terms of length. Also, due to the nature of the articles a Green building by country page will be difficult to maintain in the long term. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, I was not the author since it was split from green building. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Yes, as outlined above. I wanted to get some idea of the feeling out there before doing any more changes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any countries that are not on the list can have their own page created. If this AfD is successful I will create articles for all the countries on the list before it is deleted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article is about green building (sustainable building) legislation, organisations and practices. There is a Category:Sustainable buildings and structures by country Any non-notable buildings would not get their own article past the various deletion processes. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beach Girl5[edit]

Beach Girl5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about non notable band (per WP:BAND) created by user banned for spam. -- Bobyllib (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No strong consensus either way; a potential merge/rename should be discussed on this article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Honduran coup d'état[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2009 Honduran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a POV fork of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis created due to the naming dispute of whether this is a coup or not; it is not as claimed a sub-article as it is evidently been copied and pasted from the original article (not cut and pasted); a more classic POV fork I have yet to see . Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was, indeed, originally copied and pasted. However, the splitting (made clear in a navbox present on all relevant pages) has enabled the parent article, which was a giant mess at over 156K (around #350 in Special:LongPages), to shrink in just a couple of days to under 118K (not in the top 1000 LongPages), and the shrinking continues. I think the parent should come down under 64K over time; yet without the sub-article, that would be impossible, as all sides would defend the inclusion of "their" facts. I think that this is clear evidence that the split is useful. Thus, I believe it is not a POV fork.
Also, I am the initiator of the split, which was discussed on the talk page of the original article and got some informal support and no opposition (I was not the first one to raise it. Xavexgoem said "B) fork the article into its coup, constitutional, and aftermath parts (2009 Honduran coup d'etat, the current 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, whatever the name of the aftermath section would be, plus a general article that summarizes everything -- at least this is the only split I see gaining consensus). Option B would require a helluva lot of consensus-building, although I'm partial to the option (since, in addition, it gives us an article to start fresh with)... I'm partial to B)"). As the discussion there shows, the motivation for this split is a traditional sub-article rationale, and not, as SqueakBox claims, the naming dispute. I would absolutely support this split even if consensus decided that the sub-article should be named Honduran events on 28 June 2009 or some such non-"coup" name (although I'd currently oppose such a consensus, but not vehemently, and anyway that's a separate issue).
Finally, note that the sub-article and the parent article have now each attracted independent work, which (if this AfD goes through) would have to be merged back into the parent article. The same goes for the other two sub-articles created concurrently (Fourth ballot box and Micheletti regime) which were created by the same means (that is, copy, then edit independently to trim the parent and clean up the child). Homunq (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also vote "move" (to something without "coup" in the name) if that were an option? I ask becaus I think that the existence/value of this page should be decided separately from the question of whether its name is POV. Homunq (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, it would need to be renamed. Otherwise, it should just be part of the constitutional crisis article. Whether there is already enough material in that article, or if some should be merged is my !vote of "merge/delete", since either is acceptable. Keeping is less desirable, since I don't see a clean cut to have an article on the non-coup as a separate topic from the constitutional crisis. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 09:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the cut is clean. This article covers the events of June 28th and their direct causes (primarily the arrest order - the causes of the arrest order are NOT directly in scope, meriting only a brief mention here) and effects (primarily, opinions and/or positions on those events which were expressed after that date). Homunq (talk) 11:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
65.94.252.195, I looked at your user contributions. It appears that you have never edited any of the Honduran coup articles. Per WP:MEAT policy, "in votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded." -- Rico 19:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that doesn't really matter, since my IP rotates, or did you not notice that the edit contribution history for this IP address abruptly starts in November, with edits that are not indicative of a new user? I have infact editted the constitutional crisis article, several times. But I don't expect that you'll accept me, because I don't think you accept IP users, forgive me if I am misinterpreting your actions. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just a note to Rico: a ton of folks are on rotating IPs (DHCP). Xavexgoem (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I disagree with the IP's stance, and personally would not comment in AFD as an IP, but I defend his right to do so. He appears to have made useful articlespace contributions on astronomy. (I say "he" as an educated guess, not because of the astronomy, but because of some of the other stuff.) Homunq (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for defending his or her right to comment in AFD as an IP, as if I had suggested that s/he had no such right (even though I never wrote that).
Please feel free to reply to other things I've never written, as if I have.
Very impressive, oh defender of right. -- Rico 20:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peace. You're a good editor and I value your contributions. I had no intention to offend you, in fact I considered you a friend and ally. I understand now that you did not share this feeling of familiarity, and that by acting on it, I was bothering you. I will no longer respond to your comments if I can avoid it, and if I can't I'll be as factual as possible. However, here and now, I cannot help noting that you seemed angry enough to swear at me twice (with the link above, and below) when I was not aiming to offend, and strongly urge you to closely consider whether this apparently-emotional style of response is productive, and if not, what you can do to avoid it. Homunq (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote only what I wrote, but you and everyone and anyone are free to read into it anything you like. A policy quotation is a simple, indisputable fact. That the 65.94.252.195 contributions history contains no edit to any Honduran coup article, is an indisputable fact.
I never wrote anything about whether an IP could comment in AFD as an IP, and anyone that replied to me as if I did could give a damn about civility.
I never wrote it, and I never thought it.
I failed to consider that an anonymous poster may have edited using another IP address.
Shoot me. -- Rico 03:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we try to restrict the discussion to the article's existence, not its name? Or is that the reason you nominated this (and not its twin sister articles) for AFD after all? Homunq (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rico, please assume good faith on my part. The resolution to the name war on "constitutional crisis" was that the article should stay at "constitutional crisis", with a subhead named "coup", because it covered more than just the coup - that is, it covered before, during, and after the coup. That's fine. Then the article got too big - >156K, around number 350 on Special:LongPages - and needed splitting into sub-articles. The most logical split was to make sub-articles for before, during, and after the coup, which I did. This is the second of those three articles, and it is NOT the same as 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. While this article does have brief, one-paragraph summaries for before and for after the coup, those are generally out-of-scope, which is why it's about a third the size of the parent article. The parent article, for its part, has now dropped from 157K (over 70K readable text) to 112K (under 40K readable text, a nearly proper size).
The three new sub-articles needed some name. I did my best to follow WP:NAME for each on its own right. On this article, that meant following the existing subhead in the parent article and the broad majority of RS, as you know and agree.
I understand your suspicion of an action which gives a result that's so convenient for those who thought that the original article should have been named "coup" in the first place. But for a minute, forget about the high emotions, and just put yourself in my place. Once I decided to follow policy and do a WP:Split, what else could I have done? I must admit, some part of me felt the same glee you did in being able to at last put an article under this well-deserved name, but that was NOT my motivation for doing this split; it just needed to be done and so I did it following policy. (Well OK, I think I didn't do the edit summary right, mea culpa).
Also, one interesting point: now that the split has happened, it's clear to me that the tug-of-war over the parent article's title resulted in the RIGHT decision. If you and I had prevailed earlier and located the overall article at the "coup" name, I would have had to move it when splitting. So: I was wrong. To me, it's another confirmation that there's often more wisdom in a collaborative process than you realize at the time. Homunq (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a mind reader? Is that how you know what I "realize"?
You've replied to what I hadn't written, as if I had, and now you've put thoughts in my head (as if there's some way you could know what's in there). I'd write that you don't give a flying fuck about civility, but then, I would have to be a mind reader to know what you care about, wouldn't I?
Regarding, "The resolution to the name war on 'constitutional crisis' was that the article should stay at "constitutional crisis", with a subhead named 'coup'.
This is not true. "The resolution to the name war on 'constitutional crisis' was that the article should stay at "constitutional crisis."
Now you've started a second article with the name that wasn't chosen after the Name change ran its course. -- Rico 00:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I'm no mind reader. And I'm really sorry. I did not mean to offend you. I was trying to signal that I understood where you were coming from, in order to be friendly, and obviously that was a mistake. I've stricken through the text that, as far as I can tell, offended you, and I don't know what else I can do.
I understand that my informal tone was an error, but I don't understand more than a little bit of your response directly above, so I really can't respond to it on the substance, just the tone, and so I repeat my apology. Peace.
Is there anything I can do to clarify my response above? Basically, my point is that I changed 2009 Honduran coup d'état from a redirect into a subarticle because 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis needed to be WP:Split, not as a sneaky way of moving the article and breaking the truce on the name war. I was trying to cite the (limited and weak) evidence which would help an observer distinguish my intent. And in the process I was being too clever by half. Homunq (talk) 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. POV fork at best, incorrect article at worst. The original name as noted above as part of a consensus situation is more valid. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ed Wood's Wig, you have also considered the parent article to be incorrect and POV. Is this article any different in that regard? In other words, is it in your opinion a WP:CFORK, or just a WP:Split of a bad article? Homunq (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is project-wide at this point, but this is almost certainly a POV split from folks who are angry that the current articles don't reflect unreality enough. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this help? Homunq (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Counting the !votes, this is in favor of deletion but the strength of arguments is roughly equal with no clear consensus. Allow me to elaborate: There are three different delete !votes: a.) no assertion of notability, b.) not enough coverage and c.) coverage is local only. a.) has been refuted by the addition of multiple reliable sources. c.) is not a valid reasoning for deletion since WP:N does not require that the coverage needs to be on any scope, except when it comes to significance. That leaves us with the question whether the coverage is enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria (b.)) and there is no consensus whether the coverage really is enough to satisfy the relevant criteria. As such, "no consensus" was the only way to close this discussion. Regards SoWhy 08:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Center of Hope[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled hadouken! 2nd album[edit]

Untitled hadouken! 2nd album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable album that doesn't even have a title (also known as WP:HAMMER). KuyaBriBriTalk 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of banks in Zamboanga City[edit]

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

This article is a list of banks for a specific city within the Phillipines. At this granular breakdown of geography, what we have is essentially a directory contrary wo WP:NOT. Note that there is a List of banks in the Philippines. Whpq (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of camera clubs in Ireland[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a directory, neither it is a collection of external links. Donnie Park (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might not like it or think it a waste of time but it serves a purpose. I saw a list of hits it received one time and was amazed at how much interest there was. Dunno how to show this but maybe someone else does. I don't see how it is any different to these other lists, which are not up for deletion...

If you need sources (although I thought I had included them) here are two other lists of photography clubs on the web...

Jaqian (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: As this is coming from the creator, I will say this is not a matter of whether I like it or not, it is the matter of this list failing to meet guidelines and serves a purpose to provide links to other clubs who do not have their own article and are not likely to meet notability guidelines themselves. Answer this, why should your list be significant compared to those that you have mentioned here, which meets notability guidelines and are notable in a sense, plus they bluelinked and does any of yours, I don't see any. The number of hits on your page is not relative to this nomination. Donnie Park (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XiRCON[edit]

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

On June 8, I requested some third party, reliable sources to attest to this software's notability [[9]], and none has been added. I searched for some mentions, and everything I found was either trivial or not reliable. I don't think this software is notable by wikipedia's standards. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

articles don't need to be notable, but the subjects they cover do. riffic (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected to Canterbury Cathedral, not that implausible and redirects are cheap. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury cathedral facts[edit]

Canterbury cathedral facts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with no prejudice against merging or renominating less notable entries. There appears to be a rough consensus that at least some of the material in some of these articles should be retained. Obviously, there is a wide variety of quality in both content and notability here and some (or even many) articles probably shouldn't be retained as stand-alone articles. However, a mass AfD like this can not accurately judge consensus on individual articles, and thus should only be evaluated as a question of the general principle: "should articles like this exist at all?" I see no consensus that they shouldn't, so this AfD must close as keep. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)))[reply]

Check Game[edit]

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

Unsourced article filled with trivia related to a specific audience that perpetually keeps these articles as fansites. As another similar AFD states, "No way could any of this indiscriminate trivia ever be sourced. Survived a bundle AFD in 2007 with no consensus. Tagged for lack of sources since 11/07 with no improvement." Sottolacqua (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fit the criteria above and are unsourced or use fansites as only sources:[reply]

Check-Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clearance Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cliff Hangers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clock Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Coming or Going (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cover Up (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Credit Card (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Danger Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dice Game (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Prices (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eazy az 1 2 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Five Price Tags (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flip Flop (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Freeze Frame (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gas Money (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Golden Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grocery Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
½ Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi Lo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hole in One (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's in the Bag (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let 'em Roll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Line em Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lucky $even (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Magic Number (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Make Your Move (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Master Key (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Money Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
More or Less (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Most Expensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now....or Then (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1 Right Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1 Wrong Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pass the Buck (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pathfinder (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pick-a-Number (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pick-a-Pair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Plinko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pocket ¢hange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Punch a Bunch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Push Over (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Race Game (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Range Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Safe Crackers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Secret "X" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shell Game (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shopping Spree (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Side by Side (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Spelling Bee (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Squeeze Play (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stack the Deck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Step Up (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swap Meet (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Switch? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Switcheroo (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Take Two (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Temptation (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ten Chances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That's Too Much! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
3 Strikes (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Triple Play (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2 for the Price of 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Add 'em Up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Balance Game (1980s) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bullseye (retired pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bump (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buy or Sell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Bullseye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Double Digits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Finish Line (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fortune Hunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gallery Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Give or Keep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hit Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hurdles (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It's Optional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Joker (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Make Your Mark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mystery Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the Nose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
On the Spot (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Penny Ante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Phone Home Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Poker Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Professor Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shower Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Split Decision (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Super Ball!! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
$uper $aver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Telephone Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Time Is Money (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Trader Bob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Walk of Fame (pricing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Your source is not directly applicable to most of these articles being nominated for deletion. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination wants to delete all of the games - every one of them. No careful analysis of each of them has been done - it's just an indiscriminate bonfire based upon a false premise. If you want to do the careful work of checking each of them out against the available sources then please go ahead and get back to us after the proper process described at WP:BEFORE has been completed. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trivia in question is statements such as these:

Cliff Hangers: Cliff Hangers was one of five pricing games introduced in the fifth and final nighttime season hosted by Dennis James – the other four being Danger Price, Dice Game, Hurdles, and Three Strikes. It also made appearances on the final nighttime show in 1980 and both subsequent syndicated versions (see below).
Danger Price: The 1980s nighttime version hosted by Tom Kennedy used both sets of Danger Price, the change coming near the end of the run.
Dice Game: On January 8, 1988 the game offered its last car priced under $6,667, after which the five-digit version became permanent. In September 1988, at the beginning of Season 17, the "Deluxe" title was dropped.
Double Prices: According to former producer Roger Dobkowitz, Double Prices has been played more often than any other pricing game (but by a slim margin).
Five Price Tags: The correct price of the car was originally an orange version of the price tag in front of it. This was changed to the current "WIN!" tag sometime in the 1990s.

...et cetera. Most of this is superfluous information that adds no understanding about the subject. It's minutia.
Additionally, coming late to the discussion, you've missed a large argument throughout this nomination in that none of these articles are notable enough to warrant separate pages. They can all easily be edited down and merged into The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're wanting to merge all these articles then you've come to the wrong place - AFD is for deletion in which none of the original is retained. Please see WP:MERGE for the correct process. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This started as an AfD, but the emerging (no pun intended) consensus seems to be Merge. Another editor and I have been adding brief summaries to the List article, as suggested. JTRH (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only purpose of AFD is to determine whether an admin should be pressing his delete button for the nominated articles. If we are agreed that deletion is not appropriate then the nominator should withdraw his nomination and a merge discussion be started. This should be a separate discussion because it would involve editors of the target article(s) who may not yet be aware of this matter as those articles were not included in this bundle. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which "target articles" you're referring to that "were not included in this bundle." Some of the pricing game articles have been AfD'd separately, and some of those have already closed with a Delete. With the exception of one of the major authors of these pages, who hasn't responded to my e-mail notifying him of this, I think this AfD discussion has included everyone who might have an interest. If the consensus here is a Merge, there's no reason to re-open it instead of just going with the decision here. JTRH (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Moone[edit]

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

Non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE (as he has never "competed at the fully professional level of a sport"; the league he plays is is not fully professional) and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject") - note the original PROD was contested waaaay back in August 2009. GiantSnowman 19:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 T. F. Green Airport#1999 Runway Incursion. There may not be enough "notability" for a standalone article but the information is noteworthy and this target looks to be a logical location for it indeed. Shereth 16:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion[edit]

AfDs for this article:
1999 T. F. Green Airport runway incursion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a non-event--a thing that never happened. On the first AfD a year and a half ago, the result was no consensus. The closest thing we have to a guideline for aircraft events is here [10]. There is a lot of verbiage on that page, but note that most of it is related to the notability of accidents--not the notability of non-accidents, non-events, or near-misses. I think most editors would agree that articles should be about things that have actually happened, not about things that didn't happen or "nearly" happened. Qworty (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If something had to go kaboom to be notable, Wikipedia would only have a couple thousand articles. Tavix |  Talk  22:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Merge per above. --Triadian (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a "potential for multiple deaths" every time a pilot gets on a plane. And every time you get in your car. Qworty (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a potential for an accident = a potential for notability. Hey guess what: it wasn't an accident, it was an incursion; so your claim fails. Tavix |  Talk  23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion and the 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion also had the potential for hundreds of deaths, and they are also notable enough to have articles. As I stated above, this incident involved three aircraft, not two.
  • Comment. Then those two articles should also go! Thank you for pointing them out. I love absurd phrases such as "the near-collision occurred at"--I'm sorry, but that is a thing that did not happen! It did not occur at any time! Talk about dishonest phrasing. Qworty (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge What makes this runway incursion more notable than any of the others that happen regularly all over the world that don't get a WP article? See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Roger (talk) 11:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New album - Rotting Christ[edit]

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

    Also per the PROD comments on the page. Airplaneman talk 18:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Question: Why is this at AfD if there is still an unexpired, uncontested prod on the page? KuyaBriBriTalk 21:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I think I figured this out. I redirected New album - Rotting Chist to New album so as to allow this deletion discussion to continue without two identical, copied-and-pasted articles creating confusion. I've also removed the prod tag from New album so that only one deletion template is present on the article. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We sort of do - see WP:HAMMER. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Guitar Hero 6[edit]

    Guitar Hero 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article that hinges on half a sentence in Activision's annual report. No other sources, no firm release date, no indication that this will even be the title of the game. There's no need for this article until more sources show up; for now, it needs hit with the WP:HAMMER. —C.Fred (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. In the process of writing an article, you have to provide reliable sources for verifiability. We don't allow original research and thus speculation because they cannot be verified. In this case, the article is based entirely on assumptions rather than references, and since references could not be found the article has been nominated for deletion. If you can prove that Guitar Hero 6 is in development, then by all means add the reference. In the meantime, please take a look at Wikipedia's policies and consider how you might be able to contribute. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Bitey much? That said, Heavyweight Gamer is correct, and ODSW, please stay civil. BlazerKnight (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert B. Jones (linguist)[edit]

    Robert B. Jones (linguist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    • From his memorial, which is published by the university and I would accept as a consensus of his peers: "His Ph.D. dissertation was a descriptive and historical study of the major languages in the Karen language family (Sgaw, Pho, and Pa’o), spoken in Burma and Thailand. [...] The resulting study was published in the University of California linguistic series as Karen Linguistic Studies. This monograph is among the most thoroughgoing studies of any Tibeto-Burman language and is still the most authoritative single-volume study of the Karen family." Satisfies WP:ACADEMIC criterion 1: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't gone through this systematically, but GS says Karen Linguistic Studies has 38 cites. --Chris Johnson (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    His papers have been acquired by Cornell University and are now part of the rare books and manuscripts collection. If a university library considers the rubish someone leaves at death worthy of indefinate storage in a publically accessible archive, the university at any event seems to regard him as important. http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/ead/htmldocs/RMM04901.html Tibetologist (talk) 15:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge is possible here. Let me know so that I can provide content. Tone 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Parnell (Australian)[edit]

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

    Very poorly sourced biography of a living person. Closedmouth (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Non-admin closure, withdrawn by nominator, see this edit ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 19:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Walser German[edit]

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

    Lord of the Pit (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Inka Games[edit]

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

    Non-notable board game. Was declined for speedy G11 (I agree with that decline). DMacks (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rated R (Rihanna album). Cirt (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song)[edit]

    Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    Wait Your Turn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)Redirect of this duplicate was undone today. Amalthea 20:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Topic fails WP:NSONGS. This song from Rated R (Rihanna album) has not been confirmed as a single, despite prior reports by the song's producer Stargate (production team). Samples from it were used in promotion of the album. That's I believe why it is named a "promo single" in the current version of the article.
    Was redirected by several editors to the parent album, but keeps being recreated both at Wait Your Turn and Wait Your Turn (Rihanna Song) (and previously at The Wait is Ova + alternative spellings). Note that there are older versions in the respective histories that are slightly more detailed than this current version. Still, I believe the topic fails community consensus about notability of songs, detailed at WP:NSONGS, and information should be (and already is!) placed in the album article. Amalthea 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, "Hard" seems to be notable enough now. It's decently-sized (barely) and it has charted on R&B/Hip-Hop Songs in the U.S.. However, this song is still not notable. Chase wc91 05:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Masta-[edit]

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

    Looks like a Hoax. No mention of masta found at external link http://www.bipm.org/en/home/ or elsewhere. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was WITHDRAWN -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How the Earth Was Made[edit]

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

    Interesting series, but also unnotable. Fails WP:N. Prod removed by an IP with note of see talk page, on talk page they statd "There are plenty of other articles on lesser-than-notable History channel programs. This article is not an orphan." Neither of which demonstrates any notability for the program or shows it was given any significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources. The only news mentions I found were two mentions in passing listing it among the many done by Pioneer Productions which was recently acquired by Tinopolis, one local news paper noting the Gold episode was filmed there, and one newspaper report confirming the series' launch. It exists is not a valid keep reason, nor personal enjoyment of the series (which is quite fascinating), nor insignificant/passing news mentions as noted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is, of course, not a legitimate notability guideline, but a personal essay. The essay also notes that airing alone is not a notability criteria, without sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Amazon is not needed for V - the History channels on website does that. Geology.com, if RS, is a short review. HD-Report is not significant coverage, and Blu-Ray was announced by History itself. Multichannel isn't clear about a new season. Of those, the best are The Oakland Press (which is a little production data), and BroadcastNow. Checked and the Emmy it won was for editing achievement. With that morsel, found a Variety article stating it "averag[ed] 1.4 million total viewers" in the first season. Will withdraw.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Globo Thermo Tour 2009[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Globo Thermo Tour 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is not notable and is an advertisement for an upcoming tour created by DANECOOKISFUNNY, either someone that loves Dane Cook, an employee of Dane Cook's, or Cook himself. This is pure promotion and I can't find a single bit of information on the page that can be merged with the main Dane Cook article, as it's all useless, non-encyclopædic promotion. PÆonU (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Julius Weinberg[edit]

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

    This article is about a person who is not, and has not been, in the public domain for any significant incident or for any significant amount of time, thereby making the article meaningless to Wikipedia Count-kostaki (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - inhabited places are generally notable, and neighborhoods of larger cities (especially ones that formerly were separate towns, villages, or cities) are almost always notable. No valid argument has been given to delete this article or list. Several newly registered users, who have had virtually no other input, have been active in this disussion, leading the closing administrator to discount their arguments of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. 01:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

    Neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia[edit]

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

    Columbus neighborhoods are not exactly notable. Truthteller234 (talk) 20:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, my point of view is it depends on where you live. Neighborhoods of Atlanta aren't notable to me because I don't live there and haven't heard of many of them... I live in Columbus and I've heard of all of these places. Of course, that's just my view on it... Shark96z (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Actually, I'd say that this AfD nomination is still incomplete. This is simply the tip of the iceberg for an entire project devoted to writing an article about all the neighborhoods in Columbus, Georgia. I doubt that any of them are notable enough for an article of their own, but there's no point in nominating or discussing the only useful part of that project. Since this is only about the list, I don't see any reason to delete the list. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with a list of neighborhoods, regardless of whether they would be notable or not. The notability of the individual blue-links on the template are another matter, but that's not been brought up for debate. Mandsford (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe he's from Phenix City.... Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    — LinwoodJoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    The debate itself is pointless. It's like throwing away the yellow pages because you don't like the businesses. Mandsford (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    White Oaks Mall (Springfield, Illinois)[edit]

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

    Doesn't appear to be notable. Doesn't seem to be something like Mall of America, just an average shopping mall. Thewtfchronicles (talk) 05:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Several Proposed Guidelines have attempted to gain consensus, but they all fail. I am currently working on this one. At the moment, there is no consensus. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein's suggestion is the consensus here, so the appropriate close is merge. Since the proposed target is not currently in a state that would allow merging there, further work and discussion (preferably by editors familiar to the subject) is needed, so I have not added List of legal Latin terms as the "official" target. Consensus is in favor of merging this article (and the AFD is only about this article) to a list of such phrases but the target can change if further discussion favors such a change. Regards SoWhy 08:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prout patet per recordum[edit]

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

    Wikipedia is neither a Latin dictionary, nor a glossary of legal terms. Powers T 13:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is intended—per policy / guideline—to be neither a Latin dictionary, nor a glossary of legal terms.
    In fact, Wikipedia is those things. See Category:Latin words and phrases, Category:Latin legal phrases, and Category:Legal terms, which include many hundreds if not thousands of entries. Bongomatic 14:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, those are categories for articles that are related to latin legal phrases and legal terms; the articles are never supposed to be about those terms, they're at most about the meaning of those terms. It's subtly different, but a really important distinction.- Wolfkeeper 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was borrowing the simple declarative form of WP:NOT. Powers T 20:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your suggestion goes far beyond the scope of this discussion. Concepts such as habeus corpus and ad valorum are not simple matters which should compressed into some concise glossary, as can be seen from their articles. Our topic here is more than a form of words; it is also a legal concept and matter of precise ritual. Explaining this properly requires more than a single sentence. I have made a start on this but don't fully grasp all the details myself yet. If we have established that the topic is notable and so should not be deleted then there is nothing more to be done here. Rewriting great swathes of legal articles is a larger task which would be ultra vires. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any article that can grow beyond a perma-stub should indeed be a full article (in these cases, with summary in and link from a glossary article. As per the other glossaries). -- Quiddity (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Let us not give the wrong impression to someone who might read this AfD as to what the votes mean. When the AfD is closed, the decision is either keep or delete. The vote of merge can be understood as a vote to keep until the article is merged with some more suitable article and then delete the word article title; but the closing administrator will not do that work. In a recent AfD about "How now brown cow" there were votes of merge by Jujutacular, Datheisen, Ultraexactzz and Chris Johnson. It was closed as "keep without prejudice against merge" on the 27th of October, but a merge has not happened yet. An AfD is not necessary for a merge, but I hope in this case that if there is a vote to merge, those who voted that way will get together and do the work.
    As to Bongomatic's contention that a few hundred word articles failing to follow the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary means that there is no such policy, there are three million articles that do follow policy. It seems like a case of the fly on the steer addressing the rancher and saying, "I am no longer a fly speck. I deserve some respect. Tie that steer's tail down so I can get to the serious business of producing more of my kind." I am just disappointed that so many get taken in by Bongomatic's argument. Let's hope that the policies we actually follow do not turn Wikipedia into a maggot infested corpse.
    In any case some of the Category:Latin words and phrases and the List of legal Latin terms are not hopelessly irredeemable dictionary articles such as Libellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis and Magna Carta--Fartherred (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)(minor fix)--Fartherred (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You misconstrue my point. In no way am I saying that "there is no such policy". I am saying that to the extent it applies to this sort of entry (I am not making any claim as to the extent, despite the ironic tone of my original comment) is inconsistent with policy, policy is not being followed.
    I am not even making a claim about the consensus of thoughtful editors with respect to this sort of entry, though of course there is a reasonable possibility (I haven't done any of the research, nor do I intend to) that editors who opine at AfDs have a consensus that varies from policy. There could be an empirical survey done of how such articles fare at AfD to add to the received wisdom at WP:OUTCOMES. The fact is that consensus frequently differs from policy and guideline in many subtle or not subtle ways, and in some of those ways, it is consensus that matters.
    My original comment was not accompanied by an opinion to keep this article, but was intended as a humorous way to point out that practice and policy / guideline may differ, and that such differences may (or may not) be instructive. Bongomatic 06:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My thanks to Bongomatic for serving as an exemplary straw man, even if this role was unintentional. His backing away from and disowning the argument that I tried to pin on him served to discredit that argument as much as I could have hoped for. I will not require the service of a sock puppet.
    To elaborate upon Bongomatic's cogent and apt analysis of the relation between policy and consensus, consensus, to the extent that it exists on Wikipedia, is policy. The written statements of policy are attempts to summarize that consensus, leaving as few exceptions as practical. The usefulness and necessity of written policy in communicating consensus is such that it can be desirable to modify the consensus to make it easier to summarize.--Fartherred (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Colonel Warden ignores WP:NOTGUIDE when he warns that substituting "hoc paratus est verificare" for "prout patet per recordum" would harm a person's case in court. Wikipedia is not in the business of training second rate amateur lawyers. I do not oppose inclusion of a "Prout patet per recordum" article because it is a Latin phrase, I oppose it because it is a phrase and not a thing. Phrases would ordinarily belong in a phrase dictionary. The one in question belongs in the legal phrase dictionary that it came out of. Including the warning about not using the phrase correctly does not improve the article. Even if the warning would not be included in a legal phrase dictionary, it is still about the phrase, and there is no special reason that the group of legal phrases that have been put in Wikipedia as a portion of all legal phrases should be in Wikipedia.
    Colonel Warden seems to take the position that because editors have been putting a few hundred word and phrase articles into Wikipedia over the last few years without people successfully opposing them that constitutes a policy of accepting word and phrase articles. I disagree. That is a bad way to make policy. There has never been consensus for those articles all along.
    Colonel Warden's butchering of the "Prout patet per recordum" article when he edited it on the 16th of November at 18:23hours does not give confidence in his good judgement. He added a reference for the warning about the improper use of "prout patet per recordum" and removed the reference for its meaning.--Fartherred (talk) 06:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The appeal to WP:NOTGUIDE is inapplicable because we are concerned here with the history and significance of the phrase, not just its plain meaning. See Pleading for a more extensive article on the matter. This would be the most appropriate merge target, if we were here to discuss merger but we are not. The case in question is whether this article is so lacking in merit and hopeless of improvement that it should be summarily deleted. It should not - the petition is disruption - an attempt to remove a whole class of articles for no good policy reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please retract your claim that this AfD was opened in bad faith. Powers T 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    comment Some editors look at the exemptions to the policy that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and think that they have a loophole that they could sail the USS Nimitz through. We should have some understanding of the allowable exemptions. The exemplary articles Macedonia (terminology) and Truthiness are really quite exceptional.
    The use of the name, Macedonia, for various places in the region of the Balkans is integral to the complexities of the history of that area for many centuries. The lack of a single geographical location to associate with the name makes an article on a country named "Macedonia" difficult, and the name itself have been the subject of diplomatic dispute.
    While politicians have probably been making high sounding empty statements since before recorded history, the satirical use of "truthiness" was the epitome of current comedic response to such statements. It was appropriate to put the article about that satire and people's response to it under the title Truthiness.
    Other word article topics might not be quite so exceptional and still rate an exemption from the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy but Prout patet per recordum is not one of them. It is one drop in a vast sea of information that gets put into a lawyer's head in law school and in work as an associate. It is of interest to lawyers and law school professors but rates no exemption to be included as a phrase based article in Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 22:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Loose Cannon (novel)[edit]

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

    Article that consists only of the plot of a novel, and makes no assertion towards the notability of the book. A quick search finds no major reviews or other discussion, aside from an Amazon.com page. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Vann[edit]

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

    Can't find any evidence online that this person exists. ISBNs do not match books by that name. Worldcat lists no such books under any ISBN, and Google Scholar hasn't heard of this "academic". Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC. Probable WP:HOAX. MuffledThud (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jazz Mellor[edit]

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

    Does not seem to be notable. First (and only) major editor gave reasons for notability on the discussion page only, which are not convincing. Being president of a sub-organisation with an unknown number of members whose notability is not established should not be enough to claim an entry at Wikipedia. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RE: Otherwise we list the presidents of every WI, do we?
    No - Just those WI presidents who have two or more Daily Telegraph articles written about them. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Are there some Telegraph articles other than those in the article, then? Because the two quoted are not about Mellow; yes, she is mentioned in each, but neither is about her, even in the greatest stretch of those words, and mere mention in the Telegraph is not enough to prove notability. Cheers, LindsayHi 04:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Sorry, I should have said two mentions in the national press. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Woo-woo[edit]

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

    Prodded twice for being unexpandable from a dictionary definition (the term is already defined in Wiktionary). Beyond the definition, the article reads like a WP:COATRACK personal essay, covering ground already dealt with in much more depth by the scientific skepticism article. McGeddon (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Poser porn[edit]

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

    I can find no documentation that this pornography genre actually exists. Sure, I can imagine how such a program could be applied to create porn, but having attempted to to google around to see if such porn actually exists (including going to a site liike xtube) I am not cinvinced that this is other than a projection of future developments meco (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Darren Ross[edit]

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

    Non-notable artist who doesn't seem to have any reliable third-party coverage that I can find. Neither Billboard nor AMG have any, which I consider to be the two most reliable sources. ArcAngel (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels"

    since he has apparently released at least 2 albums with Sony, this qualifies. However, the article could really use a clean-up and some citations. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    2009 (UTC)

    • To be fair the IP (whoever it is) is correct that some of the the artist;s iTunes listings (or at least this one) do list Sony BMG as being the copyright holder. I do not know how that information is entered into iTunes and frankly I'm yet to be convinced. Guest9999 (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    True, both iTunes and Amazon list Sony as this guy's record label/ publisher, but I don't know how that information gets there either, and I know iTunes and Amazon are not 100% reliable: I even suspect a possibility they might share (mis)information, since both mislabelled Vitas' songs Opera #1 and Opera #2 the wrong way around, which seems an unlikely (though not entirely incredible) coincidence. I note that the album article for Disco Man lists Cronic Records and Sony under "labels", and states "Darren has signed to Sony BMG record label and plans to stay with Cronic Records", but I can find no evidence of any association between Cronic Records (which does not appear to be notable) and Sony. If these articles are for real, perhaps some reliable sources will emerge after the forthcoming album release: my advice to the author would be wait till then and try again with suitable references should any become available. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    F.R.E.E[edit]

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

    Song doesn't have a shred of coverage that I can find. It fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC based on that criteria. ArcAngel (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disco Man[edit]

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

    Non-notable album that does not have any significant third-party coverage at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Darren Collection[edit]

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

    Non-notable future album that doesn't pass WP:N nor WP:RS at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 10:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Tone 22:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Go U Good Thing[edit]

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

    Contested PROD by article author. Reasoning is this is a non-notable future album that doesn't pass WP:N nor WP:RS at this time. ArcAngel (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I Strongly Think This Article should not be removed because this music artist is getting more popular over the world and is growing very strongly on the internet. (talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Croniclataus (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Tone 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bloodsplattered Joe[edit]

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

    This bears all the marks of a hoax. There is nothing in IMDb about this film or its star Warren McAddams, the blue-links for director and writers go to unconnected people, Google finds nothing, nor is there any trace of the studio. The only source cited is a website littered with spelling mistakes which claims that three films have been released and two more are coming. Contested PROD: the author Buffyfan882 (talk · contribs) maintains on the article talk page that it is not a hoax. His user page says that he is Warren McAddams and lists 11 films already out and 14 more coming with dates out to 2014. I have checked a few without finding any reference except this user page and McAddams' website, e.g. [12], [13], [14]. Even if this is real, it completely fails WP:V and WP:NF. JohnCD (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Folded Wing[edit]

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

    non-notable business, poorly written, unreferenced Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 part-membership of Brent Kutzle, even if taken into account for the band's notability, would still fail to satisfy WP:BAND that requires (#6) two notable members. As such, the criteria to judge this, since the band fails WP:BAND, is the general notability guideline and consensus here is that they do not have achieved sufficient coverage in reliable sources to be considered notable for inclusion at this point of time. Regards SoWhy 08:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This Allure[edit]

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

      This band apparently does not meet the notability standards of WP:BAND. A Google search shows plenty of entries to the band's MySpace page, but nothing of an independent nature. Furthermore, a Billboard Magazine search (www.billboard.com) shows no hit activity on any chart. Ref provided is to a distinct URL (thisallure.com) but redirects to the band's MySpace page. Manway (talk) 04:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      JYumikawa, just a note - you were perfectly within your rights to remove the initial prod. That particular one can be removed. And you are doing right by not removing this one. So far so good! I'm a musician as well, and despite my AfD, I wish your band the best of luck in breaking through - I know it's a rough road. --Manway (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Manway, thank you for understanding and the encouragement. Want to go about all this the right way! What do you play? I'm not musical myself, but really enjoy finding new music and hearing the different songs that people make. JYumikawa (talk) 22:24, 28 October 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) 00:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Given that a member was a current member of the unquestionably notable band OneRepublic, I'm going to have to vote keep. Wiwaxia (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: Brent Kutzle was a member of This Allure - THEN joined One Republic - not the other way around, according to the article. Kutzle is not a current member of This Allure. The MySpace page shows him as a "guest artist." --Manway (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pmlineditor ∞ 08:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Tone 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Close English Translation of Gloomy Sunday's Lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      The song in question is already covered at Gloomy Sunday, no need for this article, but no appropriate CSD area to sort it into. Frmatt (talk) 08:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was speedy keep. (Though not so speedy...) Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Mortimer's disease[edit]

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

      Suggest deletion due to failing WP:N. I can find no reference to this disease in PubMed and the only source is self-published. Suggest delete. Basket of Puppies 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. Tone 22:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Splash player[edit]

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

      Free software. Of the two sources listed, one is a French blog. Another appears to be an Israeli blog, but am not entirely certain. Article has been tagged for sourcing and notability for a month without improvement. Durova360 06:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  06:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Dechronication[edit]

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

      Unsourced fringe-theory suggested by supposedly one individual. Could at best be merged into the article Robert Freitas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Ian Swann[edit]

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

      Apparently some sort of minor celebrity in the UK. Article has been tagged with COI and POV tags (apparently, someone thinks that the article's creator and subject may be the same individual), and it was PRODded for lack of notability; it's only in existence now because it was previously PRODded and declined for an unrelated reason. There are no sources on this article, and there's no evidence that this person passes the notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Central Connecticut State University#Residence halls. Feel free to merge the content as appropriate. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Clarence Carroll Hall[edit]

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

      Non-notable residential hall of a college (Central Connecticut State University). Can't see why this deserves an article at all - beyond being a building on the campus of CCSU, it has no claim to fame of any kind. SMC (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • That redirect target is a good idea (I confess that I failed to notice that section when I skimmed the CCSU article). Although I !voted "delete", I don't necessarily object to a redirect -- it's just that I couldn't imagine anybody expecting to find an encyclopedia article about this dormitory. --Orlady (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yuma Nakayama w/B.I.Shadow. And delete current useless content.  Sandstein  06:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Kikuchi Fuma[edit]

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

      This is hard to understand and unotable.  Btilm  04:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was redirected to Telephone card per WP:BB. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Rechargeable Calling Card[edit]

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

      Is this really necessary in an encyclopedia? Should this be redirected to calling card?  Btilm  03:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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's one criteria to delete this, SNOW. In this case, a reasonable move. Tone 17:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Dechronication/Hypotheticals[edit]

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

      Per WP:NOTGUIDE Airplaneman talk 03:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      that link does not work for me. They're a respectable organization, and I can not imagine them hosting nonsense like this. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was withdrawn & WP:SNOW.. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Nakunta River[edit]

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

      I proposed deletion as "I can find mention of this river in a handful of books, but existence =/= notability. I can find no descriptions of the river, not even where exactly it is. Without anything to say about the river, there is no purpose in having the article." Deprodded as "Geographical features are notable".

      As I can't expand it and I don't expect anyone else can I still think we should delete the article. I don't think it will ever have any meaningful content. Fences&Windows 03:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Withdrawn, as there not a snowball's chance in hell of this being deleted, despite the lack of sources. Fences&Windows 23:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm glad that you nominated the article, which is now getting an amount of attention that it otherwise would not have. I have no respect for the "deadbeat Dad" approach to Wikipedia, where someone creates a stub (usually as part of a large group of "thisisastub" pages and then leaves it to someone else to improve it. And sometimes the automatic notability rule gets pushed to ridiculous extremes, especially when it comes to inhabited locations -- many a time I've seen someone try to argue that their neighborhood is inherently notable, sometimes even a street -- but a river is notable, as long as it really is a river and not simply a brook, stream, creek, minor branch, etc. Mandsford (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added the link to a book that references the river's outlet location. Serious question, is a map really a source different that a book that describes in words what a map shows, e.g, the location and outlet of the river?--Milowent (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 effort that went into writing the article is not a relevant criterion for deciding whether to keep the article or not and despite the sole keep !vote's claim, reliable sources to establish notability have not been demonstrated to exist. If anyone is willing to transwiki it to a specialized project, please contact me and I will restore it for such purposes. Regards SoWhy 08:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      List of Seinfeld fictional films[edit]

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

      What's the deal with this article? It's about fictional films within a fictional universe, with no real world information. It's mainly OR, with only source mentioning that one of the films was the name of a Larry David script that wasn't produced. This isn't the Seinfeld wiki fansite. Coasttocoast (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Pokémon Movie 13[edit]

      Pokémon Movie 13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      I can't find any reliable third party sources for this movie. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Reviews of the movie, news updates, etc. I can't find any reliable source online that states this movie even exists. The only thing I can find are fansites, wikis, and the official site (WP:PRIMARY). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said though, many of the other movies are of the same status. They dont have any reliable third party sources. That doesnt mean they should be deleted. Half of Wikipedia doesnt have reliable sources. They stay because they are not trivial subjects that dont need to be covered. Ignore all rules? Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      There are plenty of reliable sources for anime works. The anime/manga project has a list of online ones and a library of magazines and book sources owned by project members available. There are dozens of anime/manga books available. Notable series are covered by reliable sources, as can easily be seen by featured level anime articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, as stated below, the Pokemon Project isnt very experienced with finding anime/movie sources. We mainly focus on the games. So if that project would help us, them maybe we could actually have better movie articles. Blake (Talk·Edits) 04:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you provide sources that show that the movie is confirmed? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The official site would be a good start. and I am sure that it is confirmed by reliables sources, but as I said in my original statement where would you find such sources?... Please find a source on any of the other Pokemon movie articles and tell me where it is. Blake (Talk·Edits) 21:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Pokémon_4Ever#Reviews, for example. Please remember that notability is not inherited. Theleftorium 21:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Rottentomatoes, IMBD (for some things, as I know some is user-submitted, wiki style), [25] for the first movie, newspapers (as shown in the first movie as well). TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with the majority of the Pokémon films is that little work is put into them beyond plot and cast. Most of the Pokémon WikiProject's efforts go into the species and games articles, and the Films WikiProject doesn't do much more than assess. Sources can and will be found if more people, myself included, put the effort into them. MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      [26] BAM! There it is! A reliable third party source talking about the movie on the Anime News Network, which you just verified a reliable source above. Blake (Talk·Edits) 23:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course, alone that one source does not meet notability for a future film. It would be usable for noting in the appropriate Film list section in the main article that another film is in production, but it isn't enough for a whole article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Even if I found another source, which I am sure it is out there, it would just have most of the same information. Blake (Talk·Edits) 14:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Just per above, no confirmation, no name, nothing verifiable at this moment. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      that comparison is just ridiculous and I hope you know it. For one to not happen, some funding / management decisions have to be made, for the other not to occur one of the biggest democratic countries would have to collapse. It is enough to have an article about the movie AFTER it is out. --hroest 08:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      It definitely wont be after the movie is out. It will be after another announcement comes up that gives more information. I think I would be fine with redirecting it to Pokémon (anime)'s movie section until said announcement comes up. Blake (Talk·Edits) 18:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Gathera[edit]

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

      Somewhat spammy article on a peice of software which fails to establish it's notability. Artw (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Tyfm[edit]

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

      Non-notable radio station, presumably a low power non-commercial station. It appears not to have its own domain, using instead free web hosts. I am unable to find any google hits other than those directly controlled by the station. gadfium 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Rebecca de Ravenel[edit]

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

      Non-notable individual. Limited GHIts and zero GHits of substance. References are unsubstantial in nature. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And salt.  Sandstein  06:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Armorize Technologies[edit]

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

      Non-notable tech business. References provided are inclusions on unreachable product category surveys, or trivial press releases announcing financing or co-ventures. This has been speedily deleted four times as blatant advertising or as a business with no minimal showing of importance.[27] Google News hits seem to be press releases announcing financing, security alerts, and mentions in stories about trade show appearances. Taking this to AfD to establish a precedent for protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Butler Senior High School, which is the target of the redirect at Butler High School (Butler, Pennsylvania). (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Butler Golden Tornado Marching Band[edit]

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

      Not cited, likely not notable, fails to meet WP:GNG Blue Rasberry 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Tsuki no Misaki[edit]

      Tsuki no Misaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      This article is about a particular location in Tokyo that is not particularly notable by itself. I would be amenable to merging it to an article describing the "seven capes" of Tokyo, should that be notable enough to pass muster. armagebedar (talk) 05:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • comment I believe you can find the place-name Yatsuyama (八つ山) in the painting drawn by Hiroshige. I know another painting also showing Yatsuyama (八つ山), which I can't find on the web yet. --Excavator (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would certainly seem so, and the Brooklyn Museum of Art also accepts the 100 Famous Views print as being of a brothel at Yatsuyama. So are there two different locations called Tsuki no Misaki? Or is Hiroshige just using it as a (generic?) title for pictures of moons viewed from headlands? (I've also come across an award-winning play, apparently set in Nagasaki, with the title Tsuki no Misaki, so if we have three distinct notable items that take the same name, perhaps we need to disambiguate?) --Paularblaster (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. No arguments to keep Kevin (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Tyrell Jackson[edit]

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

      No notability other than relationship shown. Unsourced and full of rumors and other dubious material. BLP issue. Reywas92Talk 20:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete without prejudice to recreation of a legitimate article. Article creator has a history of creating fictitious biographies of people, sometimes real & notable people, sometimes made-up ones, sometimes nn ones. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. Consensus that there is no significant, reliable coverage evident.  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Shed Skin[edit]

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

      I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Although the software is primarily the work of a single person, it is useful (I've used it several times)and not merely a toy. There are articles on comparable software Psyco and Unladen Swallow. My vote is to not delete the article. I wouldn't object, however, if these several articles about software projects to improve Python's performance were to be grouped into a single article or sub-article of Python.71.38.174.228 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh, barbarian  05:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Ergastolo[edit]

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

      I can't find significant coverage for this film. All that the article has is "Ergastolo is a 1952 Italian film.", an IMDB link, and an infobox. Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: I just notified the article's author of this discussion. Perhaps he will himself expand and source the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      45 Special[edit]

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

      fails WP:CORP. lacks third party coverage [35]. nothing particularly special about this night club (and we don't create articles for every night club in the world). LibStar (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      J. M. Humphrey[edit]

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

      From a couple of quick google searches, this guy does not seem notable. Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Mallavoodoo[edit]

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

      Delete No claim of notability under WP:BAND. There are no independent sources referenced in the article, and the only substantial Google results I could find were a band website, and a listing on Last.fm. Inks.LWC (talk) 00:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I've also added a bylined news cite from Universo Online on the release of their 2001 album, O Inverno e a Garça. I acknowledge that their absence from the Portuguese Wikipedia raises doubts. Maybe some Brazilian editors here can shed some light. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      More