< 24 January 26 January >
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 Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E equational theorem prover[edit]

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

This article appears to be written almost entirely by the author of the software concerned. Nearly all of the sources the article cites are the author's own works (scholarly journal and conference articles which are not necessarily inherently notable). Seems therefore of dubious notability. Psychonaut (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PasWiki[edit]

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

A non-notable wiki application, whose only interesting aspect seems to be that it's written in Pascal. It appears to have only one developer and one user. Yaron K. (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 01:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grsync[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable software. Cleanup tag asking for sources has been posted since August 2009, though so far there don't seem to be any independent third-party sources in the article. Psychonaut (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Society Nepal[edit]

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

NGO with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability Zero gnews hits; the google web hits aren't showing notability. Bringing to AfD rather than prod because there may be language issues hindering my search. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. While the argument went both ways, the deletes had the better of it, as they bemoaned the lack of relevant sources, and weren't rebutted. The argument for inherent notability of the position (or perhaps, notability when all of the subject's positions are considered) did not gain traction in the debate. I have given less weight to most of the new accounts in this discussion, not because they were new, but because their arguments were not persuasive. Since the issue of sockpupperty was raised, let me state here that a check user found all accounts unrelated. To the extent anyone was offended by the process, you have my apologies. Finally, I am willing to userfy this article upon request, so that interested parties can continue to work to find reliable sources. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Andersen[edit]

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

Fails to meet the notability requirements. Being president of eGate Networks, which may be a notable company, does not automatically confer notability to the corporate executive. Sitting on various boards does not make the individual notable even if the boards are. I find no publications for him in Google Books or articles about him on Google News. Wikipedia does not benefit by having a biographical résumé for every CEO or President for every company without specific notability demonstrated for the individual. Ash (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • CIRA is a corporation, not a national agency, and I don't believe this viewpoint is supported by WP:BIO. — Rankiri (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CIRA is the Canadian Internet Registration Authority. true, it is technically a corporation, but it's the "non-profit Canadian corporation that is responsible for operating the .ca country code top-level domain." . DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the CIRA WP article does not mention who sits on the board as it's not that notable? Ash (talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) is the not-for-profit corporation chosen by Industry Canada (a branch of the Canadian government) to manage the dot-ca domain space on behalf of all Canadians. See the following for details.
  • Industry Canada letter to CIRA [7]
  • Industry Canada letter to ICANN [8]
  • ISPman (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely, such a distinguished WP contributor as yourself needn't be reminded that all individual article subjects must meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability on their own merits. Even though WP:NOTINHERITED makes some exceptions for such nationally renowned positions as First Ladies, I find it highly questionable that a chairman of a relatively minor privately run company—again, not some branch of the Canadian government—should fall into the same category without any scrutiny or discussion. A person is presumed to be notable if he's received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. If I see such sources, I'll gladly change my previously stated opinion to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CIRA paragraph is the shortest section of the page. It only states that the subject has served on the Board of Directors of CIRA since 2000 and is currently the Chair and that throughout the years he has been actively involved in various CIRA committees. The rest of the article doesn't seem to have any relevance to CIRA's operations, so I think one can just copy this little snippet of information to the CIRA page by hand without any merging. — Rankiri (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spring project[edit]

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

Probably non-notable game. Despite the presence of a Refimprove tag on the page since June 2009, all the article's references are to the project's own websites (with the single exception of an interview with the developers). Psychonaut (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I work in Biostatistical research by trade, and at least two of the papers listed have several citations. What do you consider "very low". --Teancum (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the significant numbers of mods and independent websites is relevant here (linked or discussed in article, 300k+ posts in main forum). Also, not many games can claim to have been used in published academic research. I think that covers notability; verifiability is not currently a problem for this article. jonon (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Pure" a commercial game that can be purchased at http://impulsedriven.com/pure uses the Spring Engine. It's an independent source that can be noted. OpenSuse has a page on Spring here http://en.opensuse.org/Spring Ubuntu started shipping Spring in its latest 9.10 release. http://packages.ubuntu.com/karmic/spring-engine so is Debian http://packages.debian.org/unstable/spring http://www.moddb.com/engines/spring lists the Spring Engine as the only open source rts engine.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd like to see this article survive, none of those count as reliable sources that provide significant coverage. --Teancum (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Spring project is moving away from its Total Annihilation roots in a steady pace. In the sense that the developers are removing code that was written to support specific "TA" type gameplay. Even if someone merges this article with the Total Annihilation article.. Spring is a different subject matter. I think people visit Wikipedia to read up on the "Spring Project" not to read about "Total Annihilation". Personally I think that the article lacks quality. It opens with a section on "Source Code" and has a "Features" list that reads like a advertisement. Bad, bad, bad. And yes it's light on independent sourcing but it's there. And considering the fact that Linux distributions are picking it up now that there's good open source game content available - I suspect that there will be more people that "discover" Spring and start writing about it. It's simply one of the best open source Linux games out there. They kept a low profile when most good content was based on the "TA" IP but I don't see why that would continue.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that spring is not total annihilation, many of the projects are not in any way related to total annihilation. Projects such as http://www.imperialwinter.com/, http://spring1944.net/, both of which are pretty remarkable. I have to question the validity of such votes for deletion whenever the users in question have not actually looked into the matter at hand. In conclusion, rather than mark for deletion the users in question, being psychonaut(someone who seems to enjoy being troublesome) and Xymmax both be placed under watch. No research was done and they merely moved to delete on the grounds that spring was a game, when the article clearly cites that spring is an engine. One has to question the reading comprehension levels of these two or recognize that they did not give the article more than a cursory glance. Such behavior is reckless and unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — 70.186.178.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I would like to point out that those two websites are not reliable sources that provide significant coverage on the subject. 137.149.227.207 (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC) — 137.149.227.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Perhaps not, I am not a wikipedia janitor. All the effort to delete a page without trying to see if he could find an acceptable article. I do not think that psychonaut made the effort to even look. Had he looked he would have at least known enough to cite lack of reference rather than call it a game. Very lazy. I do not doubt that it is possible to say that such a small engine is obscure. However, that is not the point of argument. The point of argument is that spring is a game, which it is not. This whole discussion is because psychonaut doesn't do his homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know a "large-scale" non-commercial open source game engine? Also Spring is actualy used in a commercial project, still I don't think it's relevant for Wikipedia if a project is or is not commercial.--62.194.222.254 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point exactly...it's small scale AND non-commercial AND not developed by a notable contiguous group or organization - all strikes against its notability. 137.149.227.207 (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argumment is invalid, there are THOUSAND of non-commercial AND yet DISCONTINUED softwares being covered by Wikipedia, what do you consider contiguous group or organization? And Spring Project is under heavy development, each month its engine has an minor update and each semester it has a major update since its release, the development activity can be seen through its SourceForge.net page (also its files activities). There is a gap of dates in the files activies because these were published through other service rather than SourceForge. Your opinion lacks bias and further research, you are saying POV pretty things rather than being fair and yet non-tendentious. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eduemoni, could you perhaps make a few stub sections in the article so that people could have an idea of what needs to be entered? If only in the discussion section, I suspect that people like this neddiedrow guy might come back and do more edits.
  • What sources, exactly? I must have missed them. — Rankiri (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
please clarify what you mean by significant coverage in the context of an open source engine. Detail why is it that the engine is not notable, the specialization in rts gaming is a first for an open source engine of this calibur. At least as far as I have seen. Engines like ogre and irlich lend themselves to fps and third person games where as this engine is highly specialized for rts needs. How would one cite that?
  • "Significant coverage" means that [independent, reliable, published] sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. Please visit WP:N and WP:RS for more information on the subject of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Starwars Imperial winter was featured in a magazine, does that represent one possible source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it represents a possible source for Star Wars Imperial Winter, but whether it represents a source for Spring is another matter. Does the article in question discuss Spring in any depth? Also, who publishes the magazine, and how and how widely is it distributed? —Psychonaut (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd therefore suggest moving this article to "Spring (game engine)", overhauling the article itself (accordingly) and depending on the outcome of the overhaul, not deleting. I myself would be glad to take on those steps, and barring vocal opposition, would start on it soon. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC) (apologies, the anon was me)[reply]
  • Comment the reference provide by User:Krator (videogamer.com) is also directly listed as a reliable source per WP:VG/S, and though a short blurb, can easily serve as a secondary reference, further adding notability. --Teancum (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pardon me, but I have no good reason to believe that either magazine provided any type of significant coverage for the game. Both references come from a new user, who—no offense—seems to be unfamiliar with the concept of WP:RS. Slashdot entries are user-submitted. Cyberstratège's website shows no coverage of the game. PCGamer UK doesn't list the project in its database and shows zero search results for "Spring". This PCGamer UK forum discussion[10] indicates that the game may have been included on PCGamer's disk because of a user request. Such disks are always filled with mods, demos and other not necessarily notable freeware so I doubt this alone demonstrates any kind of notability for the game/engine. One of the mentioned Google Scholar documents offers extremely limited, trivial coverage. The other one goes into some details but it I agree with Marasmusine and decline to view it as a single notability-establishing source (see [11] and other similar discussions). — Rankiri (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though I don't own the issue, evidence of the Spring engine in PCGamer can be found here. PCGamer's web search engine is not exactly reliable when it comes to digging up articles. A scan of the writeup can be found here, which covers both the engine and the Star Wars: Imperial Winter game. The Cyberstratège article can be found covered on their website. Once again a mere writeup is only found online. The print version goes more in-depth. Finding both sources took me all of five minutes. As far as the link you provided about the Google Scholar discussions, I fail to see how that would apply to the particular sources mentioned here. Both sources use Spring as the basis for the entire paper. If I write a paper on blood flow and only mention the heart once, does that make the heart not notable even though without it I could not conduct my analysis? --Teancum (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From what I can tell, the scanned article is dedicated to Star Wars Spring and only contains a single reference to the engine itself:The rather cheerily(?) named Spring engine is a live framework for making RTS games, most notably the loving Total Anniilation remake Spring:TA.. According to WP:NOTINHERITED, notability of a child project is not particularly relevant to that of its parent. We had a very similar discussion for the Halo engine about a year ago: WP:Articles for deletion/Halo Engine. When seen as an open source RTS game engine, Spring doesn't seem to have any type of independent nontrivial coverage of its own. — Rankiri (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those magazines are commercial and have a certain business model. Their product is made of dead trees which you can't link. Due to their business model they might not see any value in putting (years old) editions online for free. Articles about games are (mostly) limited to pc magazines. News papers don't have gamers as primary target audience.Gtwkndhpqu (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional source found at Linux Game Zoo --Teancum (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cute, so because those of us who actually know about the engine have been asked to try and help sort the issue you call it sock puppetry. Where are the individuals debating the points coming from? Checking latest revisions I suppose. So you guys have a dynamic thread of stuff being altered that you can pick and choose what battles you get to fight. Seems to be a bit hypocritical to say meat puppet when you have an entire wiki community. Again, I want to know what is notable. your notability link is ambiguous and suggests that essentially only buzz equals notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not calling anyone a sockpuppet. A disproportionate number of unregistered and new users joined the discussion without fully understanding Wikipedia's core principles and policies. The notice is only a call for additional attention to the strengths of the arguments. If your viewpoint is supported by Wikipedia's key policies, it will not be dismissed no matter how many edits you have. — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rankiri and the people arguing for deletion are calling an engine a game. Seems fairly uninformed, so why is it wrong to ask people to come and clarify the misconception. I have appealed for common decency and asked what is it that needs to change and yet you guys give us some ambiguous articles and say not good enough to each attempt to find something that appeals to your standards. Why not make the effort to help clean up the article, and find some of what you consider valid sources? It seems to me that no matter what is done, you guys will regard the engine and not notable and have it deleted, so why should we bother to try? Honestly, the guy neddiedrow is trying to make a version that will be up to snuff. Rather than demanding deletion, why not help get it in order? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.178.171 (talk) 17:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
... that article is moderately hilarious, since it defines an arbitrary, unheard-of version of puppetry (contacting the relevant parties and informing them of AFD is meat puppetry???) and then utterly fails to mention it again, instead going on to discuss the wholly separate issue of sockpuppet accounts. Once again, a reminder of how Wikipedia is like lawmaking and sausage-making. -[User:Pxtl] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pxtl (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for the desire for more attention to be paid to the people who recently joined the discussion, I can only say that there should be more scrutiny levelled against those who assert such - contribution by newer, interested users is not a manifestation of Meatpuppetry, in general or in this case. My statement here is in response to a rather egregious failure to assume good faith on the part of the participants. It is worth noting that citation of policy is not a substitute for argumentation, rather it is meant as augmentation to such, and the assertion that those who recently joined the discussion do not understand Wikipedia policy is generally unfounded and unnecessarily aggressive - Wikipedia policy is dependent upon interpretation, many articles are viewed under one standard, others under another. Anyway, my keep is on the basis that it will be replaced with a more accurate article, which I am writing. In the event that this article is deleted before the completion of the replacement, that is no problem, an article dealing with Spring and in line with policy will be put up when it is completed. In no case should this article be merged with that of Total Annihilation, they are substantively different and one is not dependent upon the other. Spring is a platform for a variety of commercial and non-commercial games, the notable of which will be added independently to Wikipedia after I rewrite this article. Neddiedrow (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TripleA (computer game)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable game. Article cites no independent third-party sources. Psychonaut (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rutherford (talk) 03:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Internet Chess Server[edit]

I'd like to think the subject of this article is notable, but unfortunately no one has come forth with any independent third-party sources since the article was tagged as needing them in April 2008. Anyone? Psychonaut (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Schock[edit]

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

This individual does not appear notable. Candidates are typically not deemed notable on Wikipedia just because they are candidates. His career has no citations of notability, and his political citations only indicate that he is running. Nothing cited indicates that his candidacy in itself is notable. Therefore, I respectfully nominate this article for deletion. SoxFan999 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

attacking a new wikipedia editor doesn't take away from the underlying fact that the subject is not notable. This entry appears to be more of an ad for ITT Tech. If the party is notable for running candidates, then it is more appropriate on the party page and not a separate entry for some who is not notable. Also, typically the creator of a page doesn't vote. And for the record, I'm a Republican and am not affiliated with a third party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoxFan999 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why a page creator shouldn't !vote. If they can layout a reasonable defense as to why the article should be kept, then by all means they should. However, this article simply does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and there are no reliable sources to satisfy the notability guidelines. PDCook (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phoinix (software)[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable software. I can't find any independent third-party sources, except for mentions on some websites which probably don't count as reliable sources. Psychonaut (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GNUlactic Konquest[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. A sources cleanup tag has been languishing on the article since January 2007. Article includes no independent references except for a blog review. Psychonaut (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fracas (Windows game)[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. No independent third-party sources apart from a couple reviews on blogs. Psychonaut (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was considerable discussion concerning whether the subject meets WP:POLITICIAN, but taken as a whole, the discussion seems to support inclusion at least under the WP:GNG. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mercedes Tenorio[edit]

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

Delete. Not finding the notability for this one. JBsupreme (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OpenMoHAA[edit]

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

Non-notable software that hasn't even been implemented yet. Notability and primarysources tags have been languishing since March 2009. Psychonaut (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

01 Raffles Scout Group[edit]

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

This article on a Scout Group has been created over a redirect to The Singapore Scout Association. This redirect was the result of the discussion at Talk:The Singapore Scout Association#Merge of Group articles. An article on the 01 Raffles Scout Group was one of the Group articles discussed there in 2006. This new article is not identical to the earlier article. Indeed if it had been, I would simply have reverted the new edits back to the redirect as there was no opposition to the merge in 2006. The new article is indeed better than the old one, but it still does not meet wikipedia guidelines for a stand-alone article. There are very few articles on Scout Groups for the simple reason that Scout Groups are generally not notable. To be notable, they have to be either very old or very large and even then there may be no reliable sources. This article makes no real claim to notability. "established itself as one of the most outstanding scouting groups in Singapore" is clearly not enough. The references regarding "A very special walk" mention the Group only in passing. They do not demonstrate notability. Other sources are to the web pages of the group or school itself. The School is notable and has an article at Raffles Institution (Secondary). That article makes mention of the Scout Group here. I proposed merging to The Singapore Scout Association which would essentially be a revert to the redirect made in 2006. That discussion here, received strong support from participants in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Scouting but it was challenged by the editor who created this version. I have decided to bring it here to get wider discussion. I propose that it be reverted to the redirect to The Singapore Scout Association and fully protected to prevent recreation. Before this is done some material should be moved to Raffles Institution (Secondary) and a mention to The Singapore Scout Association. Bduke (Discussion) 23:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bduke Excellent summary Bduke. To me this article reads like a vanity piece and does not meet wiki notability criterion. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this article has been duplicated in whole as the editor's userpage. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stratagus[edit]

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

Non-notable game. No independent third-party sources. A ((primarysources)) cleanup tag has been languishing on the article since May 2008. Psychonaut (talk) 23:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was consensus for keep . Non-admin closure. ¨¨ victor falk 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


SuperTuxKart[edit]

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

Non-notable alpha software. All the references are to the developers' own logs and release notes. Psychonaut (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per consensus. Satisfying sources found and nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. walk victor falk talk 01:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tux, of Math Command[edit]

Tux, of Math Command (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable game. The article's references have only passing mentions of the software being available somewhere, and/or are not reliable sources (school newsletters, etc.). Psychonaut (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete School newsletters in past RFD's have not been considered Reliable or Reputable sources. Now a local newspaper plus some TV coverage or some other newspaper/trade magazine coverage would qualify. Something from a school newsletter...WP:RS has this to say "For that reason 'self-published media'—whether books, 'newsletters', personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." Salt the earth with this one, Admin. --Brian(view my history)/(How am I doing?) 03:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Henry[edit]

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

Actress who plays minor, mostly unnamed, characters. Google search not turning up evidence of meeting WP:BIO. Prod contested without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Sabra[edit]

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

A hoax Matthew_hk tc 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be keep if enough information to upgrade the article for his namesake. Matthew_hk tc 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hassan Sabra is a real player in Lebanon. I know him. But he is in his 20s. I fixed this but if wikipedia feel it should be deleted then go ahead and delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.96.4 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teeworlds[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Notability/sources cleanup tags have remained dormant on the article since June 2008. The article has no references to independent third-party sources, save a single review on a rather amateurish blog. Psychonaut (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ToME (video game)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable game. Article makes no claim of notability, and a "article does not cite any references or sources" cleanup tag has remained unheeded since July 2007. Psychonaut (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tong (video game)[edit]

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

Non-notable game. Psychonaut (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VDrift[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable game; article states that it is "in the early stages of development" and does not provide any independent third-party sources. A quick Google search doesn't turn up any such sources either. Psychonaut (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Sabra[edit]

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

A hoax, the player does not exist, Monza cannot sign non-EU player and only have Seedorf's younger brother[24] Matthew_hk tc 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Syria national football team results 2009 was listed the no.19 of Lebanon is him, but soon i find is Ali Hamam. Matthew_hk tc 23:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He holds the italian citzenship according to the article? He is a half swiss actually1 I am lebanese and a tadamon sour fan but Ali Sabra never played for sour. He played for ansar!!! but i read in the news recently that he signed for a swiss club. He is a real player but all the info here are wrong except for the birth date. He played for ansar from 2005 till 2008 and now he is at 2nd or 3rd division swiss club. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.110.96.4 (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give wikipedia an arabic source to verify and wikipedia will find someone to read it. Reliable soucre usually include newspaper. Matthew_hk tc 16:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW it is so funny that according to article he holds Italian nationality. You added the information and according to Wikipedia?! Matthew_hk tc 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FC Doueir[edit]

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

A hoax Matthew_hk tc 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Starfighter[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources, except for brief synopses on games directories. Psychonaut (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonkheads[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software. The article contains no independent third-party sources other than software directories, and I can't find anything else with Google. Psychonaut (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherry Freebery[edit]

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

This seems to essentially be a WP:BLP1E. What we have here is an American public official at the county level about whom an article would never have been created were it not for the fact that she was accused of fairly serious wrongdoing. The trial created a stir in Delaware, but ultimately most of the charges were dismisssed, the judge said "that the case against her was one of the weakest of its kind he had seen," and Freebery was sentenced "to a year of supervised probation and ordered to pay $350 in fines and assessments for making a false statement on loan application." The background of the story can be ascertained here. County level officials who are accused of serious crimes but then largely exonerated by the legal system should not have BLPs on Wikipedia—Freebery is only really notable for the trial, but if that's part of a larger story perhaps the basic facts could be covered in a non-BLP article. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If notability were established beyond this one event I would withdraw the nomination, but I'm not sure this is going to happen. The events surrounding her case might be significant enough to warrant an article, and an article about the event is generally the way to go in BLP1E situations like this. An earlier version of the article suggested that this entire affair (at least as far as the defense was concerned) was connected to the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. It's possible we already have an existing article where some of the info about Freebery's case could be merged (maybe a sub-article of the main "dismissal" article), though I'm not sure. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just prodding a bit for more information, but on what basis do you conclude that she is notable? Do you see evidence of discussion of her in secondary sources aside from the trial, since if that's her only source of notability this would seem to be a WP:BLP1E? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's small because unsourced material had to be removed, and still no one has bothered to source this thing in the two and half years it has been here. Also claiming "there is a lot out there about this woman" is not really good enough. There have been a number of news stories about her in the past, but from what I've seen they were all about one event (the trial and the leadup to it), and the argument for deletion is based upon that fact and the WP:BLP1E policy. The fact that she was largely acquitted of all wrongdoing is quite germane, and you'd have to show that the "lot out there" about her goes beyond accusations of lawbreaking which were ultimately found to be untrue on the whole. So far no one has demonstrated notability beyond the trial, and thus those supporting retaining the article are not simply not engaging with the primary rationale for deletion nor articulating a real reason for keeping. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raul the argument for deletion is not based upon a failure to meet the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN—that's not even Cunard's main argument who is the one who mentioned it. The nomination and some of the subsequent delete !votes are based on WP:BLP1E which I'll quote: "Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." This is a policy, not a guideline, and it is of far greater importance than WP:POLITICIAN. Not one person supporting the keeping of this article has replied to the BLP1E argument (i.e. shown that Freebery is notable outside of the "one event" that is the accusations and her trial), which is why the closing administrator should clearly close this as delete. You're ignoring the key policy here, and I think you're also ignoring the spirit of BLP and the idea of do no harm, since you're arguing that we should permanently host what will be the most prominent page on this woman on the internet, and which will do little more than repeat accusations that were made against her and of which she was largely acquitted. There is a basic ethical question here, and keeping this article is simply unethical (and also against our policies, thankfully). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 Toddst1 (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Sigma Epsilon[edit]

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

A fraternal order in the Philippines. Despite having had the article deleted three times before, the author has still not got the idea of independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy tuning[edit]

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

Non-notable musical tuning system. No reliable sources: the only source that isn't Charles Lucy himself is for John Harrison's earlier tuning that Lucy claims inspiration from. Nobody seems to use this tuning but Charles Lucy; supposedly it was used on a Siobhan Donaghy track, but the only source for that claim is Lucy's own site (the claim is repeated in Donaghy's article, but was an unsourced addition by IP, and Lucy is known to be a relentless self-promoter editing mostly through IPs). A lot of effort has been expended to clean this article up and excise some of the more blatantly promotional text, but I think it really doesn't belong here in the first place. — Gwalla | Talk 22:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to read the full text of that book but lucy tunings do seem to appear on a few different pages, based on the index, but they don't have a section of their own and are mentioned only in the brief section "Further Examples of Mean Tone Systems". I also would say that because of the nature of this book, the mere mention of a tuning in this book is not enough to establish its notability--it's a book that reaches out to mention even the most esoteric tuning systems. From the book's description: "Includes hundreds of examples of past and prevalent tone systems". I'd say that that book would serve as a solid source, but I'm not convinced it's useful in this case for establishing notability. If it's the only independent source we can find, I think the best approach would be to write a sentence or two or maybe a paragraph or section (if there's enough material) on Lucy Tuning on the page for meantone tuning systems, because that is the context in which it is mentioned in that book. Cazort (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suril Shah[edit]

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

Six years ago, this chap got some Indian press coverage for being the youngest to pass some computing exams. But there's no sources showing any significance beyond those reports, and most of the remainder of this CV article is unverified. Troikoalogo (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


--Whizsurfer (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the article to the best of my knowledge and citability , and tried to make it 'non-CV' like and maintain neutrality. As for the listing of certifications, I believe as they are records, they should be listed with proper name and age. However, I welcome experienced Wiki editors to help improve this page and adhere to the Wikipedia rules.Whizsurfer (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we don't need to completely overhaul the article, but the current form does seem to have enough information and citations. The only argument is whether we should keep the tabular form of 'certifications'.Whizsurfer (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no that isn't the only argument. Read the stuff I've pointed you to above and you'll begin to grasp some of the problems. His working really hard and or achieving great things, etc and the way it is presented in the article is peacock and/or weaselly and shouldn't be there. It needs grammer and tone reworking. Requires a proper references section with inline citations. I'm not going to get into detail here. The article talkpage maybe but, like I said it needs a lot of work and AfD is not cleanup. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there is proper references section and neutral point of view. I understand that AfD is not for cleanup, but was just drawing inspiration from Bonny Hicks AfD nomination :-). I hope now there is proper usage of grammar and neutrality is maintained by mentioning things factually. Still if something seems "weaselly" in there, it would be better if that could be point that out :-). I dont think we need to start from scratch for this article. Whizsurfer (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, as whiz kids attempting computer online exams has become a recent trend, this article would serve as good information for who holds up records for some of the renown online exams, and being a trend-setter. Whizsurfer (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ffm 17:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Fillets NG[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software. A Google search doesn't turn up any independent third-party sources on the game; only Wikipedia mirrors and download sites. Psychonaut (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retchmail[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software. I'm unable to find any independent third-party references through Google; all the hits seem to be package indices or Wikipedia mirrors. Psychonaut (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into ScummVM. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Residual (open source project)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable alpha software. A Google search doesn't turn up any obvious independent third-party sources, other than download sites and forum posts. Psychonaut (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PyLucid[edit]

PyLucid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Connoisseur of Comedy (Award)[edit]

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

Some university in-joke, not notable but doesn't fit any of the csd categories. Prod removed. Prezbo (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my communication with you regarding keeping the article online. Kfgmaster (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Filehold[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social engineering-Knowledge Database[edit]

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

Reads like a rambling blog post (and indeed seems to be copied word-for-word from one). It's not clear that there is any actual implementation of this idea, and no indication that it is important, notable, or mentioned in any third-party independent source. Psychonaut (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MECWA[edit]

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

Mostly unsourced, a lot seems to have been copy-pasted (note use of "our" and "we" multiple times throughout). Awards may establish some notability but only one seems to have a real source. Otherwise reads like an advert.  fetchcomms☛ 22:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - During the previous AfD additional sources were added, but I'm not so sure they demonstrate notability. Most are either affiliated with the organization or the government. This one appears to be independent and reliable, however. Anymore like that? PDCook (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica II[edit]

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

The fact that this article can not be speedily deleted per CSD G3 is madness. It's a hoax, plain and simple, there's nothing that can be done to save it, yet an admin (Nyttend) has refused speedy deletion under the rationale that I can't fully prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that such an album will not be released. A search for the title gets not a single mention from google news. The band's website says nothing about a new album. A google search for the supposed James Hetfield quote that was in the original version of the article [45] turns up nothing. The supposed track listing in the original version [46] is just parodies of previous Metallica songs. A search for one of the songs that was originally listed, "Wherever I Roam Again" gets no hits. A search for the other supposed songs does turn up Metallica-related sites, but none of them anything about a new album. And all of this from a user (Mrpemdasrescue (talk · contribs)) who has a history of creating nonsense articles (I admit, I can't see his deleted contributions, but a quick look at his talk page is enough evidence). This page was proded, but I removed it and afded it in hopes of getting a speedy deletion, because I do not want to see this nonsense remain in the main space for five days. It just gives the vandal what he wants. -- Scorpion0422 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since consensus began to support the current format of speedy criterion G3 (vandalism, including only those hoaxes that are blatantly obvious), and since consensus formed to have a how-to-deal-with-hoaxes page that says "Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates." Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the concern that this AfD "just gives the vandal what he wants," my reply is that since the article bears a prominently displayed deletion tag, it shouldn't be much of a concern. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kuroo[edit]

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

Discontinued software that never made it past alpha. No indepedent third-party sources. Almost certainly non-notable. Psychonaut (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linux From Script[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable software. The article has been tagged as non-notable and lacking independent third-party references for four and thirteen months, respectively. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Psychonaut (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myke Hawke[edit]

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

Delete. I'm pretty sure that everyone LOVES Myke Hawke, but that doesn't necessarily mean the subject is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Nimmo[edit]

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

Delete. I almost spilled my Bushmills 1608 when reading this one. The article claims that the subject is notable for being... IT Manager during the filming of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, of all things. JBsupreme (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick look at Google News tells me that Wikipedia should have an article about a namesake of this person, a tennis player. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Userfied by creator. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strikesorb[edit]

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

Contested prod. Electronic surge protector brand with no assertion of notability. No third-party references. The article on the manufacturer has already been deleted. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I disagree, in the strongest terms possible, that having a long list of credits should be enough for inclusion on Wikipedia if there is a specific lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications, but apparently WP:ENTERTAINER says these people can continue to skate by on Wikipedia for now. Thank you to everyone who weighed in on this case. JBsupreme (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yumi Shimura[edit]

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

Delete. Voice acting in a couple games or films does not make one inherently notable. Non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications is lacking here. JBsupreme (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Base Trip Records[edit]

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

Despite the few citations, it doesn't seem like this student-founded independent label meets the notability standards of WP:MUSIC or WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knob (band)[edit]

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

No sources, no hit singles, no charts, and the article containing their new band name was even deleted as non-notable. This fails WP:BAND. -WarthogDemon 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Dillon[edit]

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

An unreferenced article. Practically no results on Google on her. Establishes no real notability and has only has IMDB and Amazon sources. —  Cargoking  talk  20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if she is a one hit wonder, she is probably notable, as per DGG's research and links. Change to Keep. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis then can she be called an one-hit wonder? --the book made into a movie isn't even among her most widely held in libraries--it's the one with the 365 holdings. On what basis can it be said there are no references to her? "Practically no results in Google" -- welll known as one of the non-arguments--and particular absurd consider the results in GS and GB & GN. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but there are no significant primary sources present. —  Cargoking  talk  18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kedwell[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who has never played at a fully-professional level having only played in the Conference (5th tier) or lower so fails WP:ATHLETE. Sources are routine announcements which do not pass WP:NTEMP. -- BigDom 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makoto Uchida[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Makoto Uchida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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 delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minerals of Alabama[edit]

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

A list of minerals found in a locality entirely sourced from a single website. No indication of why it should be on Wikipedia noq (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This should probably be renamed to "Lunasicc" but that is a sep discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luni Coleone[edit]

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

Delete. Fails GNG and WP:MUSIC, does not appear to have any charting releases or substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. Plenty of blog talk, but that's all I'm finding. JBsupreme (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know. The article was created as Luni Coleone by user:Luni Coleone, a WP:SPA, was moved back to that name after it was moved to Monterrio Williams, the artist's given name [65], and the editor that moved it back to Luni Coleone created a redirect from Lunasicc instead of moving the article. Apparently Luni Coleone replaced Lunasicc as his pseudonym, but he's better known as Lunasicc. Dealer's choice, I suppose. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dual Natures (Duality)[edit]

List of Dual Natures (Duality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is just a random collection of stuff. No sources, and even if there were sources, there is no criterion to decide whether a given item belongs here. An earlier prod was removed. Looie496 (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football Manager 2010 Tactics[edit]

Football Manager 2010 Tactics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a football-manager-guide-WP:HOWTO-thing. Not an article at all, should not be in article space. ALI nom nom 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vahid Afra[edit]

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

I just referenced and updated this article, but despite this Mr. Afra played one year football in an Iranian league, not enough to establish notability. If WP:ATHLETE says one year is enough, then okay to keep. Chutznik (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali[edit]

Istituto Superiore Internazionale di Scienze Criminali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

both organization and author request for legal reasons Megalta (talk) 16:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The above user is the only major contributor so has a right to ask for deletion. All sources the website of the organisation. It is almost an orphan. I personally do not know the legal reasons , but presuming there are some then it should be removed. 安東尼 TALK> 16:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we are to have regard to the 'legal reasons' then they need to be specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Bridgeplayer states, this entity in independently notable, despite needing some more work. -- Flyguy649 talk 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unilease[edit]

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

A non-notable product. Wikipedia shouldn't list every type of penetrating oil on the market. Wizard191 (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lady Gaga songs[edit]

List of Lady Gaga songs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This artist, however famous, has recorded/released one album and one EP, along with a handful of collaborations. How is this article informative or notable? I've already removed a large section of "unreleased songs" that contained no sources whatsoever, along with a small list of songs Gaga performed live in concert. What is left is basically the track lists for her small output, arranged in alphabetical order. Gaga already has a discography page with a lot more information than this. This is not an artist with hundreds of recorded songs like, say, the Beatles or even Beyoncé Knowles, who has several albums and a soundtrack album to her credit. - eo (talk) 18:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the Discography article I agree it should be DeletedNefariousski (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just because her songs have hit #1 doesn't make this list worthy of inclusion; like I said, Lady Gaga discography clearly features her big hits. Why not make a list for everyone? There are plenty of other artists with a lot more recorded material than Gaga (for example, how about Pet Shop Boys? They have ten albums and I'm a big fan - why not make a page?). The hope that she'll record tons of new songs in the years ahead doesn't seem like a good reason to keep it now. - eo (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Pet Shop Boys do have a list of songs page... It's in there artists discography box. It just doesn't seem to be well edited and maintained. You can get on that 08:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theuhohreo (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Alvarez (dancer)[edit]

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

Delete no clear evidence of notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tadd Russo[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO and general notability despite extensive attempts by me and other editors to source it. There may also be COI since the creator and main editor has a similar username as the subject. It was a CSD for a while due to copyvio but the article was tidied and, though there is still a certain amount of copyvio left, it does not appear to be a CSD any more. A later PROD was contested then removed. Jubilee♫clipman 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be fair, the Edinburgh Fringe is indeed notable, but the performance of The Druid Tree in 2000 was a pretty minor event, it would seem (one of thousands at that event, of course). And in fact that was the best I could find that might even come close to establishing notability (the rest were minor festivals, school choirs, minor work for his employers the USAF Band) even the Ohio Music Education Association commission and the Kool and the Gang etc refs were never verified in my search. All I could find was confirmation that he exists, has been trained as a musician, is (?was) a Technical Sgt. in the USAF and has composed a few minor works. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have excluded the Edinburgh Fringe. The others all produced redlinks when I tried to wikilink them. --Deskford (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be fair to you, the Fringe is pretty eclectic and open to any old bod, so being played there means nothing anyway, of itself. Furthermore, as you point out on the talk page (which also gives more info on the sourcing and cleanup attempts) the creator, Russoerica (talk · contribs), might be the Erica Russo in this reference to a mezzo for whom Tadd Russo wrote a couple of works. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also never verified the other potential claim to notability, the Dallas Wind Symphony performance of one of his works. Then again, even that probably isn't enough anyway. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference for the Dallas Wind Symphony performance, but I don't think it helps much. --Deskford (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your assistance with this. Yes, I am his wife, but I am also a musicologist and thus have attempted to be as objective as possible in creating this article. Since I also wrote the original bio--thus having permission of the author--it's hard to self-edit beyond a certain point. I did not include any specific works for guest artists such as Kool and the Gang, Ronan Tynan, Sara Evans, Spirogyra, et al, because DOD policy prohibits such use beyond initial "name=dropping." OMEA also typically deletes conference programs from the website after the year in which they appeared, so I'd need to send a hard copy of a conference program to... the Internet? What other references might be helpful--beyond newspaper articles or actual books--in verifying notability? (Russoerica (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

For example, a recording of his organ works and some of his string works is set for 2010 release. (Russoerica (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for your explantion. The article is relatively balanced, actually, though it reads rather like a CV. Perhaps you should chance adding the specific works: I am not aware of it being against our policy. Unless you mean that it is against an official-secrets-type law to go beyond name dropping? "Set for release" is not now I'm afraid. Perhaps we can try again when the CDs are released and The Washington Post and/or BBC Music magazine have reviewed them? I am glad we haven't frightened you off, anyway! Alice Parker could definately do with the "BRB" magic, as it were! Sourcing is a tricky beast sometimes, but the links I provided over at the talk page will set you off in the right direction. Given the calibre of the editing and sourcing experience of Deskford and Kleinzach, I doubt your husband's article stands much of a chance, this time... (WTS?) --Jubilee♫clipman 23:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try again in a couple of years on this one. Thanks for your help and consideration... you're a polite lot! (Russoerica (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chevron (artist)[edit]

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

Lack of independant 3rd party reliable sources. Not verified. Does not meet ARTIST or BIO. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnian Genocide Denial Watch[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable blog. Only 30 Google hits, none of which seem to be articles about the organization. Can't find any mention of this organization in any online news sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Non-admin-closure). The result was keep. Nominator withdrew and no delete votes are present.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpcam[edit]

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

Delete. This has one article that uses "Chimpcam" once. One article is the source and that confirms a show called chimcam will be aired. Appears to by WP:SYN, and Non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion The source is the BBC. Can you name a better, more reliable source? Grundle2600 (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An outside one. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the link. I have moved the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amaxus[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. Article by single-purpose user who works for the company. As for coverage, I have only found one press release, and nothing from a significant third-party. Haakon (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schitz[edit]

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

Unreferenced, original research, evidently something made up one day; however, speedy deletion was contested by three different accounts (not necessarily three different people). This suggests that speedy deletion won't last very long, and that a full AfD is necessary to prevent recreation of this "article." R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Book in question is not published yes, but it does exist, just as this philosophical concept exists. Who are we to claim a philosophy is a hoax or "made up". Technically isn't all philosophy "made up". You merely accept others because they are more well know and developed.. yet you wish to crush the formation of new thought before it may reach such a point?
In conclusion: The reference is not "fabricated" it just simply is not a published source. Nor were many philosophical writings at their beginnings... you think someone rushed out to publish Marx's manifesto? To delete an expression of philosophiocal thought is to condemn any inquiry outside of accepted norms.. and thus defeats the very purpose and nature of philosophy. Clearly you pro-deletetion advocates understand very little about the nature of philosophy and the importance of continued thought and inquiry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.209.137 (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not published comes under WP:OR or WP:CRYSTAL. Peridon (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article should absolutely not be deleted. It is not a hoax and it is not made up. It is a philosophical concept that man is not the measure of reality. It is no more real or fake than religion. Whether you agree with it or not or think it is stupid it does not violate any rules of this website. Saying that this is a hoax would be like saying that Judaism is hoax, or Buddhism is hoax, or any religion for that matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanboni27 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xanboni27 has made no other contributions to WikipediaXanboni27 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

71.234.177.114

71.234.177.114 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia

Keep: Not sure I understand it 100%, but it is really interesting and definitely worth reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbrkvch113 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cbrkvch113 has made no other contributions to Wikipedia
It's always a good idea to sign your comments. All you have to do is type "~" four times (it's that key in the upper left hand corner, next to the "1" on the keyboard). As to 99.60 and 71.234, log in -- comments made by people who don't log in generally aren't taken seriously, because it's a common way to "vote" more than once. Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the keystroke Shift-# on a UK keyboard..... Peridon (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!! Deleting this page would be discriminating against the beliefs of others and could cause trouble if they become offended. Even if some people don't understand this or think it's a hoax, others do believe it and want to spread the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.148.38 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite free to spread the word. Try aboutus, LinkedIn, MySpace and so on. Not Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Solar Engine[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion, no notability, confused with lowercase solar engine collectors running Stirling engines or steam cycles. The only publications that discuss the electronic solar cell concept described in the article are about toys. The only reference was one hobby website. The text that was in the article was hopelessly turgid verbal description of some schematic diagrams. We have articles on solar power, solar cells, etc. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brunner CMS[edit]

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

Non-notable software product, no different then the dozens of other CMS products. MBisanz talk 14:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was closed as a SNOW keep. This is what disambiguation pages are for. Jclemens (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (disambiguation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:DABNOT. This functions more like a search index within the franchise than an actual disambiguation. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Moore (physicist)[edit]

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

Delete There is no evidence at all of satisfying either the general notability guideline or the guideleine for academics. The article gives no independent sources at all. (It gives a reference to Moore's own web site and an external link to a list of his publications, and nothing else.) I have searched, and found no substantial independent coverage. Apart from his own web page and Wikipedia, the first few hits were: a one-sentence directory listing; a stored copy of a Yahoo search for the name "Greg Moore" (most of the hits were other Greg Moores); a post by Moore to a google group; a list of speakers at a conference (Moore's name features amongst dozens of others); a brief "open letter" with 75 signatories, among them Moore; an article containing one passing mention of Moore. And so it went on. (The article was proposed for speedy deletion. The speedy delete tag was then replaced by a prod, which was removed with the edit summary "invalid speedies should not be replaced by a prod", which seems bizarre to me: if a speedy deletion tag is invalid but there are still valid reasons for deletion, of course it can be prodded.) JamesBWatson (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for 'author:"G W Moore" ' you will get only 757 hits on GS. There is another GW Moore, a medical biologist. Nonetheless our subject still gets plenty of cites, more than sufficient for WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Aziz[edit]

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

no real claim to notability, lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. only source reads like a reproduced primary source. probable coi duffbeerforme (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Raymond Smith[edit]

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

Not notable. Does not meet RS, V or BIO. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OneTen[edit]

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

A building which, if built, which it won't be, would have been on the List of tallest buildings in Providence, but it isn't even mentioned there. Nothing on Google books or scholar and not the seems to be significant news reporting on the building. The domain name for the project is now up for sale. Sic transit gloria mundi. A passing mention in the list article might be justified, in which case a redirect would be all that's needed (although the current name is undoubtedly going to be ambiguous sooner or later). Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushik Manek[edit]

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

Contested (by IP editor) PROD. Biography of a non-notable rotary club official. A Google search of his name turns up several hits related to the rotary club, but there seems to be no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. I don't think this person satisfies WP:BIO. PDCook (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had speedies declined for even less notability than this, so I tend to play it "safe." PDCook (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AKITS[edit]

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

Non-notable software. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Minoff[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Article was prodded, endorsed and de-prodded so let's get a consensus. Original prod concern was "Unsourced bio since november 2006. Probably not notable. Don't remove this prod without sourcing the article." edit summary for de-prod was "deprod - as a member of several notable bands he may well satisfy WP:MUSIC". HJMitchell You rang? 22:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then redirect him to the band. But be careful with that, because a couple of the bands he has been with might be in AfD soon. Per WP:MUSICBIO"Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Of course if one of those "notable" bands gets deleted, he loses that loophole. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to which band? If he had only been in one I would agree, but he is a valid search term for 3 bands.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pick one that he is most associated with. Which one is most successful? Niteshift36 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But do you agree that having details correct and establishing notability aren't necessarily the same thing? If a guy who played the role of "waiter" in a notable movie gets interviewed by a reliable source and confirm details about some notable actor, we can use that about the notable actor, but it doesn't make "waiter" notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, they're not the same thing. We wouldn't keep 'guy who played waiter' as a redirect to the film he played waiter in, but we do quite rightly keep members of notable bands as redirects without a requirement for the 'subject' of the redirect to be individually notable. I don't really see how a stub that simply states who this guy is and links to the bands that he has been in is any worse than having a redirect to a single band. In fact, I don't see how redirecting this to one of his 3 bands would be an improvement on that.--Michig (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not very helpful. You're opinion wasn't beat down, it was challenged. You know, as in a discussion. If you can't handle that then don't provide your opinion in the first place. I think Michig has some valid points, as do you, so let's keep this constructive, yes? Drewcifer (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I attempted to. I said pick the most successful of the bands. He says it's not useful and that a redirect is worse than leaving an article about a guy who hasn't achieved notability on his own. That's a pretty solid rejection of the idea. Saying that a redirect is worse than just leaving it as is doesn't leave much room for further discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How notable is Weird War? I can't find any evidence they've charted in the US. Have they charted somewhere else? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charting is not the only criterion for WP:BAND (see 5. Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). Weird War released four albums with Drag City (record label), at least one of which (Illuminated by the Light) has been reviewed by the Washington Post. Wine Guy Talk 22:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No kidding? Really? Gee, I guess that answers my question. Oh wait, that isn't what I asked, was it? WW isn't up for AfD, so talking about why they meet notability isn't really that productive. You entirely missed the point of the question. Then again, I shouldn't have even bothered trying. It's clear that nobody else even wants to discuss a redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked whether that band was notable, and you got an answer. Wine Guy pointed out that charting isn't necessarily relevant in this case. The notability of the bands this person has been involved with is pertinent, since the notability of this subject is premised on those bands being notable. Calm down and stay civil, please. You're taking this far too personally. — Gwalla | Talk 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe one of the reasons that: "members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article", is so that we don't have to flip a coin, or have a potentially contentious discussion about which band is "more successful", to decide where a redirect should go. Wine Guy Talk 00:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Barnes[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP of a media executive. The only "source" is regarding some kind of salary issues. UnitAnode 00:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close in favor of another current nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angad chahal –SpacemanSpiff 05:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Angad chahal[edit]

Angad_chahal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy's surface/Proofs[edit]

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

Result of previous AfD was 'transfer to Wikibooks'. Article was copied to b:Famous Theorems of Mathematics/Boy's surface but the wikipedia article was never deleted. PROD (A5. Article has been traswikied) was entered but contested. There is little hope of turning this into an article in encyclopedic style. No references are given for the material.--RDBury (talk) 13:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Bragg[edit]

Catherine_Bragg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

The article has no references whatsoever. Unless this is fixed, the article cannot stay. --Pieces839 (talk) 20:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Lee (singer)[edit]

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

Delete no evidence of meeting notability guidelines. Boleyn3 (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, as a disambiguation page. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek key[edit]

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

Subsection of main article Beta sheet contains more information than this stub. Giftiger wunsch (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half Man, Half Dog Vol. 1 (album)[edit]

Half Man, Half Dog Vol. 1 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For the following reasons this article meets criteria for deletion:

Half Man, Half Dog Vol. 2 (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greenlight 2 (Bow Wow album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati in popular culture[edit]

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

Unreferenced list of popular culture (loosely defined - is Tolstoy really popular culture?) references to illuminati. Tagged as unreferenced since March 2007, WP:OR since September 2007 and triviacruft since January 2009. No apparent effort has been made to fix any of these issues. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no deadline, but I think that over two years is long enough for the editorial process to fix fundamental deficiencies in an article. This has not happened. It's not happened despite a previous AfD at which the need for sources was also discussed. Basically, the people who edit this page have no apparent interest in making it compliant with policy. Guy (Help!) 11:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there's a two year deadline, basically. ;-} I could do something with this but not on the time schedule of this AfD; I have other stuff I'm working on at the moment. Worst case scenario, I'd ask it be userfied to me. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
not what?--Michig (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a collection of un-notable mentions of the Illuminati, hopefully. Tom Harrison Talk 19:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I spoke too soon: Christopher Holmes Smith and John Fiske, "Naming the Illuminati" in Ronald Radano and Philip Bohlman, eds. Music and the Racial Imagination (Chicago: University of Chircago press, 2000), chap. 18. and Bakari Kitwana, "Future Shock: Is the Hip-Hop Generation Ready for the New World Order?" The Source (August 1996). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's very sloppy, but I took out all the unreferenced stuff (some of which might merit being readded, but see article talk page), wrote a more explanatory lede which still needs expansion, took out the bullet points to get away from the listing trend that creates, added some new material with some quick references which need their citation style fixed (I can do that, just doing it on the fly right now) and which can be mined for additional material since I barely scratched anything. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work - I believe your improvement deals with all of the issues raised in the nomination.--Michig (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article is fine the way it is, but this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. My feeling is that phrases like "in popular culture" and "list of" are the Wikipedia "kick me" sign. Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Big City Rock. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Conrad[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced BLP of a drummer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Pace[edit]

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

Claims notability ("award-winning song"). The song did indeed win an award at the Savannah Folk Music Society, which incidentally does not have a WP article. Can't speedy due to notability claim, but probably fails WP:NOTE. XXX antiuser eh? 23:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Margit Fischer[edit]

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

Very poorly sourced BLP. Notability is NOTINHERITED. UnitAnode 05:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rape and revenge films[edit]

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

As far as I can tell from the viewable sources, this isn't actually a well-known subgenre of exploitation films. If anything, at BEST, this should be merged into the exploitation films parent article. My view is that it should be deleted outright. UnitAnode 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Up in the Air (film). Cirt (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release strategy of Up in the Air[edit]

Release strategy of Up in the Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've never seen a page like this for any other film. I don't see anything particularly notable about the way in which Up in the Air was released. Macarion (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Jason Reitman indicated that he could relate to that lifestyle of the lead character, Ryan Bingham, and he enjoys it himself. Reitman said, "I think when you're in an airplane it's the last refuge for the people who enjoy being alone and reading a book." This provides insight into why Reitman spent so much time on the road promoting his films and why he chose to adapt the Walter Kirn's book Up in the Air.
  2. Reitman documented his experiences promoting the film. He took photos of everyone who interviewed him and recorded videos in each and every city he visited. He edited these images together into a short video titled Lost In The Air: The Jason Reitman Press Tour Simulator.[73][74] This video provides insight into the film release process.
  3. Peter Sciretta of /Film and Alex Billington of Firstshowing.net interviewed Jason Reitman on video at the Telluride Film Festival in a Gondola. [75] [76] Their interview is cited as Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-SFilm_2009-09-16-21 and Up in the Air (film)#cite_note-FS_2009-09-16-22, but not included in this article. Jason Reitman can be seen taking video of Mr. Sciretta and Mr. Billington during the interview. Reitman's video is included in Lost in the Air.
  4. Up in the Air was principally filmed in St. Louis, Missouri. Up in the Air was the centerpiece for the 18th Annual St. Louis International Film Festival with Jason Reitman and Michael Beugg in attendance. Kevin Renick, a St. Louis musician who wrote the song Up in the Air, performed half an hour prior to the screening. Yukon Jake, a local St. Louis band who performed during the wedding scene in Up in the Air, provided entertainment during the party held prior to the screening.
  5. Paramount flew 50 members of the press to New York with Anna Kendrick, Sad Brad Smith and representatives of American Airlines to promote Up in the Air. The film was shown on the aircraft's video monitors during the flight from New York to Los Angeles. American Airlines provided the Boeing 767 gratis. Smith performed a few songs including Help Yourself in the aisle of the aircraft. I have not been able to find another example of a press conference for a film being held in aircraft flying coast to coast.
  6. American Airlines and Hilton Hotels were heavily involved in the production, filming and promotion of Up in the Air. Including that information in the main article seems like it would be tangential, but it would be more appropriate for this article.
    --Dan Dassow (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  no consensus. There is some legitimate disagreement on whether her productions are significant enough to make her notable, and even though the people who think so are in the minority, their arguments are not ridiculous either and I cannot really read a consensus out of that. I have also taken into account that some effort to rewrite the article from a pure autobiographical piece. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarina Singh[edit]

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

Article created by its subject and while there is some evidence of notability it appears to be promotional in nature and the notability isn't all that solid. Eeekster (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the documentary is at all well known, though. I've seen no evidence at all that suggests it is well known. Of what you've provided so far, the ghits are insignificant (see below) and the linked above database entries only prove it exists. If there is a real case to be made that she is notable, I think it's only on the basis of Lonely Planet and not the documentary, which I think is not well known or notable. Sarah 09:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three of the 12 citations go to Amazon pages for Lonely Planet books.
  • Six of the twelve citations go to the National Geographic Traveler website - one of these cites is merely a list of contributors, three are links to two articles she contributed to their site, and two are to what seem to be the same page, an article which refers to an article she wrote.
  • Citation ten is a link to www.eternalmewar.in which appears to be user-generated and lists 70 titles (including Singh's polo in India book) which received grants from the "The Maharana of Mewar Historical Publications Trust". The only thing this link is able to confirm, is that Singh received a grant for a polo book in 2000.
  • Citation 11 is a PR page for the documentary at the Ronin Films website
  • Citation 12 is the Screen Australia database entry for her film, again all it does is prove the film exists.
I don't think any of these sources are adequate for a BLP and if the article is to be kept, it must be properly sourced to verifiable, reliable sources - the question is, do such sources even exist? I haven't been able to find anything of a reliable source nature which isn't either the byline or introduction to articles she has written, mere database entries (Amazon, IMDB, Screen Australia etc) and mentions in passing. Sarah 07:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still for a Strong Keep. I'm sorry Sarah. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier message. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals clearly mentions that if "the person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews," then it's enough for the person to qualify as notable. You can argue that a "documentary" is not a "feature length film". But you cannot argue that "Beyond The Royal Veil" is not well known, which is the basic criteria for notability of the professional who is linked with the work (as per the guideline). Here are 9000 odd links from Google Search for "Beyond The Royal Veil". [81] Even if you take out arbitrary links, a common sense approach will show that the work is pretty well known. That's enough for Sarina Singh to qualify for an article. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to apologise! Of course I read your earlier comment - I replied to it! But I just don't agree with you.:) You need to be able to write a reasonable article about a person which requires sourced information about the person. The difficulty with writing about, researching and assessing the notability of contemporary writers is that generally we have a significant number of hits for their name, but when you actually examine them, you find that most are merely bylines for articles/books/etc they've written or contributed to or references to content they've written. We only report what has already been published by reliable sources, and this is especially vital for biographies of living people, so to be capable of writing a reasonable biography about someone, we need actual published information about them, not merely a swag of pages mentioning their name. And I'm sure you'd agree that the last thing Wikipedia needs at present is more poorly sourced biographies of living people, but that is exactly what this article currently is. As I said above, on the weekend I spent a few hours looking through Factiva and the Australian New Zealand Reference Centre (an Australian database of news, journal, magazine articles) but have not been able to find anything substantial about her. I also think you're chasing a red-herring here with the documentary. First, you're right that it's not feature length - it was about 50 minutes long, but regardless, I still see no evidence that leads me to believe the documentary is notable or well known and as I said above, I think if there is a reasonable case for asserting notability, it's on the basis of Lonely Planet. I'm actually quite stunned to see that you're actually arguing a case for notability via the documentary. That seems most unusual to me, to say the least, particular when we're talking about someone who has contributed to published books. Yes, I see there are over 9,000 g-hits for the documentary's name, and yes, I agree that pure g-hit numbers are pretty meaningless, but when you look a bit further than google's first page, you'll see that there are actually only 60 distinct g-hits for "Beyond The Royal Veil" [82]. I'd argue that's even more evidence that this is not a well known or notable documentary. I also noticed that according to IMDb (and recognising IMDb's fallibility), the documentary did not receive a broad release (they only have a release date for Germany). Likewise, "Sarina Singh" gets 306 distinct g-hits (of 36,000 total) [83] and most of those are mere references to material she has written and book shop entries. I actually spent a considerable amount of time researching both the writer and the film because I'm Australian and I have a particular interest in Australian culture in general and I would have been interested in working on the article and trying to save it from deletion and bring it in line with policy, but the more I looked, the more I became convinced that this person is just not ready for Wikipedia yet. Sarah 09:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, if you want the article kept, please find WP:RS-compliant sources and ensure that it is adequately sourced. Currently the article still does not comply with WP:BLP because the sourcing is inadequate. The article is basically sourced to Amazon and a few articles she wrote about places. The first source, for example, is absurd. An Amazon listing for a book does not support that information - it doesn't even support the claim that she's Australian! I also do not believe that "interesting documentary" is a policy-based rationale for keeping articles. Your removal of material is all very well but given the origin of the article and the user's comments etc it's hard to believe the unsourced biographical and promotional material won't simply return after the AFD. I also disagree with your claim that she is the "author of a substantial number of books". And some of your edits seem to have introduced errors where you give her sole credit for books she was just one of many contributors. (the polo book, the Aboriginal and Tores Strait Islander book and the Pakistan and the Karakoram Highway, for example, all had multiple contributors but you're presenting it as though she was the sole author of them). I find a claim of notability on the basis of her writing far more reasonable than claiming she is a notable film-maker but I'm still not at all convinced. I'm pretty confident that if she was a notable Australian author, there'd be newspaper, magazine, etc, articles about her, not merely bylines and references to her writing. The people who want this kept really need to address the lack of RS-compliant material about her. Sarah 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, your points were well made, but just to qualify my keep. I agree with Wifione that she meets the minimum notability requirements as to her work on the documentary alone, and there are also the Lonely Planet contributions. I also agree there is little, beyond these contributions, to write an encyclopaedic article "about her", but biographical details are not the only criteria: work done is another. There are plenty of celebrities whose biographical details are multiply sourced: there are other authors (especially documentary makers) who are almost invisible in front of their subject. Though we may debate the merits of the policy, "work done" is sufficient notability for the article to comply. Moloch09 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moloch09, thanks for clarifying your thoughts. I'm still quite baffled by the belief that notability is established via the documentary. It was financed and aired by SBS which a well known public television network in Australia that often passes under the radar and generally doesn't rate very well. SBS airs tons and tons of these types of short docos about people's personal stories, ancestors etc. I'd say this is part of the reason the Australian editors/admins who have commented so far seem to be of the view that she and the documentary, at least, is not notable or well known. Australia has a population of around 22 million people and SBS's slogan is "Six Billion Stories and counting..."! (you can see it in their banner at the top of their website.) Which works out to be around 273 of these documentaries for each man, woman and child living in Australia! I still think that *if* she *is* notable, it's as Fred sort of said and because of her work with Lonely Planet. She's contributed to a number of LP books and articles and if you're weighing notability, it seems to me that has an awful lot more weight than the the 50 minute documentary episode, apparently about her family's ancestors. I also disagree that work-output is sufficient to get over a lack of verifiable material about a subject. As someone said above, if the doc or books are notable, then the article ought to be about the documentary, book etc. I'll also say now (not to you, Moloch, but in general) that if the article ends up being kept, and it starts creeping back to being promotional when the next book comes out, or we see PR type activity and unsourced peacocky material back (remembering that this article began life as a copy and paste of her own promotional article), I will bring it straight back to AFD. Hopefully by then the recent unsourced/poorly sourced BLP-related discussions, RFC, arbitrations, etc will have concluded and we will have much clearer guidance for dealing with poorly sourced bios of living persons. Sarah 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I confess. I saw the documentary and found it very interesting. Not a source, I know... Fred Talk 22:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wifione, the edits since I was last here yesterday have certainly improved the article and it's far better than the version I saw yesterday, but there's a couple of obvious problems. First, per WP:SURNAME, please refer to bio subjects by their last names, not their christian names - it's way too familiar. You (or someone, I haven't actually gone through the contribs) also added material claiming that she was the wardrobe designer for an American film and on that basis made the heading refer to movies and documentaries (plurals). I'm pretty sure that she was not a wardrobe designer for that American Desi film in 2001. In 2001, when that film was being made, she was working on two books - one in India and one in Australia. There's also not a single mention of that film, fashion or costume design, etc on her website and if you take a clser look at IMDb, you'll see they have two separate listings for Sarina Singh, one the author who co-wrote the documentary, the second, a wardrobe person (see Sarina Singh list at IMdb [84]). Both have only been credited for working on one production. I also noticed that there's at least half-a-dozen Sarina Singhs, (which obviously needs to be considered when looking at search engine results and g-hits) so it would be wise to be especially careful when adding information about someone of this name who's work is not as an Australian writer because this Sarina Singh seems to be purely and pretty much exclusively a writer. I'm not sure but her father or grandfather may be notable themselves. I think, from the information she wrote in that editorial about her father and what I have found in other articles, that the documentary is at least about some of his relatives and ancestors (which actually would make complete sense as short tv shows about people's genealogy, family histories, autobiographies, etc is exactly the type of material that SBS gets behind and airs)It is very hard to find and untangle appropriate information from back the thougn because there seems to be a number of people from that generation that share his exact name (possibly they were named after Bhagat Singh, an Indian freedom-fighter. Her editorial said "My father, Dr Bhagat Singh - whose father had migrated to Fiji after World War I..." I could be very ignorant about the movement of the Indian people post-WWI, but I would think it would be unusual for two Bhagat Singh's to move their family from India to Fiji at the same time. A Bhagat Singh who moved from India to Fiji after WWI, has a lot of newspaper articles at the time and is possibly notable. Sarah 04:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moloch09 (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Case[edit]

Sean_Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

Sean Case

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that it affects this discussion very much, but note that the nominator of this AfD is an indef-blocked sockpuppeteer... Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vantaa Chamber Choir[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC. Finnish article is just as bare. search in Finnish doesn't reveal much [85]. 1 gnews hit in English [86]. LibStar (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Musamies (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment: no point deleting because of lack of content. There must be thousands of articles that have even less content. —Tve4 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has released an album through a major label (Fazer Finnlevy, now Warner Music Finland) [87], newest album (Marian Virsi) has been covered in many magazines ([88]), according to Helsingin Sanomat has won silver in an international choir competition in 1996 at Riva, Italy ("Vantaan kamarikuoro menestyi Italiassa", 9 April 1996, non-free archive) --Jusba (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment User Jusba founded links are valid--Musamies (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richelle Monk[edit]

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

No sources are given to substantiate claims to notability, including multiple awards. Web search yields only self-published stuff, and news search nothing at all. Favonian (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy Tavares[edit]

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

looks like a resume. fails all of WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. nothing in gnews, 1 hit in gscholar, 4 hits in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he does exist just not notable. LibStar (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Harvey[edit]

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

From the deleted prod: Subject has not played any games for a top-flight club, therefore fails notability. Eeekster (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Slaves and Lords[edit]

Son of Slaves and Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable album released for free on the artist's own website, with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUM. Prod removed without comment. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business Decision Maker[edit]

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

Take your pick: WP:OR essay or WP:NN neologism. Failed ((prod)) when sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karyadi Sutedja[edit]

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

Article appears to be a hoax. Subject was not in fact nominated, but was on the ballot per microphonium and failed. All sources are misrepresented. Subject appears to fail WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmere.com[edit]

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

All of these sources are blogs - some are from people at news outlets, but there is no indication that they are subject to the same editorial scrutiny that news stories are subject to - therefore fail WP:Reliable. ((findsources)) returns only 2 results, both press releases. As a result I can only conclude that this article written by a WP:COI WP:SPA is about a company that fails WP:Corp. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as db-promo. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that even Google doesn't consider those media blog outlets "news". See ((findsources)) on talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as WP:COPYVIO Toddst1 (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Raphael[edit]

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

First, the text is a copyvio of http://www.jamesraphael.com/, Second he's non-notable as it doesn't appear he's actually won any awards, Third while it says that sources acclaimed him, the only source link provided is to his personal website. MBisanz talk 07:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Mower[edit]

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

Promotion of a non-notable commercial product Epipelagic (talk) 07:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about rewriting it into a general article about machines that take care of "mechanical aquatic weed control"? Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment P.S.- Someone said earlier that "it skims the top of the water" but my research shows that people use this stuff to cut the weeds under the water so that they can swim or drive their boats around in the cleaned area, sort of like a lawn mower but for lake weeds as one of the sources put it. Invmog (talk) 03:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another Comment Say, I just removed/reworded more NPOV most or all of the contested parts so if there are any further deliberations for deletion then please make them known by stating them clearly and concisely and I'll do my best to accommodate them. Invmog (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Another Comment OK; I added about four more references which points to the article's notability and the article has been been rewritten to a great degree. Invmog (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and I hope it helps. Maybe I shouldn't have said "paid", since I don't know that, but the point stands, paid or unpaid. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Please also don't overlook Epipelagic's very correct observation that "Lake Mower", as opposed to "Lake mower" (note the capitalization difference), sounds like the proper name of a lake. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: From the above post, it is clear that Invmog has no interest whatever in the suggestions above, is not prepared to expand the article into a general article, but is determinedly focused on promoting one particular product. There is no lack of equally worthy and equally interesting alternate products: WeedShear, WeedRoller, BeachBuddy, Aquatic Vegetation Groomer, Truxor amphibious weed cutter, SonicSolutions, Aqua Blaster, Lake Roto-Tiller, Big Tooth Lake Weed Rake, Aquamog, AquaTractor... the list goes on.
It would be absurd to create individual articles for each of these. An interesting and neutral general article on the mechanical control of aquatic weeds could easily be written, but Invmog is not prepared to even consider this. He is not interested in lake weed control machines in general, he is only interested in this one product. This has clear hallmarks that an undeclared COI and blinkered agenda is operating here, and the article as it stands should be speedy deleted. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's not not so much that you have a COI, it's rather that you don't actually read what people say before you reply. I didn't say I would write the general article, nor did I did say that it would be a good idea to write articles on every aquatic weedeater on the market. I said the opposite. Let's see if we can make a deal. If you agree
  • for a while, to read what people say to you, and then, before you reply, take a deep breath and carefully read again what they actually said
  • to drop your idea of writing separate articles for individual products like LakeMower
then in return I will agree to write the article "Aquatic weed control machine" with you over the next few days, and we will submit it for a joint DYK. LakeMower, and maybe some other models, can redirect to the article, and possibly to its own section in the article if we have notable sources. If that's a deal, then I'll start the article at the start of the next day, Wikipedia time (UTC). Have we a deal? --Epipelagic (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've now read what you three times and I fully agree with the first bullet point and the offer you that make is very tempting. The only reason that I don't completely agree with the second bullet point and make a deal with you right now is that I was kind of hoping that the last reference which I found and listed above would help to establish the article's notability. I'll seriously consider your generous offer and I'll let you know before the day is through, Central Time. I wish I could prove this article's notability and still work on an "Aquatic weed control machine" article. I think that all of the before mentioned products "WeedShear, WeedRoller, BeachBuddy, Aquatic Vegetation Groomer, Truxor amphibious weed cutter, SonicSolutions, Aqua Blaster, Lake Roto-Tiller, Big Tooth Lake Weed Rake, Aquamog, AquaTractor" could be in the general article and then starting with the most notable ones we could create articles for them and we could link to them from the general article with the "See main article _________" But anyway, I think submitting "Aquatic weed control machine" for a DYK is a good idea and I'll let you know soon about that offer. Invmog (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.- Does this article still sound like an advertisement? Invmog (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, I said I'd let you know about the deal before the end of the day, Central Time, which is in less than two hours so I'll just say that although I think it's a good idea to create an "Aquatic weed control machine" article I won't accept your request right now because to do that I'd have to scuttle the Lake Mower article which I was still hoping would be notable enough to stay as an article by itself. If it turns out that none of the references provided show this article to notable enough then I'll either look for more references or be glad to co-author an "Aquatic weed control machine" article. But, I do appreciate your generous offer and civility. I was also kind of hoping that after reading my latest comments and as a Senior Editor if you help me improve the Lake Mower article to sound more like an encyclopedia article because I'm comparatively new to editing Wikipedia. Invmog (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Invmog (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up WP:OTHERSTUFF, I didn't know it existed, but of course it's obvious that my only reason for keeping the Lake Mower article isn't because there is a Flymo article; I just wanted to use it as an example of a unique-to-one-brand technology and I wanted to submit to y'all that the Lake Mower article might be more notable than the Flymo article and it is definitely better sourced, more independently sourced, and also a lot less sounding like an advertisement (I do apologize for making a "too advertizy" article in the first place; I thought that it had been sourced enough and NPOV but y'all have really helped me to improve upon the article, it is the first article that ever written about an aquatic product.) WP:OTHERSTUFF does also say that "...an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement..." P.S.- Does the Lake Mower article still sound like an advertisement? Invmog (talk) 23:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It feels to me like one step forward, one step back. The capitalization problem still needs to be fixed, both in the title and in the text (fixing it in the text will help with the advertisement-sound issue). But for notability, the references are still the important question. The un-numbered reference at the end is a reliable source, but it doesn't really discuss what is on the page. The numbered references now: #1/6, 4, and 11 are RSs, but are more primary sources than secondary ones, #2, 3, 5, 9/12, 10, and 13 are not really appropriate sources, and #7 is somewhere in between. I'd say #8 comes the closest to establishing notability, and it's pretty marginal whether it does. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help, Tryptofish; I've removed references #2, 3, 5, 9/12, 10, and 13 are which were listed as "not really appropriate sources" and I've fixed capitalization... unless the 'e' in "Eurasian milfoil" should not be capitalized. Thanks again! Invmog (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've made some further fixes myself. (No the milfoil name is fine!) I think the page reads as though it's early-stage encyclopedic now. The question is whether it passes WP:N, which hinges pretty much entirely on what is now reference #5 (formerly 8). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Tryptofish; I'll see if I can get another notable source when I have more spare time tomorrow just to put notability beyond question. Invmog (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found another independent article which mentions them using a lake mower to help them gather seeds from aquatic plants. I think that lake mower is only mentioned on the 4th of 15 pages along with two pictures of it strapped to a net-contraption which they had to gather the seeds behind it. It should be here;[91]. It's probably at best a secondary source, so I'll keep looking for a more notable one. Invmog (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if it's notable enough for a secondary source, which is why I haven't added it as a reference yet, but in the middle of the 7th page in the right column of this [92] Texas Aquatic Plant Management Society, Inc. Newsletter there's a paragraph about Jenson Technologies and their lake mower. Invmog (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just so y'all know; I'll be at a business conference over the weekend and so I won't be able to reply to any further developments or look for more references 'til Monday, Central Time. -Invmog (talk) 03:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I didn't get to look at more references as I'd hoped to do today. Give me just one more day (January 26th 2010 American Central Time) to try and find references to prove the article's notability and then if I can't do that then I'll freely consent to having this article userified until I can get more references for it and I could also then create a more general article (which I'm not opposed to creating a more general article right now, I was just hoping that this article could sand on its own notability, being a rather unique technology and all.) Invmog (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be stalling or filibustering, had looked at all of the references provided in the article and the two or three external references which I have listed in the above discussion (which are not a part of the article as of yet) and then I also found a few more references although by themselves they not be the best of references:

a.[1] b.[2] c.[3] d.[4] e.[5]

  1. ^ "Jenson Technologies Finds That Forth of July Week Highlights Common Heritage". Retrieved 2010-01-26.
  2. ^ "Progressive Possibilities". Retrieved 2010-01-26.
  3. ^ "Notre-Dame and Usher Lakes Association Newsletter – Spring 2005" (PDF). Retrieved 2010-01-26.
  4. ^ "we regularly mow the weeds with our underwater lake mower". Retrieved 2010-01-26.
  5. ^ "Online Auction for lake mower". Retrieved 2010-01-26.

I was wondering if finding so many references like them and the ones in the article (some of which are pretty notable) collectively build a case for the article's notability, which is the only contested issue of this deletion discussion anymore. If, after reviewing all of the article's references and the above references and external links, the consensus says that this article is should be userified then I'll happily comply, only as stated earlier, I'd need some help userifying it because I'd love to be able to keep this deletion discussion with the article if that's allowed after something has been re-userified and re-released. Invmog (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I reviewed that source and do not see how it establishes notability. The page appears to be a short directory of companies. It states, "The following list of vendors is provided for your information. It is not our intention to endorse or promote specific vendors or products and this list may not be comprehensive. Vendors who wish to be added to this list should contact [NAME] at [EMAIL]." Cunard (talk) 22:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the information provided about lake mowers above the part which you quoted. Again, I'm not opposed to the article being userfied; I just need help doing it. Invmog (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about being able to still have access to this deletion discussion. It will remain archived, and you can come to it from your watchlist or user contributions any time. If the decision is delete (as I expect it will be, to be honest), the closing administrator can help you userify the article. (If you want to do it manually now, create a page as a subpage of your user page, then copy and paste the entire article there.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, I was just wondering if there was a Wikipedia guideline against me linking to the deletion discussion from the article's talk page after it's userfied. Invmog (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of, and I doubt it. Normally, when an article is kept after an AfD, there is a permanent link to the AfD discussion at the top of the article's talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then; I've copied it to my userspace with a link to this deletion discussion on its talk page. Thanks for all your help on improving it, Tryptofish, I appreciate it. Invmog (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salad days[edit]

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

Mere dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. Only four articles in all of Wikipedia link here. Recommend delete under WP:DICTIONARY. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a Wikipedia policy source for what constitutes an "encyclopedic idiom". As a general rule, encyclopedias do not include idioms, something that WP:DICTIONARY makes clear. FWIW, neither of the encyclopedias I just checked (Britannica and Encarta) include this. Calling it "encyclopedic" when you apparently can't point to an encyclopedia that includes it or to a Wikipedia policy that warrants its inclusion is a tad outlandish. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A redirect is acceptable, however I think the dictionary stuff should be trimmed down... Delete with redirect to Salad Days, and make the lead sentence something like "Salad days is an idiom meaning "days of youthful inexperience" or "heyday (not necessarily in one's youth)". It was first used in Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra in 1606." Then the disambig list. I've created a model by merging Halcyon days with Halcyon Days. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus is that Youtube plus WP:ONEEVENT celebrity is not enough. JohnCD (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Whitcroft[edit]

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

Speedy deletion under BLP1E reversed by DRV as BLP1E is not a speedy criteria. Relisting to resume discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chip on shoulder[edit]

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

Merely an unsourced dictionary entry that already exists in Wiktionary. The only article in all of Wikipedia that links here is shoulder, and that's merely as a "See Also". Recommend delete under WP:Dictionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a Wikipedia policy source for what constitutes an "encyclopedic idiom". As a general rule, encyclopedias do not include idioms, something that WP:DICTIONARY makes clear. FWIW, neither of the encyclopedias I just checked (Britannica and Encarta) include this. Calling it "encyclopedic" when you apparently can't point to an encyclopedia that includes it or to a Wikipedia policy that warrants its inclusion is a tad outlandish. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only argument that would support the position that this is encyclopedic would be a list of articles on idioms that we do have - but that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which isn't a strong argument at AFD either. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous encyclopedias which cover this matter. These include the Encyclopedia of School Psychology, Encyclopedia of murder and violent crime, The Gale encyclopedia of psychology, The Encyclopedia of education, The Encyclopedia of mental health,The Scribner encyclopedia of American lives,Psychology encyclopedia‎,Encyclopedia of murder,Encyclopedia of disability,Encyclopedia of crime and justice‎,Encyclopedia of Social Problems,etc. We observe a pattern of coverage - crime, education and psychology. These are quite encyclopedic, not purely lexical and so we're good. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, the actual practice of placing a chip on one's shoulder to invite a fight comprises about half of the article. I agree that if this were simply a definition of the idiom, it should be deleted forthwith. I disagree, though, that that is all that it is. Cnilep (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you read it incorrectly. Approximately one sentence describes the actual practice. The remaining sentences in that section are examples of literary usage, which—you guessed it—belong in a dictionary. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Rutherford (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guillaume de Fondaumière[edit]

Unsourced BLP of a video game executive. Wikidemon simply removed the PROD without attempting to solve the sourcing problem. UnitAnode 05:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep as per consensus and the addition of references to the article. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Furman[edit]

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

Extremely poorly sourced BLP of a non-notable real estate developer. Only "source" mentions him ONE time. Wikidemon is simply removing PRODs without fixing the sourcing issues. UnitAnode 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I added a handful of references to verify board memberships and trustee status. This dude has made a bazillion dollars in real estate and has been generous with it, generous to put him on the NYU board of trustees; he should be notable at least for that. Please don't confuse "not notable" with "poorly sourced"; those are two completely separate complaints about an article, and there's no question that a little bit of work makes for a better article. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Forsman[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP. Proded but removed with a silly (best I can do) edit summary. His book clearly exists but I'm not sure how notable an expert he is. The mentions of his expertise are passing at best and have serious independence issues to be reliable sources.

Sources I've found include:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toddst1 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pizza house[edit]

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

Nonsense, non-sourced article, with PRODs and CSDs repeatedly removed. This should be speedied, but with the continued removal, I am moving to AfD. mhking (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Randon II[edit]

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

Claimed to be a member of the French nobility in the 15th century, but no evidence of satisfying the guideline for notability ( WP:BIO). Claimed to be the spouse of a woman who was related to a Pope, but notability is not inherited. A prod was removed by the article's creator. Edison (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn; article can be merged appropriately. NW (Talk) 20:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin D Myricks[edit]

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

This is an article about a soldier who was convicted for hitting an Afghan in 2005. This was an isolated incident that involved two soldiers. This, in my opinion, falls under the BLP1Event issue and should either be changed to make it about the incident or deleted altogether. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The incident will be covered, but the focus will be less specifically on this soldier and more on the whole acts by all of the soldiers and officers involved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heriberto Gil Martínez[edit]

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

I fail to see much notability in this Colombian military aviator who was killed in a crash. Large flock of WP:PEACOCKs, but Wikipedia is not a WP:MEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think we should keep this because of the material in it about the war, and early Coloumbian military aviation, not necessarily for him personally. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MPEG Video Wizard DVD[edit]

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

Unremarkable software. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first set of links are largely in German from websites I'm not familiar with, can someone else weigh in on their reliability? Are they blogs or are they associated with known publications? The second set of links includes some blogs, shareware directories, and websites that appear to be based around forums. In short it's not clear how the above links establish the notability of this software. Some additional comments from Wikierofc and/or Joe Chill as well as any other editor who is more familiar with these sources would be helpful.--RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Davis[edit]

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

A wedding announcement and a linkedin profile would not seem to provide the usual coverage of a notable media personality. I'm just not seeing how a freelance writer without major awards or coverage qualifies. MBisanz talk 04:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her meagre IMDB page suggests that she's not deserving. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article clearly asserts and provides sources showing notability. Current article is not a copyright violation. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 20:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paxton[edit]

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

See Talk:Michael Paxton for details. In summary: 1) repost of speedy-deleted copyvio 2) limited notability other than the Academy nomination 3) there are other people named Michael Paxton just as notable PleaseStand (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ligong Chen[edit]

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

Lack of notability. Skbkekas (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qjoypad[edit]

Qjoypad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Per policy/guidelines and the discussion below I believe "delete" was the only valid close for this discussion. The original concerns of the nominator were mooted once the article was sourced, so ultimately this was a discussion about notability. Those arguing in favor of deletion cite WP:POLITICIAN and the fact that the article subject fails the criteria there, a point not really refuted by anyone supporting keeping. Those on the keep side argue that Jones might well win the election and if not we can do an AfD again later, but that is simply not a valid argument per WP:CRYSTAL. Also on the keep side, victor falk argued that Jones has "received significant press coverage" (basically saying he is a local politician but still passes WP:GNG), however this was clearly not the consensus view. Given existing policies about notability in general and politicians specifically the arguments for deletion have to prevail here.

Turning this into a redirect was also very much a possibility, but there simply was not consensus for that option, and while it strikes me personally as a good idea I cannot ignore the stronger (and quite valid) support for outright deletion. Even after deletion there is nothing wrong with creating a redirect, though the history will be lost. If anyone is interested in having the article userfied I am happy to do that (just drop me a note on my talk page), and there would be no prejudice against moving it back into article space if enough sources came out such that Jones passed the general notability guideline, or (obviously) if he is elected.

Finally I'll point out that there seems to be a consensus that we need a general way to handle these "candidate" articles as we approach a big UK general election in a few months (many seem to recognize that, inevitably, more will be created). My close and rationale here are quite similar to the one presented in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tammy Jennings, and perhaps these will be worth referring to during future discussions. Martin451 commented about setting a precedent by just turning these articles into redirects to pages like Hyndburn (UK Parliament constituency), and that might be the way to go in the future even if it's not how this AfD ended. It would have the advantage of: A) Preserving edit histories; B) Avoiding running basically the same AfD over and over (a newly-created article would simply be redirected). DGG argues that WP:POLITICIAN is out of step with the current media environment and perhaps with a developing consensus among Wikipedians, which is probably a point worth pursuing on the policy talk page. I would enjoin all participants here (and other editors interested in this topic) to come to some kind of consensus on how to handle these sort of articles going forward, as ideally we would be able to avoid lengthy AfDs like this as the UK, Australian, and U.S. electoral seasons heat up (if not others as well). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Jones (politician)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Deprodded with an odd edit summary, and then reverted when readded. This needs to be deleted. UnitAnode 03:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the issue I wrestled with. There's a reasonable chance that he will be elected (automatic notability), but that's future possibility and not current reality. Is the better path to have a weak article in the interim or no article at all? Frankly, I would not object to this discussion ending with a no consensus result, so that (pardon the Canadian political reference) we can prorogue this discussion until after the election. —C.Fred (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
right, I am aware of the guideline, and I am arguing that the guideline is obsolete. We can almost always find sources for anyone running for a national level office who has won a major party primary in the US, and equivalent in other countries with a basically 2 party system. I have never encountered an election where there is not local newspaper coverage. All coverage before the election will include both party's candidates. What has made it obsolete is the extension of coverage in G Books and G News, but it was always the case that if they are not online, they will be in print.(and that one article was deleted unrealistically does not prove that another one should be also) I'm not sure I expect this argument to be accepted now, but if not, i think it will be in another year. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines should not be ignored on the basis of a unilateral assertion that they are obsolete. If you think WP:POLITICIAN should be scrapped, make a policy change proposal and see if you can get consensus to delete it; but until that has happened it can still be cited and applied. (Side-note: we really should have that policy debate soon, or we shall be repeating this discussion several hundred times in the next few months). JohnCD (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the leader of a Borough Council, is that notable? "The borough council’s Labour Leader Graham Jones" Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an "elected local official", so no. —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if he can blow smoke through his ears? Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then that's WP:BLP1E, surely :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(voted above) It seems to me that it is going to be dififcult to resist having PPC biographies within six months of an election, but we should have a mass cull of articles on unsuccessful candidates as soon as the election is over. I would suggest a revision to WP:POLITICIAN to the effect that candidates for natioanl legislatures, elected presidency and smiliar major offices for major parties should be regarded as notable until the election has taken place, when notability must be reconsidered. I would suggest that a major party should be one with at least five existing represnetatives in the preceding legislature. How far down this should extend is debatable: possibly to US State legislatures and Austrialian provinces, with the Scottish Parliament, and Welsh and NI Assemblies, but not UK county and distriuct councils. However perhaps this discussion needs to be continued at WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is our policy that notability is permanent. You can't merit inclusion before the election but not afterward. Everyking (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what grounds does any of that qualify him for a speedy keep? A standard keep, yes, but it doesn't invalidate anything about the nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, the requirement is for significant coverage about the subject, not just for his name to be mentioned in every article about a political issue in Hyndburn. —C.Fred (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And lets not ignore that to describe Hyndburn as a major metropolitan city is to give it a compliment it doesn't deserve. Take a look at the article on Hyndburn, Victor Falk, see if you think it qualifies. Ironholds (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting this article now is a bit excessive, its got a couple of citations and a couple of externals and the coverage is only going to grow exponentially, if you delete it now, it will definitely get re created when the hullabaloo and the reporting kicks off for the election, even if he loses he will be notable for a couple of months, why delete an article with a degree of notability that people are going to be coming looking for, if he wins all good, we will have our article and if he loses we can delete it in June, if he wins, we won't have an article and about a hundred people will suddenly require an article, if we are a bit lax with their notability at the moment then the articles will be there ready and waiting, no worries really. Off2riorob (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the guideline page ..Basic criteria

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] Off2riorob (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be closed[edit]

There's clearly consensus to delete the article as of now. I'd also suggest userifying it for Off2riorob, as he seems genuinely interested in the content, and it could be moved into the mainspace if the guy DOES win and become notable. UnitAnode 04:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It does not appear that a consensus exists to delete. The suggestion to merge appears to have some support, but I am a bit unsure how to do this in a neat manner. I'll leave that matter up to editorial discretion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Junker and Crow Show[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Blodance the Seeker 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewy Sabatay[edit]

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

Doesn't meet guidelines at WP:Band and fails WP:V, only two sources are band's MySpace page and their own website. missrain(talk) 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A quick review of the article and arguments finds me agreeing mostly with Edison's delete vote, but Wifione's keep argument is well reasoned, and appears to have a fair level of support. No consensus here in other words. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juraj Tóth[edit]

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

Claim to notability appears to be that he witnessed a meteor shower, and worked at a university. Clearly not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Contested speedy. Prodego talk 02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had contested the speedy on the assumption that Prodego deleted the article without seeing darkfalls' new version. To me, the professorship indicates that he might be notable. However, if no one can add sources indicating that he meets WP:PROF within a week, then we should delete the article. NW (Talk) 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if the contributions to science were significant, English sources would not be difficult to find, as English has become the lingua franca of most sciences. The fact that many publications are in a language few people can read is not a sign of notability for academics.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A source written in a different language should not be given less weight than a source written in English. The fact that English is the lingua franca of most sciences is an irrelevant point. —Dark 07:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that sources in other languages can be given the same weight but, the matter of fact is that, unlike, say authors of novels, singers and entertainers which can be well known in a culture and completely unknown outside of it, scientists with significant contributions to science will be at least noticed in English publications. Now Juraj Tóth could still technically pass the general notability guidelines through reliable sources in Slovak (if there are enough of them), but it's unlikely that he passes the notability guidelines for academics in light of the lack of English sources about his scientific work.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shoreliner names[edit]

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

I believe this is a clear case of WP:NOT, as Wikipedia is not a railfan spotter's guide oknazevad (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have taken note of MichaelQSchmidt's keep vote, but note that the articles in the second Google news link contain nothing non-trivial and the first shows only brief local coverage. Therefore, Wine Guy and Bearian's comments appear stronger. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Sickler[edit]

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

Seems to have had multiple small roles in notable television series but I can't find anything to substantiate her own notability... HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see much non-trivial coverage in those sources. While I agree her name appears to have been floating around for a while, I still don't see notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Wine Guy Talk 21:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desire (band)[edit]

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

Aside from one review through Pitchfork Media, no (other) reliable sources to establish notability of a band. Searching for "Desire" is hard, but searching with a band member's name only brought up one result from an apparently unreliable source. tedder (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

#1 Is about the record company and only mentions the band in passing.
#2 Is about the producer and and only mentions the band in passing.
#3 Is about their record and interestingly talks more about the producer than the band. The band is almost an afterthought.
#4 Is about the producer and and only mentions the band in passing.
#5 Is about the Montreal music scene and only mentions the band in passing.
My question to Prezbo, Michig, Chubbles, and kyle1278 is how do these qualify as substantial coverage of the band. These are at best all passing references. ttonyb (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Portland Mercury, Now, and Guardian articles contain short but non-trivial coverage. The RA article is about the band's album - I don't see how that can not be considered significant coverage of the band, since the band exists to perform live and make records. See also this interview, and possibly this, although I'm not familiar with the site. Add in the fact the band's main man is also the main man behind this band, and I think it's clear that this should be kept.--Michig (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The Portland Mercury, Now, and Guardian articles are trivial coverage - see description of the articles above. You have a point about the record coverage, but the gist of the article is about the album, not the band itself. The fact the band's "main man" is also behind another band is not a factor in establishing this band's notability. ttonyb (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The band contains a notable musician, which certainly helps towards notability, but if you don't see it I'm not going to try to convince you further.--Michig (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The criteria in WP:BAND is "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians..." ttonyb (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that's only a rule of thumb, and in this case the clearly-notable Glass Candy was producer/musician Johnny Jewel plus a vocalist, and Desire is producer/musician Johnny Jewel plus a vocalist. There's also this Pitchfork review, which goes well beyond a brief mention.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article was substantially improved post-nom, so - keep (nomination withdrawn). –xenotalk 20:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Connelly (writer)[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a writer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOM, CONDITIONAL TO SOURCES STAYING IN THE ARTICLE. Request that the first administrator that notices this note close the AFD. Regards, UnitAnode 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon but I don't know any other way to say this. What the hell does that mean?--Cube lurker (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty straightforward to me. this version of the article is deleteable on sight. Completely unsourced. Has been for more than 2 years. Astoundingly valid AfD nomination, since the PROD was removed without sources being added. this version of the article is adequately sourced, and would qualify as a keep. IF the article is reverted to something approximating the earlier unsourced version, I think deletion is appropriate. But that's not going to happen, is it? Hopefully not, anyway. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying keep since we're talking about the article as it stands? I haven't seen anyone suggesting reversion to an inferior version.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look, as we all know, this is a scuffle over the failed attempt to start deleting BLP articles out of process for lack of citation while the RfC is in process on how to deal with them. Lar is at one extreme of the opinion spectrum here, that such articles should be deleted on sight even while the RfC is in process. That's not going to be the outcome of RfC, and ArbCom has repudiated that position. The article is not going to be deleted, the nominator has re-opened twice, so here we are prolonging a moot discussion just to prove a WP:POINT. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You will stop accusing me of bad-faith, or it's you that will be sanctioned. My nomination was done in good-faith. UnitAnode 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You sound like you need to take a break. You are not doing the encyclopedia or any of its editors a favor with this misguided belligerence. I get that you have a nonstandard interpretation to the rules. You're certainly free to your interpretation but when it crosses the line to process abuse, confrontation, and edit warring, you need to cut it out. I do not appreciate the mischaracterization of my edit history or the over the top threats. You're capable of making fine contributions to the encyclopedia when you edit collaboratively and in good spririts. Please keep that in mind. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have read the arguments, and I do not share the nominator's assertion that the "boil down to nothing more than "keep, because he 'discovered' asteroids/stars." The keep arguments have presented a reasonable case that Cooney's work has been reported in numerous media outlets, which relates directly to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter R. Cooney, Jr.[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of an astronomer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey kettle. How many AfD's did you post that in? Good lord. Grsz11 02:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I posted it in exactly the number for which it is a bare fact. Meanwhile, your claim that it's an "accusation of bad faith" is just categorically not true. Yet you've posted it in multiple AFDs. UnitAnode 12:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coşkun Sabah[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced BLP of a Turkish singer. WIkidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even bothering to try to source them. UnitAnode 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Cruise[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP of a wrestler. Wikidemon is mass-reverting PROD tags from unsourced BLPs, without even attempting to source them. UnitAnode 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but hes a notable announcer. Off2riorob (talk)
No, he's not. And even if he were, the above is proof that you're not even investigating, and just voting "keep" on everything. UnitAnode 01:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here he is being interviewed about it, there is loads of stuff out there about him, sure hes not obama but people are interested. Also.. I have looked at some and not voted to keep. Here he is being interviewed in a radio interview . Off2riorob (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MYSPACE?!? You're linking me to MYSPACE?!?!?!? UnitAnode 01:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Easy tiger, I am just had a little look and there does seem to be notability, I am not a wrestling fan but I am sure the article can be improved and saved by someone that is. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Cole[edit]

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

Non-notable and pathetically-"sourced" BLP of a businessman. The only "source" is to some list of "fellows." Wikidemon improperly removed the PROD without even attempting to fix the underlying sourcing issue. UnitAnode 00:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Estable[edit]

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

Non-notable, and wholly unsourced BLP of a painter. Wikidemon improperly removed the PROD tag without bothering to actually source it. UnitAnode 00:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Dolan[edit]

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

Non-notable, and almost wholly unsourced BLP of a musician. UnitAnode 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. consensus is that the article is notable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted if someone is willing to source it. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequently restored after editor offered to source it. Do not delete if this promise is met.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Quicksilver[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced DJ. Only sources are his "official site" and his Myspace. Wikidemon improperly removed the PROD, without bothering to source it. UnitAnode 00:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragan Danevski[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced BLP of some coach. Wikidemon improperly reverted the PROD without even attempting to fix the unsourced problem. UnitAnode 00:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Children of the Red King, per other books in series. Jayjg (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Bone and the Hidden King[edit]

Charlie Bone and the Hidden King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am completing a nomination for 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · block log), who tagged the article and added it to today's AfD log, but did not create this AfD page. User's stated reason in his edit summary is "Fails criteria for notable books". –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleteconsensus is that the article is notable, however sourcing concerns have not been addressed. This may be undeleted if someone is willing to source it. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Dougherty[edit]

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

Non-notable and unsourced BLP of an amateur golfer. Wikidemon removed the PROD with an untrue edit summary claiming the article was sourced. It is not. UnitAnode 00:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Phan[edit]

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

This article is rife with references to unreliable sites, and I can find no significant third-party coverage (as required by WP:RS to justify the notability of this person. I do not believe she passes WP:N in the strictest sense as being popular on YouTube is not inherited notability, IMHO.

On the search I did on her I was unable to come up with any sources that I would consider reliable enough to stick in the article. If all the unreliable sources were removed from the article, it would be unsourced, I believe as the four external links all go to social networking sites. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 04:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin should note for vote above WP:JUSTAVOTE Kyle1278 15:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We usually don't use the amount of subscribers or where their status is on the YouTube rankings we look for out side coverage, and as for you question about if you can vote or not yes you can it dose not matter if you have an account or not. Cheers Kyle1278 17:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wetware hacker[edit]

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

The biggest problem with this article is that it is a POV screed. It presents the topic as positive and does not reference the controversy surounding the term Hacker (computing). It ignores the Wkipedia articles for wetware and hacker, and thus puts its own original research spin on these topics. It contains no citations. This article could perhaps be cleaned up, but there is nothing useful in it to clean. I recommend deletion. Jarhed (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are many sources to be found. For those wondering about the justification, just browse this book: 3-lb Universe We are definitely more wetware than hardware (meaning, any hard circuit analogy ought to be suspect from the getgo, and that opens up issues on many levels that have not yet been addressed adequately (of course, who said that these were easy?). Of course, NOR is always an issue with subjects like this. Potential sources for an adequate article are not in a sparse set. jmswtlk (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this discussion is not about the term 'wetware hacker', it is about the actual WP article. I would be delighted for someone to clean it up so that it kinda halfway conformed to WP standards. I have done that to other articles, and I can't find anything in this article that can be kept.Jarhed (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Google Books, the above mentioned work contains no references to either "wetware" or "hacker": [134]. — Rankiri (talk) 02:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suelyn Mederios[edit]

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

Contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Lots of hits in Google images but zero hits on the name in Google news. Does not meet WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nom — Jack Merridew 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Doyle (rugby league)[edit]

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

Non-notable and completely unsourced BLP of a rugby player. The PROD tag was removed, with a deceptive edit summary claiming that the ELs were actually sources. They're not. Neither even pointed to links that referenced this guy. UnitAnode 00:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOM, after at least one reliable source has been added. If the next admin that looks at this would close, I'd appreciate it. UnitAnode 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summersteps Records[edit]

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

Contested Prod, non-notable record label. Ridernyc (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure) DustiSPEAK!! 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samahang Kapatid[edit]

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

Last AFD ended in no consensus, but this article has to go. It is a mess, has been abandoned by its promotor, and is about a dance troupe that has performed a few places. The Google News results are just notices of upcoming acts, nothing substantial. I say this fails WP:N, and WP:ENT/WP:MUSIC if one extends the spirit of those guidelines to dance troupes. Speciate (talk) 20:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Surratt[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No search result can be found for this name as a film director, nor for the mentioned films or production companies. Probable hoax. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:32, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Austin (actor)[edit]

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

It appears that his television roles are minor ones. Also no reliable sources. ~DC Talk To Me 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Reggie Austin was on all 10 episodes of the first season of The Starter Wife, and will be in 7 episodes of Life Unexpected. He has 18 additional television and film credits. I created the page in part because he is starting to be searched online regularly, and there is another Reggie Austin who played football, and whose page was being linked to Reggie's acting credits in error. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to validate the need for/validity of this page. Thanks! Culvercitygirl (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2010 (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) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that this does not at all preclude merging and/or redirecting this to an existing article, it's just that there is not a general consensus for doing that, and certainly no consensus for a specific merge/redirect target. Discussion about that possibility could continue on the article talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christianism[edit]

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

Unsourced. Neoligism. Not notable. Fake. Fauna Gland Rocker (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science Monitor: "Onward, Christianist Soldiers?" http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0520/p18s04-hfes.html

Time Magazine: "My problem with Christianism" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826-2,00.html

What this Wikipedia article needs is not deletion, but rather someone who can summarize, among other things, the history of the term, what Christianism is, and (like the term Dominionism) how it is differentiated from the term "Christian fundamentalist" in an encyclopedic way. There have been many edits to the article over the past and it was once more substantial than it is now. Unlike the term "Christian fundamentalism", the intention behind its use has been to highlight a direct parallel between militant Christians and Islamism/militant Muslims, and it's therefore a contentious issue and controversial term. The article as it exists now is not NPOV, BTW.Adrigon (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Time article is in fact by Sullivan.Prezbo (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's really nothing to merge, but since none of the citations in that diff mention Dominionism I don't think it makes sense to talk about Christianism in that article. It seems like that would mean Wikipedia making a connection that isn't found in the sources. Christian right or Andrew Sullivan would probably be better merge targets.Prezbo (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, there's already a section inside the Dominionism pagespace, so saying we shouldn't discuss it seems disingenuous. Since I've demonstrated through citation bloggers Tristero and Sullivan "coined" the word on the same day, June 1, 2003, Andrew Sullivan is a decidedly unsatisfactory merge target. One of the reasons I originally posted the links to neiwert and tristero was that the Christianism section of the Dominionism page seemed to indicate, like the sources on this pagespace, that Sullivan was the initiator of the meme. That's not proven by the collected sources. If a satisfactory merge target can't be found, I'd be inclined to keep. I'm adding the sources directly to the page, just in case. BusterD (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Babcock[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Assertion of notability as glamour/expo model is stretched, as her credits are all rather insignificant and vague and the vast majority of claims (many weasel-ish) are sourced to self-published websites while G-news returns results on a student of the same name instead. Any model whose most noteworthy claims include Twitter fans, appearing on websites like CoEd Magazine and ManHelper, and supposedly being known as "Queen of the Underboob" probably doesn't warrant an article.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:52, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Tara Babcock is a very well known glamour model who has been included in well known iPhone Apps, known magazines (American Curves, MuscleMag, etc) commonly found in popular book stores and gas stations internationally. Also, well known TV programs have featured her as well (Men's choice awards, G4, etc). She has created her brand name without signing exclusive contracts and is much more notable than some models who have had verified Wikipedia pages (Teresa Noreen, etc) Nowhere does it state anything about her main achievements being "Twitter" fans. If the model in question, though, created her initial fame based upon social networking sites this is a notable fact that must be reported. Upon searching Tara Babcock in any search engine you will find dozens of pages of images, articles and links that replicate or exceed other notable models. This argument sounds more like an attack filled with personal opinion rather than fact as you are conveniently forgetting to mention all of the most notable achievements on the article and twisting the words so that they fit your ideas. Although I have not been able to find citable proof, I have also seen Tara Babcock in many other television shows hosting and in a few other magazine articles. I have heard of her repeatedly without looking for her or other models. In my professional opinion as a writer and consumer of media, there is no doubt of the notability of this Wikipedia article. Thank you. Infoleader (talk) 10:26, 27, January 2010 (UTC) — Infoleader (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Cadreau[edit]

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

The subject of the article does not meet notability criteria for inclusion as outlined at WP:GNG. It would appear that any attention Cadreau received was minor local coverage for a single event and therefore falls under WP:BLP1E. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:07, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. unsourced after 2 weeks on afd? Scott Mac (Doc) 19:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grisha Georgiev[edit]

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

Fails to meet ARTIST requirements. I can find no related articles on Google News about the band or the person and as the article has been tagged as needing links for a year, there seems little prospect of this improving. There may be sufficient evidence for the band (to meet BAND) but evidence seems too thin to substantiate a separate BLP. —Ash (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Jayne Jensen[edit]

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

Delete — Non-notable actress. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kara and Shelby Hoffman[edit]

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

non-notable twin child actors with only 2 verifiable roles, as babies. Does not meet WP:GNG, let alone WP:ENT. There are hits for Google:News, but they just mention the twins portraying a role in movie, nothing really notable. Logical Fuzz (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris skinner[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only one independent hit can be found for him, and it is a single quote attributed to him in an http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/08/239877/Financial-services-technology-predictions-for-2010.htm article] in Computer Weekly. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His Business Week profile is in a section called "Business Exchange", a section where readers are allowed to log in and create profiles for themselves in order to engage in a forum. The Global Investor link is simply a listing of his book, not an indication of notability. His contributions to The Banker are not themselves notable; if they were, every journalist on earth would qualify as notable. The two BBC links are one line "comments" from Skinner. Notability is established by significant coverage from third party sources, not by one-line comments attributed to the subject. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:55, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ionel Istrati[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because it asserts no notability other than association with the artist, and fails WP:NSONG:

Wait (Ionel Istrati song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuffledThud (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: I'm adding that article to this AFD. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Philpott[edit]

Chris Philpott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I removed the ((db-bio)) tag from the article because A7 does not apply; notability is asserted by him receiving the Comedy Magician Award and his appearance on ITV News.

However, there is little coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. This Google News Archive search (with the search term: "Chris Philpott" magician) returns one article from the local newspaper, the Isle of Wight County Press. My other searches for sources have returned no substantial results. If more sources can be found, I will withdraw this AfD. At present, the article fails Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 18:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lawton[edit]

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

Nomination created on behalf of 67.193.129.239 (talk · contribs). The user's rationale should be given shortly. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:34, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preganesia[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional element outside its universe (as far as I can tell). Pcap ping 07:38, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Long-term unsourced BLP. Relist not necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rhea Vedro[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO. 2 hits in gnews [138]. google reveals mainly directory listings [139], [140] LibStar (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Royaards[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE for producer (only 1 film), and WP:ENT for actor. IMDB confirms a lack of roles [141]. gnews. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River City Saints[edit]

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

Non-notable club of soccer boosters. The author (who also claims to have started the club) contested my PROD, but hasn't offered sources or references for notability. I can't find anything remotely significant.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Sorry, I ought to have been more clear, I shouldn't have used the word "club," as in FC. I meant it as in, "band of associates." That is to say, from what I can tell of the article the River City Saints are a booster club (or maybe just a rooting section?) for a soccer team, not a soccer team themselves.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoghos Tahmizian[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF (not sure if he can be considered an academic. Also no Armenian language WP article exists. 1hit in gnews, not much in gbooks, same for gscholar. LibStar (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2010 (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) 00:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Youth Inclusion Support Panel. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Group Intervention Panel[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly anything in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a ground breaking project and worthy of being on here, the UK's YIp's projects are based upon it. As for significant coverage think we can't banish most of wikipedia to the bin.--Pandaplodder (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (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) 00:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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