The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Rahim Oberholtzer[edit]

Rahim Oberholtzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Article concerns a game show contestant, provides no sources other than IMDB and does not overall assert notability. TM 23:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

African admixture in Europe[edit]

African admixture in Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Muntuwandi has recreated the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe article under a slightly different name, but it contains much of the same content (plus a lot more of his OR and POV) that was deleted and merged, in more condensed and neutral form, into the Genetic history of Europe article. SOPHIAN was blocked recently for doing the same thing. If there's any justice, Muntuwandi will be blocked as well, adding to his already spotty record. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note to Admins - These two editors and Sophian, and what appears to be a new entry Victorius_III, a possible sock-puppet of Small Victory have been engaged in a disruptive edit war on the Genetic History of Europe. It is roughly impossible now to make constructive edits on the pages because of all the reverts that are going on. Another editor and I were trying to make changes to the references on the page but those changes were repeated reverted. Muntawandis claim of go it alone editing by Small Victory is roughly true now for the Subsaharan Admixture section in Genetic History of Europe. I would not normally support a fork such as this, unless something is done the reign in the behaviors of Small Victory on the Genetic History of Europe page, a page such as this is the only way to balance the points of view. Small Victory, where are the references (precisely) for the data you keep reverting back to?PB666 ^yap 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory has stated that there is OR and POV. We have already established that the use of direct quotes, which have been used, does not constitute original research per Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Direct_quotes. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong delete - mere copy of deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. The Ogre (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

at least the reasoning here is incorrect. SV and Sophian were the primary editors of that page with their POV, this one is written by Muntawandi with his POV.PB666 ^yap 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Here is the previous AfD2 Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe

Excuse me PB666, but I've fought against both Muntuwandi's and SOPHIAN's OR/POV edits. My version of the 'SSA admixture' section is the most neutral. You yourself found virtually nothing wrong with it compared to Muntuwandi's, which you picked apart and argued against vehemently. Now all of a sudden you're taking his side and insisting that the data in my version is not properly sourced, even though I showed you that it is. Have you completely lost your mind? ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• People, please! This here should only be a discussion on the deletion of African admixture in Europe. Let us keep other matters for their correct places. Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND for Small Victory fighting Sophian or Muntawandi. That is the reason he created this new page, because you and your apparent sock have blocked posting with the complete reversions. Your version was and still is the worst version, and you have material in that version that is not properly referenced and which I removed and you returned in violation of WP:VERIFY.PB666 ^yap 03:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

1) I've used no sock. Don't make outrageous accusations without any evidence to back them up. 2) You concluded that my version was better than Muntuwandi's. Now you're saying the opposite, but you've offered no explanation as to why. 3) All of the material in my version in properly referenced. If you believe something isn't, then cite specifics and I'll set you straight. Don't be vague. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Again you have missed the point, it is not about setting me strait, it is about improving the encyclopedia, it is about correcting errors and material that is warranted and removing material that is unverified or unencyclopedia either by its nature or the way in which it is presented. You keep turning this into a battle of wills.PB666 ^yap 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I presented the sourced and unsourced information on the talk page, you failed to cite your sources and fix the mangle of references, consequently as per WP:VERIFY I retained the numbers that were clearly referenced (In a table with the references right next to the value). It is your job to cite the reference that verifies the values you present. Once again we see the arrogance come forth that plagues the pages that you edit. This is not only a problem with this section but many other sections on the page have problems. I would support a AfD for the deletion of Genetic history of Europe if it came forth, unless we can see an environment of cooperation, the alternative is to ban certain individuals (Small Victory, Muntuwandi, SOPHIAN) from editing the page.PB666 ^yap 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. At the far right you'll see a column called "Sub-Saharan". That's where the figures were obtained. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

When did you show me this table, and where in that table are the percentages you listed in the article given? Lets not confuse the facts, here, you bundled up the data derived from several references into a single reference, without, in the reference, pointing as to which data came from which paper (more or less you were trying to bluff a reference thinking no-one would check it out). To top that off, the majority of percentages that you referenced were not given as percentages, you did that little synthesis yourself.WP:SYNTHESIS To the admins, take a look at the page history for Genetic History of Europe, and take a look at the kind of POV we are dealing with here.PB666 ^yap 03:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

More complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors. - WP:NOTOR

Population frequencies are a statistic. And some of the %s you gave were based on single occurances, which means a confidence interval is relevant (but not given) nor did you disclose that you had converted the numbers from absolute frequency in a sample to relative frequency as a percent. So now that we have seen the table where you got your percentages you now disclose this is original research. Another editor has posted and original research tag on the other section which you have edited in direct response to your edits. Are you still going to stand by the position that you referenced the material properly, because we can take this to the NOR.PB666 ^yap 03:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

"Soon it became evident that editors who rejected a majority view would often marshal sources to argue that a minority view was superior to a majority view—or would even add sources in order to promote the editor's own view. Therefore, the NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The original motivation for NOR was to prevent editors from introducing fringe views in science, especially physics—or from excluding verifiable views that, in the judgement of editors, were incorrect.[1] - WP:No_original_research/history

PB666 ^yap 04:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I showed you that table when you first brought up the issue on the talk page, so I wasn't trying to "bluff" anything. It's not my fault your reading comprehension is so low. Of course it's "absolute frequency in a sample". Did you think they tested every individual in each country? That's standard practice in science, testing random samples and extrapolating results to the whole. If you think it's "OR", you could just cite the numbers without calculating the frequency (e.g. 2/346), but that would be even less encyclopedic and more confusing to the average reader. Anyway, no one's ever had a problem with this, and your retarded mtDNA table includes percentages too. I guess it's only OR when other people do it. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

My reading comprehension is so low that I did not see a single of your proclaimed percentages on that page (because there are no percentages on the page!) and therefore discounted that you could have possibly used that source for Wikipedia. Neither did you disclose you had converted absolute frequencies in a sample to relative frequencies as a percent. Again, read the NOR guidelines. If you had disclosed the fact you had converted the data then I would have realized that this was your source. I assumed that the percentages were given in the actual source (see footnotes) as a consequence, no direct reference, original data, improper referencing on the page. I eliminated only those that had a direct references. The word absolute frequency means that they were not converted to relative frequency and from there converted to a percent. In the sample with small N (1 to 10) there should be an associated confidence interval otherwise you are forcing the reader to assume that N was large enough that relative variance was not a problem. The 95% confidence interval for 1 in X where X is a large number extends from a frequency of 1/(X*20) to 5/X or approximately a 100 fold range, there are a total of 11 "1"s; 8 "2s", found under the Subsaharan L listing.

As for the table, until you can show an original source for the percentages, everything should go. Including East-Asian contribution.PB666 ^yap 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory has convinced me that we need to Keep African_admixture_in_Europe.PB666 ^yap 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a new article, but I see many of the same problems may be occurring or about to occur. Rather than judging that straight away, I'd like to raise the question of what this article needs. Effectively the previous article became a back and forth edit war, (swinging between different fork version) because the science itself was not up to what some editors wanted it to say. I notice for example the emphasis on the slave trade again which is not really justified by the cherry picked references used. I think if editors can not agree first on what the Genetic History of Europe article's content should be concerning African admixture, then making this article looks like a way of escaping the need to be able to build a neutral consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• With SV around there is no way to build a consensus, he simply does a full revert back to his favored version.PB666 ^yap 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN, The Ogre and Victorius III all prefer my version. You did too before you inexplicably switched sides. Causteau has always supported my edits on this subject. Andrew opposes everything I do, but can never point to anything substantive being wrong with it (e.g. the reference to slavery is properly sourced). And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. And until Andrew can produce something concrete it's like 7 against 1, which leaves Muntuwandi all alone with his OR and POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The point SV, NPOV requires us _not to take sides_ (you still don't get it, this side taking has ruined several pages) in addition others reverted your version. I left certain materials on the page initially until I had checked the references. After I had checked the references I realized that too much material, difficult to verify, difficulty to read, and non-encyclopedic was present in your section. You have made no effort what-so-ever on your part to correct the situation. Therefore I am looking at it from the encyclopedic point of view, and that basic view is that page is an eyesore for the naive reader, and those sections with trivia thrown into the text make it more-so. You have not properly referenced the material, its not whether they could if they searched hard enough, it whether you make verifyability transparent enough that the reader would not have to take half the afternoon. As Andrew points out the contribution from Slavery cannot be verified, and the very nature of molecular genetics (which myself and Andrew both work with) makes it such that after a certain amount of time we cannot conclude where the source of genetic contribution comes from. This is the reason why I moved the SSA section to NA contributions, because in fact SSA contributions are a statistical alternative in some instances to direct N. African contribution. In most cases NA reaches maximum likelihood, in some cases West Africa reaches Maximum Likelihood. Examples of West African Preference over NA include the Cw*16 allele found in Europe. I repeat this one more time, the science weighs in the direction of N. Africa, but it does not weigh entirely in that direction, and if you are not representing that point of view, then your point of view is not neutral. In addition, if you continue to delete minutely contrasting points of view in favor of your own, then you are exercising a Non-NPOV. As long as you work toward complete obstruction of others work, I think Muntawandi is justified in creating this Fork.PB666 ^yap 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. As long as the article is not politicized, it is potentially a very useful and informative article on the Genetic histories of Europe and Africa. it is a problem if some users already have preset agendas, or ideas about what content should be in the article. As long as we let the scientific studies speak for themselves, rather than engaging in original research, a la Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts, then we should be fine. One possible issue though, is coming up with the most appropriate name for the article Wapondaponda (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Politicizing the article? Having preset agendas about what should be included? Engaging in original research? You're describing yourself. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - per Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe. Jingby (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The nominator of this article Small Victory, is largely a single purpose account, whose edits has largely been restricted to the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, its talk page and a handful of related articles. This is evident in his edit count profile. In more than three years of editing, he has only edited 23 unique articles. SV has less than 200 live edits as over 100 edits were deleted along with the SSA article. Since the deletion, Small Victory has since shifted his edits to Genetic history of Europe. As the owner of the deleted SSA article, Small Victory was unable to collaborate with other editors who had genuine concerns about the POV of the deleted article. As a result the article was deleted. It is not that an article on African admixture in Europe is not valid, rather it is concerns about POV forking, that have lead to its deletion. At some stage, whether beginning now or in the future, studies will continue to reveal more information on the extent and nature of African/Sub-Saharan genetic influences in Europe. Just because some editors find the topic unpleasant, is no reason not to address in important aspect of both European and African history. If we all agreed to address the article objectively and based on reliable sources rather than gamesmanship, we can create a comprehensive article. Small Victory et al. have pushed an extreme POV and have prevented anyone from adding any material to the articles that doesn't show negligible levels of African admixture. They have also prevented any studies that show admixture from anything other than the recent slave trade. In short Small Victory and co. have tried to show that the only African admixture in Europe is either North African or negligible and the little African admixture that is present is only due to slaves. [1][2] [3]

This has already been discussed, and your record/editing history was shown to be much more questionable than mine. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The scope of the article African admixture in Europe, covers possible influences of African slaves, but it also objectively covers African admixture from other sources. Where African admixture is negligible, the current version states so. But it also covers sources of admixture that may be significant. The previous deleted versions tried to make a clear cut distinction between North African influences and Sub-Saharan influences. Whereas contemporary studies clearly show that such a clear cut distinction is not valid. I think this is the most objective NPOV way to cover this topic. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Sound and referenced. No valid rationale for deletion beyond animosity of certain editors.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
• CommentsThere is a discussion taking place concerning some of the comments made by the nominator, User:Small Victory, on this page and on other articles here Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Developing_Situation_with_User:Small_Victory, [5]. It seems that this page was not listed correctly, as the discussion is overdue and the debate needs to be closed Wapondaponda (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Relisted due to procedural error in original listing[edit]

See User_talk:RoySmith#Deletion_review_for_African_admixture_in_Europe for the background to why this has been relisted -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See [6] for my comments during my attempt to close this the first time. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to be referenced, although many of the refs are not available free online. Why would anyone assume there was some not degree of mixture between the populations of adjacent continents? (Aryan purity fantasies aside). Edison (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Straw man. No one has ever said that this article should be deleted because there's been no admixture. Your crusade against "Aryan purity fantasies" belongs elsewhere and is not a reason to keep the article, which has already been deleted twice and should remain that way. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I see no reason not to have a specialized article. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The subject is already dealt with at length in the Genetic history of Europe article. Merging content is what was decided upon when the original version of the article was deleted. Muntuwandi has blatantly gone against the consensus. RoySmith only reluctantly relisted the article, believing that a speedy deletion is in order. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Explaining the problem. I think the concern is that the animosity we see is partly driven by some issues within this subject matter. Probably the biggest source of animosity, if I understand correctly, is that there are two strong ways of feeling about the subject of whether to contrast sub Saharan Africans with Northern Africans. For example, some people prefer to write about Europeans, West Asians and North Africans as three sub-sets of a relatively unified group, which is relatively distinct from sub Saharan Africans. Others prefer to emphasize that North Africans and sub Saharan Africans are closely related to each other in many ways. Both sides are right and if this article is going to work both these ideas need some treatment. (This is why this article has more chance than the previous one, which had a title that insisted on taking a side so to speak.) Logically, there is no conflict between these two positions, because there really are these connections and differences. But the resulting debates are sometimes difficult to turn into anything neutral. By the way, I think the title needs the addition of a word like "Population" or else it is not clear what is being mixed. I googled a bit and this seemed the most common word outside of wikis (in contrast to "genetic" or "DNA").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is even worse than the previous one because of its vagueness, and that's exactly how Muntuwandi wants it. He calls it "African admixture" but in his mind (and, he hopes, in the minds of casual readers) that equals Sub-Saharan or black African. This is evidenced by his original version, which still opened with "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture...". This article is a clone of the old one, only with a deliberately misleading title that allows Muntuwandi to insert even more OR and POV.

There's no justification whatsoever for an article that treats North, East and Sub-Saharan African ancestry from all different periods of history as if it were this monolithic entity. There exists no article called "Asian admixture in Europe" that treats Arab influences, Mongol influences, Neolithic West Asian ancestry, and the Paleolithic migration of haplogroup R from Central Asia as a single entity. So there shouldn't be this ridiculous article either. It's pure Afrocentric POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Small Victory's remarks demonstrate the problem. He accuses the article of vagueness, but he is vague about what is vague in the article. Reading all his remarks together seems to show that what he he wants made more definite specifically is about distinguishing sub Saharan Africans as much as possible from other people, and not just a bit. OTOH he thinks Muntuwandi wants the opposite, which may or more not be true, but which is irrelevant as long as he keeps it to himself. Because Muntuwandi is restraining himself better therefore, we see Small Victory accusing Muntuwandi about things which he has not insisted on putting in the article. A big problem happens when people start editing based on trying to compensate for what they think are biases in the community, even when these biases are not clearly being put into any articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think most contemporary studies are in agreement that North African populations have a genetic profile that is intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, though closer to Eurasia than to Sub-Saharan Africa. The abstracts of these two articles will confirm this. [7], [8]. What is controversial, is the notion that prehistoric North Africa, was essentially an ecological extension of Sub-Saharan Africa during the wet phases of the Sahara. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Abstain w/ comment. The debate here is not about whether the topic should be covered or not, but whether it should be covered in its own article or as a section of a more comprehensive article. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. The core problem is that the editors working on these articles cannot agree on what should be said. Until that dispute is resolved, nothing else really matters, and the outcome of this AfD won't help resolve that. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• DELETE once and for all, for the love of God! Does anyone seriously believe that Wapondaponda intended this article to be different than the previous one when his initial version of it still began "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe refers to..."? And then when his goof was pointed out to him, he fixed it but didn't modify the article's content accordingly? Give me a break. It's like replacing creationism with intelligent design. Nothing has changed except the name. He's pulling a fast one, and you're all falling for it. Wake up, people! ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The above "Delete" comment by Small Victory and "agreed" comment by Ogre, are somewhat redundant because Small Victory is the nominator of this AFD, and Ogre has already expressed his opinion. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That you think an article needs to be improved is obviously not a reason for deletion, especially if you are saying you know how to improve it. Can you please give a valid argument and leave out all the childish stuff? The clearest thing you've said so far is that the problem is notability, but you really have not explained this any further. Why is this subject matter not notable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Try to follow the argument, Andrew. The previous article was deleted. This article is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of that one. Therefore, it should be deleted too. Period. I never said I thought it needed to be improved. What it needs is to be gone because it serves no purpose, and I've already explained clearly why. You just don't pay attention. Everything that could possibly be said in this article is already covered in Genetic history of Europe. There's no separate "Asian admixture in Europe" article or "African admixture in Asia" article, so there shouldn't be this one either. And in fact, that's what was decided last time, as I've demonstrated. And since this article is just a clone of the last one, the decision still stands. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I made that last deletion proposal, and many people said I worded the case OK for them, and I for one do not see anything automatic about the connection. Please address the case here in hand, not other editors, and not other cases, and not hidden agendas, or possible future scenarios. Otherwise people will tend to ignore you, and that might even be a shame because for all I know you have a point. (Note that I have not voted.) Now, you said the reason was notability? Please explain. I for one will ignore anything about it being obvious and simply all to do with Afrocentrism or what happened in another article or what you think an editor will do if this article is allowed to exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Article is well sourced and referenced, and notable. It also incorporates a different angle from other articles, that even though some material overlaps, there is enough new info in place for this effort to stand by itself. Recommend keep. Migueljackson (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Migueljackson has made exactly one edit to date http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Migueljackson -- RoySmith (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is not signed. MJ can be checked just to clear him and others. However, his edits seem to be in good faith, and so far, I have seen no reason to suggest otherwise. He could just be an anonymous reader who found the article interesting and decided to chime in while maintaining his privacy by creating an account. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, he could be a new addition to your extensive collection of sockpuppets. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested that he can be checked, to clear others, since naturally there is a lot of suspicion here. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

moved text out of collapse per diff Wapondaponda (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is a complete disaster. A great deal of the information posted is filled with inaccuracies, distortion and outrageous lies. We have informed genetics and molecular biology departments at the following universities about this article: University of Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Brown, U. Michigan, UCal Berkeley, Yale and Washington University in Saint Louis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

These are references from the previously deleted article. Many of them aren't formatted, but this is roughly how they appeared in the article. Reference number 13 is a collection of 7 different publications.

These are references from the current version. It may be that the references are quite different from the deleted article.

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fractile Games[edit]

Fractile Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this video game company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One book source.[9] Ikip (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The [WP] in this entry indicates attribution to Wikipedia, and is therefore unusable. If there are no other sources, then I endorse a delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in no way endorsing anything, delete or keep, just mentioning the sole google hit. Ikip (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete – can't even get anything on a regular search in which to reliably-build an article. MuZemike 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete With some reluctance. Author has clearly put a significant amount of work into this article, but without appropriate textual content it cannot survive. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Border history of Serbia[edit]

Border history of Serbia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I could've almost speedily deleted this for having little context, but I'm bringing it here in case someone wants to improve it. The article is just a gallery of maps with not much coherent structure, so it's more appropriate for Commons. It's been like this since 2005, so I doubt this can substantially improve anytime soon. Also, the same arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania (second nomination) can be applied here. Spellcast (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete At the moment there is no article - just a repository of images! The article could be rescued if someone had the expertise though  Francium12  23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Totally a non-article. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• WP:Userfication as could have been done originally to avoid a AFD. Ikip (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment -- This is not an article but a collection of maps. As such it might be instructive, but it needs some substantive text to go with it. "Serbia" has meant different things at different times. An article (with text to explain the maps) might be useful, or is that already in somethign like "History of Serbia"? CErtainly, this article cannot survive as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Even if some maps have mistakes, I believe the article can be "saved" with maps' explanations from experts.--LittleTony (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Very less content, just delete it. Pmlineditor  Talk 08:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cult Ritual (band)[edit]

Cult Ritual (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• NeutralWeak keep at present. I found very little from Google searches but there was a review in Vice magazine, which appears to have moved from its original URL and they were listed on the cover of Maximumrocknroll, which almost certainly means that there was an article about them inside. Both of these would very likely constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. A case of significant coverage very probably existing but not easily found on the internet.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Changing to a weak keep - the Fader article, Vice review, and MAXRNR coverage is probably sufficient for a keep.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per sources Francium12 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment what sources? None have been added to the article and the Google hits above aren't what I'd call "significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources".--RadioFan (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable local group with self releases only. feydey (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Only self-releases. Nowhere near enough notability. -WarthogDemon 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Their records aren't self-released, not sure why people are saying that.Prezbo (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment The discography in the article specifically identifies 2 of the recordings as self released and the low volume produced of the others indicates self release as well. All the record labels claimed in the discography section appear to exist but they all appear to be very very small, and none appear to be notable. Very small record labels could meet notability guidelines here if they are producing niche music that is widely reviewed or referenced but that does not appear to be the case here. --RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Their demo tapes are self-releases. The releases on Youth Attack! clearly are not. These are the sort of volumes of pressing that are typical for small labels, and 3,000 copies of their LP being pressed strongly suggests that it sold over 2,000 copies, which is not an insignificant amount for a non-mainstream band.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Youth Attack! actually has quite a long history of releases ([10]).--Michig (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Unfortunately the amount of coverage this band has received still appears to be insignificant and not up to notability guidelines. Perhaps a well referenced article on Youth Attack! would help.--RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The body of work doesn't appear notable at this point in time. --Stormbay (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 WP:SNOW JForget 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Lil' Kim's Fifth Studio Album[edit]

Lil' Kim's Fifth Studio Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. No sufficient information avaliable yet, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. The fact that she's working on it does not assert notability.Taylor Karras (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete No release date - could be a year away, fails WP:CRYSTAL.  Francium12  23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It's Peanut Butter JellyHammer Time. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. Come back when it's out! Pemberton08 (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a bunch of crystalballery. Does not pass WP:NALBUMS for lack of third-party coverage. talkingbirds 16:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

S. V. Torke[edit]

S. V. Torke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

S. V. Torke Torke's article fails WP:BIO. I have been unable to find reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. You may see the discussion page for additional things. This article may be deleted or kept per WP:V and WP:BLP as decided by consensus. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC) --Donotask-donottell (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete it or not It is difficult to decide whether the article should go or not. It may be worth to contact the contributor who started this article. i did found a bit of references, thats why i added the Infobox... 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC) howe—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs) 09:28 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For example Upendra Tripathy on wikipedia was also a secretary for Karnataka Government one of the States in India. Also see Cabinet Secretary for Government of India at New Delhi to know who are Cabinet Secretaries and who are other secretaries such as Under Secretaries etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donotask-donottell (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 September 2009 --Donotask-donottell (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Delete due to poor quality, with no prejudice to recreation. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: "Private secretary to Government of Karnataka Ministers" is not a note-worthy post.

"Secretary to KDCC Bank" (non-notable bank). Grave POV and peacock term issues. NO RS available on the net, establishing notability. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus/splitted on WP:N & WP:EVENT JForget 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Mazen Abdul-Jawad[edit]

Mazen Abdul-Jawad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The subject of this article is notable only for a single event that received negative press coverage; classic violation of the one event policy. He has no other notability and no comprehensive references are available that could be used to give the negative content due weigh. The article should be deleted. Nathan ^T 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep other than WP:IINFO, WP:EVENT is probably one of the most misused policies in deletion discussions. 2 scholar hits, 57 Google news hits. Ikip (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong delete, lack of coverage beyond the talk show event. As stated, classic violation of WP:BLP1E. –blurpeace ^(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brad Maglinger[edit]

Brad Maglinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable person doing ad/graphic work. Nothing seems to meet WP:CREATIVE. There are no reliable references in the article. And google searches do not result in any noteworthy content. Clubmarx (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be promotional to me. Most likely created by the subject or someone associated with the subject. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything in this article that clearly indicates notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Self-promoting. Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 pub crawl. Tone 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly pub crawl[edit]

Monopoly pub crawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

A weird mix of original research, unsourced speculation, how-to guide and directory. I have no doubt at all that Monopoly pub crawls can and do take place. I have every doubt that being mentioned in passing in an episode of Red Dwarf confers notability on something that could equally well apply to anything listing multiple place-names.  – iridescent 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Pub crawl along with all the other articles in Category:Pub crawls. If enough verifiable material builds up on any of the pub crawls for a decent sized standalone article they can be split in summary style. By merging them now it would save future AfDs, and also keep the main information in one appropriate place where the crawls can be studied in context. SilkTork *^YES! 09:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - it's far too long to merge into the existing pub crawl article, and it certainly merits an article - it's a common enough pub crawl, and much easier to do than the almost impossible Circle Line pub crawl. Tris2000 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Pub crawl: none of the external links are WP:RS -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - this will make pub crawl far too long. There are lots of famous pub crawls. The Circle Line pub crawl where we try and drink a beer at every stop on the Circe Line is probably more famous. Trust me guys, I live in London, I drink a lot of beer, and this is notable enough to have its own article. Tris2000 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and merge if wanted. Tris2000's argument that it is too long to merge into pub crawl is dealt with by merging an abbreviated version: it is totally unnecessary to have such extensive coverage of such a fringe topic. I can only assume that "Trust me guys, I live in London, ..." indicates that Tris2000 has limited knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and methods. We do not assess notability by the subjective assessment of involved or interested individuals: we assess it on the basis of substantial independent coverage. No evidence of any independent coverage has so far been shown, either in the article or here. I agree with iridescent's assessment: this is a piece of trivia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Orchidea Keresztes[edit]

Orchidea Keresztes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: I moved this to Untitled My Chemical Romance album without leaving a redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

For the Sins...[edit]

For the Sins... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No indication that this future album even has a title yet. No confirmation of a release date or any other info. I was unable to find any reliable source info to back p any of the article's claims ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Stop— HAMMER TIME! [flaminglawyer] 16:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. In addition to the Rolling Stone article already linked, there's This from Clash magazine and this from MTV. The no title/no release date rule has been shown several times to be inadequate. A much better criterion for future albums is whether or not they have been recorded. Unrecorded albums are never likely to be notable. Recorded albums by clearly notable artists with multiple significant coverage are generally going to be sufficiently notable even if they remain unreleased. Having said that, I don't know where the supposed title of the album has come from.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  If kept, the article should be renamed "Untitled My Chemical Romance" or something similar, as the current title is made up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Relisted for final time JForget 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. There is no doubt that the album will be notable as it approaches release but there is not enough information about it yet for us to have a useful, verifiable article on it. Also, no idea what the article title is supposed to refer to. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Added reliable references and cleaned up the article. We know the producer and at least one track, has been discussed on MTV and in Rolling Stone. Agree with ThaddeusB that if kept will need to be renamed. J04n(talk page) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Cyrus Family[edit]

Cyrus Family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

The family itself is not notable enough to deserve its own article despite the fame of two of its members. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The family is sufficiently covered by the articles about its notable members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The notable members of the family have articles. Any mention of the other members of the family can be accommodated at those locations. --Stormbay (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Alright, Still. JForget 22:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Nan You're a Window Shopper[edit]

Nan You're a Window Shopper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

It lacks notability 12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolute Giblets. The song doesn't lack notability, nor does the artist. I think you need to expand this to say WHY you don't think this song is notable. It's referenced on the net, and it's received national airplay on one or more major radio stations in the UK (inc. BBC Radio 1). I think you're simply testing the AFD process :) Although I have to "assume good faith!". Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not testing anything! I'm not saying the artist lacks notability, just this song. All songs on the album have been reviewed when the album was, so, yes, they all have references on the internet (btw, this article doesn't cite any sources); the thing is, a song is only notable to have its own article when it charted or made media impact. This song hasn't done either. It isn't uncommon for non-single songs to be heard on radio.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Four days and no more comments? Where is everyone?--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Not Notable Str8cash (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Alright, Still, the album that this song was a bonus track on, as it would be a useful redirect. The song itself is NN. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete (redirecting to the album would be ok) Nothing I can find on Google would establish notability and the article itself provides no sources at all. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - It is, as User:Iceflow pointed out, a notable song receiving national airplay from a notable artist. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The notability of the artist doesn't matter, and, as I said before, it is not uncommon for songs which are not released as singles to be played on radio. So, please argue the notability of the song; "it is notable" is not an argument. In fact, a song is only notable if it has either made cultural impact or charted somewhere. This song has done neither. Though, I think I just might change my mind about the deletion after seeing the AfDs for A Place With No Name; this song meets the general notability guideline too and has been cited almost all of the times Allen was interviewed about her beginnings in the music industry. Now I don't know what to think anymore. I change my vote to weak delete.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 WP:SNOW JForget 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Girlicious Sophmore Album[edit]

Girlicious Sophmore Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

WP:CRYSTAL. Seriously doubt the title will include the word "Sophmore". No sources aside from Tweets and YouTube videos. The YouTube videos discuss a member leaving, not the album. The Tweets include such definitive statements as "Ooo, this girlicious song, which could be a girlicious single is called ," Grinding." Dope dope! Plus, we all wrote this track! Dope!" and "Oooo ya!!!! This song we recorded tonight is called , "don't go fallen in love "". There doesn't even approach enough material and enough sourcing to make an article, and the current title isn't even salvageable as a redirect. —Kww(talk) 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to recreation once some solid information about the album is available from reliable sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Incredibly Hammeriffic album title and only very questionable sources (I tend to never use Twitter as a reliable source, no matter what) to be found. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL Rlendog (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no notability, no third party coverage, or reliable sources for that matter. Crystalballery. Sure doesn't help that there isn't a title, tracklist or release date. talkingbirds 16:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

FAIL Blog[edit]

FAIL Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Lack of significant independent sources to establish notability. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. he is clearly trying to get rid of this blog because i wannted it kept. i would like to see this very funny website kept on wikipedia and let others know about it Chef Blue (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)This account is a sockpuppet of wikibrah, see their userpage.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. –túrian^patois 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

if you visit the fail blog at http://www.failblog.org/ i think you would change your mind Chef Blue (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet edit

• Keep: Per this, this, this, this, and these. You might say that a lot of these are mentions, but with so many recommendations from over 20 something popular reliable sources, I'd say that this website is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is also the fact that it won two Webby Awards. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like there are enough sources to establish this as notable. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Joe. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I visit the website from time to time and a lot of people i know visit it as well. I have no reference on this but it is absolutely notable in my perspective. Str8cash (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just so you know: WP:IKNOWIT --Cybercobra (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Webby Awards are sufficient to establish notability. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - winning a Webby award is good enough notability for me.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with I Can Has Cheezburger?, blogs and mentions in a time article about I Can Has Cheezburger? suggests it is not notable by itself.--Otterathome (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How does winning two Webby Awards show that it isn't notable by itself? Joe Chill (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Webby awards are only done by user-votes and it is likely the I Can Has Cheezburger? network of sites promoted it. This site is part of that network of websites. If more decent non-blog sources were found, then a separate article would be justified.--Otterathome (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this. The Webby Award homepage itself says that it has "nearly 70 categories". 70! Are all these 70 websites (per year) notable? Oh, yeah, and every category has two winners, the "Webby Award" winner, and the "People's Voice" winner. And FailBlog didn't even win the Webby Award, it won in the People's Voice category. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this" How about let's try not to boss other users around? Joe Chill (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I wasn't bossing anyone around. I was pointing out that "has won a Webby Award" is no evidence of notability. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Wait... let me get this right. Winning a popular vote makes it... non-notable? Metty (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Webby award makes this notable. AniMate^draw 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep won a Webby, popular humor website. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the Webby award makes it notable per WP:WEB: The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I've added more refs today to the article. This has had far more mainstream coverage than I thought (and I generally keep up with internet memes), including a chunk of a piece in the NY Times about how "Fail" is now used as an interjection. I also added the Webby information, though it would be notable without the Webby wins.--Milowent (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Just take a look at those sources. I haven't seen an article flagged for rescue before, so to me it's crazy (in a good way) for such a small article. Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep When an internet meme leads to a neologism and a popular website, people are going to come to wikipedia for info about it. I do think the Controversy section sounds a bit peacocky, though. SithToby (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Vissumo[edit]

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

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

fails WP:CORP . spam like article. hardly any third party coverage [11]. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete None of the references listed on the article specifically mention Vissumo. Lacks evidence of notability. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  00:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ulrike Reinhard[edit]

Ulrike Reinhard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Delete, Claims notability but google only finds blog records, no thirdy party sources. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

ok ... i will look for references to her work from 3rd parties! (is it correct to leave a message here ?) thanks Triadic2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadic2000 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is the forum for our community to discuss why the article should or should not be included.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

great... i will work on the quality of the article and hope it will be accepted :) thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadic2000 (talk • cds, contribs) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments Could one fix the tag of hangon for an article which is nominated for deletion, through an AfD tag? If so, the author could place one, if he/she could find a third party reference / citation for the article meanwhile. Warm Regards LineofWisdom (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

the only thing that tag will do is to place the article on the list for speedy deletion, which is the opposite of what you presumably want. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I don't really understand the nomination. Google News offers sufficient sources (interviews and so on), not just blogs.[12]. Not all these sources are for here (there is also a scenographer with the same name), but it seems to be sufficient. Fram (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Note:Relisted for final time for more discussion/better consensus. --JForget 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. I'm with Fram; this is probably not the most notable person in the world, but those do look like adequate references for a short article. The first reference already cited in the article appears to be a somewhat reliable source.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• delete - firstly, this article is not sufficiently sourced - most assertions have not been footnoted. See WP:BLP, all assertions about living persons must be sourced. Also, the 3 web sources used might not be reliable sources per WP:RS - it may be hard in this case, as most of the sources you'd want to use might be in the German language; but in any case, I'd prefer at least one dependable book or paper-of-record source, and not just a few internet articles. A bigger problem is it seems this article has no clear assertion of notability: she's done stuff, but has she done anything notable? WP:HOLE. I'd be interested in seeing if the de.wikipedia article on her is any better. It may be that we can source a good article on her, but at least one editor has been trying up to now, and if this is the best we can do, I'd suggest we delete, without any prejudice against re-creating the article in the future. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Can an admin with decent German reading skills, please, do us all a favor and review the German sources, to determine if this woman is notable? This discussion has been around for two weeks, and is beginning to stink. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

List of multiple swimming medalist in international competitions[edit]

List of multiple swimming medalist in international competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Possibly WP:OR, however it is not fair to make such comparisons between athletes who are ineligible to compete at ALL of the championships discussed i.e. Australians and Americans cannot compete the the European Championships; Europeans cannot compete at the Pan Pacific Championships; etc. For a truly fair comparision, the championships should be: Olympics, World Champs, World SC Champs, European Champs (not SC), Pan-American Champs, African Champs, Oceanian Champs, Asian Champs. Furthermore, for the regional championships, they would need to be held with the same regularity, with the same history (i.e. European champs stated in the 1920s, but some regional champs started much much later) and the same number of events (i.e. not all champs include 50 metre events in all strokes, 800 m for men, 1500 m for women etc.) Yboy83 (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I could understand compiling the lists of multiple medalists for each particular competition, but adding the medals won at all of these competitions verges on original research. I don't know what sources, if any, claim that adding the medals won at all of these competitions is a valid or useful way to compare swimmers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Lotus (demo)[edit]

Black Lotus (demo) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable demo by band that is not so significant that every recording is automatically notable. Deleted three times by prod & speedy, so AfD would seem the prudent way to go forward. ^Bongo_matic 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced demo. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I could fine nothing resembling an independent, reliable source that covers this topic. (e.g. [13]) Yilloslime ^T_C 06:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. PDFFiller should be renominated separately if one wishes to delete it. NW (Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

FillAnyPDF[edit]

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

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

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

• Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  • (And PDFFiller. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC))
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep PDFFiller but Delete FillAnyPDF This article from Siteguide.us and this article from Lifehacker prove that PDFFiller passes WP:N. Delete FillAnyPDF per the lack of reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• In my opinion, the last point speaks for itself, FillAnyPDF also have articles showing that it passes WP:N too. As shown in the references section. I must admin that I didnt have time to fully complete the article, I just imagined it will be a good thing to add a new more software to the list of PDF soft, and as most of the others, a page for it. If the article should be more technical or something, I would really like to know. Elgatoduro (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — Elgatoduro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Relisted for final time, hopefully more discussion will bring a better consensus. JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete both Only sources in articles are blogs, unable to find any reliable source hits when googling. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Miss Thailand Universe special awards[edit]

Miss Thailand Universe special awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable list of awards awards *besides* the main awards as a beauty pageant. No wider impact outside the competition, no third party references to indicate cultural or critical significance. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Too minor to include. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing without prejudice against rapid renomination.  Skomorokh  21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Starstruck (Season 5)[edit]

Starstruck (Season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

An upcoming television show: no reliable sources cited. Even the "official site" claimed was not really an official site but a registration site indeed. Also, fails WP:NFF especially that it was not released in television whatsoever. JL 09 _^q?c 07:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Actually...this TV series will take off soon. I saw parts of the launch on GMA7, and as of now, what was announced was the opening of auditions. However, I must acknowledge that there are very few sources for this article at this point (that's Philippine entertainment for you). So I'd give it a few more months before the more substantial coverage appears online and off-line. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Recently launched season, although I would prefer renaming it into StarStruck (season 5). Starczamora (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Tay Dizm[edit]

Tay Dizm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Made a few appearances but not notable enough. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC.--RyRy5 (talk) 02:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't meet the WP:MUSIC notability standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral: Needs to have a major redo. Dwilso 05:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 07:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, "best known for guest appearances in some songs." --Julesn84 (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Has only appeared on one mainstream record, 2 Pistols - "She Got It". The rest listed have not achieved mainstream notability. I would expect to see this article recreated again in the future, however, as he is expected to release an album either later this year or in the first quarter of 2009. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice against merging should local consensus so decide. Arguments to delete here were weak – variants on WP:RUBBISH, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:PROBLEMS and WP:JNN, but those advocating keep did so primarily on the basis of an important rather than verifiable conception of notability. Ultimately, the strength of the identified sources will determine whether or not a thoroughly verified, reliably sourced description of the topic is sustainable as a stand-alone article.  Skomorokh  21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

LeChuck[edit]

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

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

No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. Article has been tagged for clean-up for almost two years, with negligible improvement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Just like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guybrush Threepwood, there are plenty of sources for this character who transcends multiple notable works of fiction. Google Books has 51, Google Scholar has 24, and Google News archive has 218. AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your search is actually a little flawed: it's looking for LeChuck OR "Monkey Island", not both together. This is far more accurate

12 from google books (Icon Group International does not count as they use wikipedia as their source o_O)

21 from google scholar

187 from google news archive

Now how many of them are actually usable as sources is another matter...--Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the primary antagonist of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guybrush Threepwood and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley were also offered for deletion by the same nominator. —Lowellian (reply) 06:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep with no prejudice against a Merge. Too much reiteration of game events and some amount of OR (the Powers section); remove this and you're left with a relatively short article with established notability. It may be expandable based on what other sources there are but probably is better served in a list of MI characters. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Main antagonist in one of the most notable computer game series of all time. A merge might be an option, but not deletion. Fences&Windows 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep A notable character in multiple notable works of fiction. And by Keep, I mean actually keep it, not claim it was merged and replace it with a redirect with little if any content copied over somewhere else, or mass delete most of the article then claim there isn't enough left for its own article and then merge it. Dream Focus 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot, which includes Stan (Monkey Island). Not very good for the nominator to fail to mention the related nominations. Fences&Windows 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who stumbles into this one will stumble into the others, esp. since they also were inevitably linked in various lists of AfDs by theme, color, and hairstyle sorting. Relax. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to EEMIV, he'd simply redirected those other characters, and I didn't undo the redirects until after he'd nominated the two he didn't redirect, someone else added them to DELSORT fictional elements, and I got around to investigating their notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge or weak keep. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 16:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. Prediction: Every single person who want a complete keep result will spend not one minute fixing the glaring problems of it. A single line of unsourced creation concent =/= good enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge When cut down, little actual stand-alone article exists. Merging it would be fine at this junction.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect; the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out there's nothing left. Nifboy (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or partial merge - this is excessive plot information (WP:WAF), which in any event belongs in the Plot sections of the relevant games. The small amount of out-of-universe context and verifiable information is shoved into the final "Notes" and "Legacy" section which can surely be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per the above. Nothing here that is not better served at the main article. Spinouts are for content that is genuinely outside the accommodation of the main article. The idea that this applies here is laughable. Eusebeus (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup per Masem. At least get it into a verifiable, accurate article without OR and see what there is after cleanup. MuZemike 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Basic Vocab[edit]

Basic Vocab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Completely non-notable group. On a non-notable label. Their one and only album never charted anywhere.[14] Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Minor stab at notability by having one of their songs appear during the closing credits of a TV show. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per above. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Guybrush Threepwood[edit]

Guybrush Threepwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Google News has all sorts of hits from this month about him. WP:BEFORE has obviously not been followed in this case. Character appears to be a recurring fictional element that spans a notable series of computer games, thus lacking any good merge target. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Google News Archive has over 350 hits for the name, going back to 1990. Google Scholar lists 35, and Google Books list 62. Potential overlap aside, assertions of non-notability are simply not credible. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep this character is about as noteable as they come, within the context of adventure games. may as well nominate Mario for having no notability in the field of platform games. RayBarker (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Not just a character in an obscure game, but the primary protagonist of an entire series of very well-known adventure games (Monkey Island). Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeChuck and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Marley were also offered for deletion by the same nominator. —Lowellian (reply) 06:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 03:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, as shown by the above editors, this article has clear notability. The article should be tagged with ((refimprove)) and ((expand)) and such, rather than being brought to AfD. Either way, it has been flagged for rescue now, and brought to the attention of WP:VG, and thus I expect someone with knowledge on the subject to improve the article using the sources lying about. AfD should not be used to delete articles that simply need work. --Taelus (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but with no prejudice against a Merge to some list of Monkey Island characters. 90% of this article is duplicating the plot of the games. Take that out (hit the major points), and you're level with several NFC images (inappropriate) and about two paragraphs of notable information. This is not to say that I would think there should be more to establish Guybrush as a notable character from more sources. But if there's not much more, then this should be merged with other characters. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Obviously notable, the main character in one of the most successful computer game series ever, which defined the genre of graphical adventures for a decade. Did the nominator make any effort to find sources? Did the nominator think about proposing a merge instead? A bloody big WP:TROUT in their general direction. Fences&Windows 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with all the above points. There's no discussion of deleting articles such as Master Chief (Halo), so I fail to see why such an issue would arise with this article. - Goldenboy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a relevant article (such as Monkey Island (series)#Characters) and delete plot information (which just duplicates game plots). The article contains little useful info. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Toothrot, which includes Stan (Monkey Island). Not very good for the nominator to fail to mention the related nominations. Fences&Windows 15:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge Masem put my thoughts on the matter perfectly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge: Like LeChuck, the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out all that's left is the story about Guy.Brush, a paragraph that can safely go into the series article. Nifboy (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Partial merge - as with LeChuck, this is almost entirely plot information: if the parent articles are written correctly, they will already include a plot synopsis. Other small tidbits of information, once verified, can be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - He is the main character in a popular or cult video game series, and I don't see the article on Strong Bad up for deletion. If anything, Monkey Island has more fans than Homestar Runner, but delete Guybrush without considering Strong Bad? Never! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.148.49 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. Other stuff exists. We know. That article has nothing to do with this one. MuZemike 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Which isn't to say the article is perfect or anything, but this character is one of the most famous in videogames, probably the MOST famous of the adventure genre. Plus he's been a popular character for over 15 years and has appeared in 6 different games to date. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup just as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LeChuck. Get it to something verifiable and accurate and take it from there. MuZemike 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable protagonist from popular videogame series, worthy of own article as per Goldenboy's comments. Metty (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep; There's many a notable source out there: takes three seconds to search for it. A rule of thumb for the nominator: if you don't see the notability there, look for it. If you can't find it anywhere, then propose it. --Monere (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Krondor Krew[edit]

Krondor Krew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable band that has never charted a single song and isn't signed to a notable label. Zero gnews hits. A review of the first 100 ghits couldn't find a single reliable source. Mostly facebook/myspace and youtube stuff or unreliable music sites. Fails WP:BAND Niteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jungle of the Midwest Sea[edit]

Jungle of the Midwest Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

fails WP:NALBUM no significant coverage in independent sources Dlabtot (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 05:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: This band has had two other album pages deleted recently, so I doubt this one is headed any other way. Perhaps all this album information that is being lost can be put on the band's main page, as part of the discography section. --Milowent (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Barry Kirkey[edit]

Barry Kirkey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Despite being mentioned in a book once, this for me does not constitute notability --fvw* 16:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to fail WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
• Comment AFD notice has been restored to the article (remove by the original creator a few days ago)
• Delete Lacks notability, lacks references. Zero Google News hits. Article really doesn't claim any notability other than a mention in a book which doesn't really establish him as notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

David Trosch[edit]

David Trosch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

This was prodded as "self-explanatory". I deprodded so we could discuss it at AfD instead.

Trosch was notorious in the early-mid nineties for advocating the murder of abortion providers as 'justifiable homicide'. This came to light when he tried to post an advert in a newspaper with a cartoon that proposed this viewpoint. He also called for the killing of a specific abortion provider on the TV show Geraldo.

Despite all the tags and notices and apparently complaints from the subject and his advocates, I'd say from my reading of the sources - which I was too lazy to paste in but you can easily find on Google News - that this bio is pretty accurate, but I wonder whether it falls foul of WP:BLP1E? Fences&Windows 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The gent in question undoubtedly made uncouth statements regarding the death of abortionists but those were many years ago and their impact is questionable. The article is just about unsourced, much of it is patched together from what is purportedly Trosch's website (which does not appear to have been updated since '03). An editor claiming to be Trosch has edited this page, by this point the warnings at the top of the page are longer than the article itself. Maybe this guy is notable enough to deserve an article but at present, there certainly are not citations to establish this and the article is hopelessly flawed. Blow it up and start over. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup - a quick search ([15]) reveals that the basic gist of the article is accurate, although I can't attest to every single detail. The new coverage of his controversial opinions is fairly constant from 1993 to 2000, and he has been quoted or otherwise mentioned in about a dozen articles since that time. The most recent being a LA Times story revisiting the controversy just 2 months ago. As such, I don't really see how this would fall under 1E. All the article really needs is some precise sourcing & watchful eyes. As such, I've added it to my watchlist and will try to fix the sourcing within the next couple days.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep per well-researched argument of ThaddeusB. Significant mainstream media coverage satisfies the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep That search by ThaddeusB can be refined to just fully free sources, which gives ample evidence of notability, including Time magazine in 1994 describing him as the most vocal proponent of the view that since abortion is murder, stopping abortionists by whatever means necessary, up to and including killing them, is morally obligatory on bystanders.[16] The New York Times had reason to reference his views on religiously motivated violence in 1998[17] and Time Magazine in 1995[18]. The article is indeed a stub, as it would be easy for an editor to expand it. I also don't think it meets the BLP1E standard, as some of these citations are to events years later. And arguably, Bruce Lucero, M.D., New Woman all Woman Health Care, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. David Trosch, Father, Defendant, Minzor Chadwick, David Lackey, Kathleen Mcconnell, John Edwin Williams, Eleanor Stisher, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Chris Harding, Deputy United States Marshal, Movant., 121 F.3d 591 (11th Cir. 1997) (aka Lucero vs. Trosh) may be a notable law case, as there is at least some coverage of it in secondary sources and it has been cited as precedent in other cases of the same circuit.[19][20][21] (The law wikiproject is currently drawing the line on case notability, and I'm not sure which side of the line this case would end up on.) GRBerry 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I was never in any doubt as to the abundance of sources; it's not hard to tap his name into Google News! My reasoning for worrying about BLP1E was that his entire notability seemed based on the fall-out from that original advert placement, rather than the article being about him as a person. If editors believe that coverage of his Geraldo interview and the Lucero court case side-step BLP1E, then it might be OK to keep. Fences&Windows 07:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If BLP1E is the only concern, then a deletion nomination is not appropriate. Because the proper solution for a BLP1E issue is to either A) merge the content into an existing article on the event or B) move the article to a title about the event and then rework it to be about the event. In neither case should the article that had a BLP1E issue be deleted. If you need input on whether this should be done, the BLP noticeboard is the right place to get that input, not AFD. GRBerry 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, whatever. Plenty of articles get deleted due to BLP1E concerns. The article was heavily disputed, covered in tags, and I converted a Prod into AfD as I wanted a proper discussion on deletion. No need to Wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW JForget 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Munetoshi Date[edit]

Munetoshi Date (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Suspected hoax. Declined speedy. An alleged actor/singer, who is not mentioned at all on the website of the agency to which he is supposedly signed [22]. The guy claims to be half-Chinese and half-Japanese, which leaves us with a bunch of names to search for:

1. Search for Japanese name in kanji gives 5 Ghits
2. Search for Japanese name in hiragana or search (also in proper name order) in romaji gives coincidental hits related to a 17th-century historical figure with the same name reading/different kanji.
3. Search for English name "Torny Li" gives only Wikipedia mirrors and his facebook page.
4. Search for Chinese name 李伊達 gives blogs, Wikipedia mirrors, and similar internet flotsam.

cab (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• His supposed singles are unknown to Oricon, as is he himself. Delete as hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Hoax. Oda Mari (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Some 20-year-old who "has appeared in varies of commericals and music videos since 2004" sounds barely noteworthy even if he's with "KEN-ON ENTERNATINMENT" and actually exists. As stated above, Ken-On's site doesn't seem to mention him, though it has stuff about other pretty people and keeps going "ping" when you move your rat around the screen. ¶ It seems a pity that intelligent adults (as well as thick ones like me) have to waste any of their time in AfDs on this kind of thing; if I were the autocrat of Wikipedia I'd decree that any article about anyone alive and under 25 or maybe 30 were speediable unless it already came with at least one link to a disinterested, reliable source that credibly asserted noteworthiness. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: He doesn't not seem to have done anything notable, and searching around didn't give me reason to change my mind. I disagree with Hoary's rant though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Stacey Marie Kerr[edit]

Stacey Marie Kerr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Article doesn't state notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. It doesn't matter if the article states notability, mind you; what matters is whether it demonstrates notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. This does not, and despite some searching, I have not been able to locate reliable sources myself.

  Therefore this article fails Wikipedian content policies as well as the notability guideline and I do not think it can be saved.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Delete One book, in about 200 WorldCat libraries. The claimed JAMA article is a brief editorial item not included in PubMed. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Independent sources have not been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Adrianne Ahearn[edit]

Adrianne Ahearn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Article doesn't state notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not meet WP:AUTHOR. Location (talk) 05:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Author of two books, held in only a few dozen libraries a/c WorldCat . DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

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