The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

X-Men: Evolution merchandise releases[edit]

X-Men: Evolution merchandise releases (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)

Violates WP:SPAM; WP:NOT; article should redirect to X-Men: Evolution, but was denied by original poster. mhking (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are plenty of well written articles about Marvel toys. See Wikipedia:Notability (toys and games) for toyline notability.

"The toy or game represents a significant milestone in the development of toys or games, or has demonstrated some form of historical, cultural, or technical significance, or has had a major impact on culture or pop-culture, as referenced through a notable documentary or retrospective. [7] This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant milestone by multiple reliable sources. " The Burger King line was the first to be published with the inclusion of a mini cd-rom. Which would make it notable via the "first to be published in a certain way" clause.

List of works doesn't have Toy or DVD information. If you have a link as to the style of writing for such a list feel free to link to it so the article can be updated to it. 74.47.108.87 (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete There's no point in this except for advertising promotion. The date of release of the latest DVD or action figure is not historical information unless it's a classic (such as the Barbie doll). Other than that, it's trivia to include on your eBay summary. I did enjoy the unintentional typo -- there's a big difference between Magento and Magneto -- it sometimes happens. Mandsford (talk) 20:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as trivia -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - List article with little value, unencyclopedic and promotional at best, advertising space at worst.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:35, 17 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 VMware. JForget 22:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: During the AFD discussion HGFS was moved to Host-Guest File System. Both have being redirected to VMware

HGFS[edit]

HGFS (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 unsourced one-liner about software that says what it's used with, but no context about what it's used for or why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I can't find this software on http://www.vmware.com/ . There are indications the software exists but I can not find any indication it is notable, no reliable sources discuss it. --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Relooking at this, redirect to VMware is the most appropriate solution. -A new name 2008 (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 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 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Redirect to VMware: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to VMware. HGFS is a VMware feature, not a separate software product. ReverendWayne (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• The coverage I found of this topic was very limited and I could find no sources that would satisfy the notability guideline. I think a redirect may be prudent in this case. Seraphim♥ 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No need for own page. Jack007 (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to VMWare. Part of the product, not notable in and of itself, doubt there's enough info involved for the article to grow beyond a stub. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:42, 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) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Geraint Benney[edit]

Geraint Benney (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 both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. The only sources and references I can find are either unreliable or fail WP:NOT#NEWS, such as reports that he received death threats from elvis fans. Even assuming these references about death threats pass the basic tenets of WP:BIO, they make him a person notable for a single event, and such people aren't article-worthy. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails both WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. He sounds like an interesting character, and I'd love to have a beer with him; however wikipedia material it's not. Tangurena (talk) 23:21, 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 23:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:39, 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) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anttonieo Madison[edit]

Anttonieo Madison (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)

Not notable enough, searches only turn up blog sites. Delete per WP:BIO. AtheWeatherman 19:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Coverage about him in the press appears to be all by the campus paper for ISU as shown by a [Google News search. A web search turns up LinkedIn entries, etc but no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:57, 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 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

International Federation of Sports Chiropractic[edit]

International Federation of Sports Chiropractic (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 organization. No significant coverage (other than trivial mentions or web listings) to be found in Google news or Google web. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I found a news mentions ([1][2], but no substantial coverage. As such, notability hasn't been established. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:01, 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 23:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - with out prejudice to coming back in the very near future. I was able to find a few more references, as shown here [3]. But just not enough to establish notability at this time. However, when and if they finally get official recognition of the International Olympic Committee more than happy to help write the piece for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• DELETE This article appears to be self-promotion in contravention of Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines (WP:COI). Moreover, it and its associated articles (i.e., Dr. Stephen J. Press and Sports chiropractic) appear to also be self-promotion in that they promote the field in which the subject of the related autobiograpy earns his livelihood also in contravention of WP:COI. The conflict of interest issues are all the more apparent when one notices that the category listing, of which the article forms a part, has the effect of directing Wikipedians to the related autobiography and its subject’s associated articles, to each of which the autobiographer/self-promoter is a major contributor. There is an interconnectedness between these three articles, and the category listing collecting them all, that raises a red flag as regards Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines. Alternatively, the article does not establish notability as per WP:ORG. Further, inasmuch as it cites anything, it seems to cite self-published sources, and the organization it purports to be about in contravention of WP:SELFPUB and perhaps even WP:CIRCULAR. Finally, in order to retain the article, it desperately needs reliable, verifiable, properly cited, third-party sources. — SpikeToronto (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• DELETE NeoJustin (talk) 06:27, 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) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy J Gallagher[edit]

Andy J Gallagher (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 musician. Yet to garner significant coverage in reliable sources or any other indicia of notability. ^Bongo_matic 17:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:27, 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 23:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: None of the links given provide evidence of notability. The most promising ones refer to a video made by the crew of Top Gear. But these seem come from a blog (repeated in several national sites) and it appears that the video was not actually used on the show. Even if it were used, some kind of comment on it from a reliable, well-known independent source would be needed for notability.--RDBury (talk) 06:47, 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 merge to Zoids. Brandon (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Bio-Zoids[edit]

Bio-Zoids (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 is a trivial list of toys without any sources to verify them or anything to assert some kind of notability. TTN (talk) 17:38, 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 23:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - For a number of reasons. First you were a tad misleading with you statement " This is a trivial list of toys without any sources to verify them or anything to assert some kind of notability." In the opening statement of the article; "Bio-Zoids are a special type of Zoids released as part of the Genesis line and used in the Zoids: Genesis anime" actually implies the notability in two ways. First, the Zoids themself have been found both notable and have actually been in-line cited and referenced in the main article. Likewise the Zoids: Genesis has been found notable. As these item are an extention of the same product line, yes, they should be found notable also. As with regards to most every toy that hits the street, even the notable ones there very little, if any, main stream media coverage. Most of the coverage is found in specialty on-line collectors pages. In this case I judt did a quick eBay search to see if this item is popular or not. After reviewing over 400 listings for this item, I would say it is popular. Typically I would have just expressed a merge/redirect opinion in cases like these. However, the detail and explanations that go along with each individual item would be lost and would just make the merge pages to crowed. That is the reasoning behind my Keep opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest actually looking over WP:N before using it in your arguments. "The notability of a parent topic is not inherited by subordinate topics" directly counters your argument. You need sources to independently establish notability, not some search on eBay. TTN (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ohh I know the notability guidelines . What I expressed was that the Items themselves, as a group are, notable. These items are part of that group, hence notable. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• And as I quoted, notability is not passed down to subtopics. Zoids is notable as a franchise, but that does not mean that its twenty or so different toy lines are also notable. You need to provide reliable sources that provide signifcant coverage of the topic in order to show that this specific release is actually notable. TTN (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to disagree here but each release of that particular item is not a new toy line requiring the establishment of notability for each and every item in that particular group of items that has already been found notable. If that were the case, your next project should start with the Barbie line of toys. As noted here [4] she even has here own catagory. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 01:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Again, please actually read over the notability guideline. You keep linking to it, but you don't seem to actually understand it at all. Notability is established by sources. That's it. It doesn't matter what Barbie, G.I. Joe, or any other franchise does with their articles. They don't set a precedent, and even then, that category only contains a couple of different toy lines from what I can see, and they aren't even directly related to Barbie anyway. TTN (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry you are missing my point. The notability for these items is already established through their use in both being part of the Zoids group and through their use in Anime as specifically talked about in Anime News Network. What you are asking for is that Bio Raptor be found notable seperate from Bio Ptera and that Bio Ptera be found notable seperate from Bio Raptor and that Bamburian be found notable on its own merit, from any of the three listed above and seperate from the twenty that follow. The individual items do not have to be found notable but only the group as a whole, which they are marketed, not seperatly per say, but as part of a series. As I stated above typicaly I would have just recommended a merge/redirect, but with the amount of information on eaxch and every item, that would distract from the main article. You are reading to much into the notability guidelines. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 02:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, separate toys do need to be notable to be included in that form. They're basically just advertisements in a list format like that. If they are summed up in paragraph form (i.e. only a select few would actually be named), that would be fine. After that, the specific release does need to assert notability. It cannot exist on its own without reliable sources. TTN (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am unable to find any reliable secondary sources that would point to this being a notable topic or show that it warrants its own article. When there is a lack of reliable secondary sources, it is difficult to keep other editing issues in check, such as neutral point of view and original research, which I see this article appears to suffer from. Articles related to fiction should be governed by both primary and secondary sources and being unable to find the latter, the conclusion I have come to is that this article is not one that should be included in wikipedia. Seraphim♥ 00:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Zoids. One of the plethora of Zoids articles up for AfD. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Zoids. Pmlineditor  Talk 10:13, 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 keep. There is sufficent consensus from non-SPA accounts to close this AFD for a keep, otherwise there was no consensus for deletion anyways. JForget 22:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Logan Lynn[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Logan Lynn (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 musician. Does not satisfy any relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC). ^Bongo_matic 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Yes, wikipedia gets waaay too many non-notables bands and singers but this seems to get above the bar with reliable sourcing and generally well-written. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Which source do you consider reliable that provided significant coverage?

• New Now Next. Self-described blog. Not RS.
• Willamette Week Online. Local interest paper. Reliable vis-a-vis facts, but not for notability purposes.
• Google profiles. Self-published, not independent.
• Own website. Self-published, not independent.
• Just Out blog. Self-described blog. Not RS.
• Just Out (potentially main site, not blog). Not RS.
• Logo online. Not RS, not significant coverage.
• Billboard. Directory entry only, not significant coverage.

^Bongo_matic 04:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • New Now Next is from the LGBT cable channel LOGO from MTV. They are not only reliable this is an extended interview.
  • Willamette Week is the local LGBT newspaper, and the article is all about ... Lynn.
  • In addition here is a review from URB Magazine, a blurb in USA Today, Lynn featured and interviewed on MTV’s “NEWNOWNEXT” show on Logo, Concert review at Melophobe Magazine and a single review at Indie Rock Cafe Music Blog.
  • To me these suggest not only is this subject meet GNG but a good article can be written. For the record I would be more concerned if the article was peacocky or otherwise seemed bloated, but even that is simply a reason to clean-up. -- Banjeboi 05:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Willamette Week is not a GLBT specific newspaper. Just clarifying. Danielquasar (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP. First of all, this TTony01 person seems to be a ruthless, arrogant individual who goes around labeling pieces of information as "fluff" when he absolutely has no basis for doing so. His actions and words have made me infuriated. You don't go nominating someone for deletion when there are more than a dozen notable sources on the person cited already, and when they've already had music video play on a major cable channel! His album will be in stores everywhere on November 3rd! The story of Logan's grandmother tutoring Johnny Cash came straight from him and his mom Debby, but apparently the citing of two Cash-related books aren't enough to satisfy these fuss buckets. Uh, hello..last time I checked, literature was a reliable source! I will return the full explanation of LaVanda Mae Fielder's lessons with Cash at a later date if I can get Logan to put a complete mention on it on his official site or elsewhere. Otherwise, the man is just TOO notable by now to throw away an article for. KEEP! KEEP! KEEP!!.User_talk:XxSoulSurvivorxX 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC) — XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Please dial it down a bit. We go by verifiability. If you have content and reliable sources to improve the article please do so. Whatever the motivations to nominate this article are doesn't matter. We're discussing if it should stay and hopefully the best decision serving our readers is made. -- Banjeboi 23:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Particularly since I did not nominate the article for deletion and have not even provided an opinion. BTW - the comments in the article about Cash might be good in an article about Lynn's mother, but I am not so sure it adds encyclopedic value to Lynn's article. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, likely the three album articles should be merged here. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What do you mean by merging it? Make them into one article, or include them on the main article instead? I made them separate so it would look and feel like other well made band articles. Danielquasar (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They were split off pre-maturely. An album article should only be if teh album itself is considered notable as verified by multiple reliable sources. I would insteda merge them back and very briefly mention each one. For our readers that's enough -- Banjeboi 01:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP. Looks like the more promotional language has been deleted, as requested. This artist is VERY RELEVANT and the page is written in a 100% credible, truthful, and factual manner. I highly recommend keeping this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.193.40.138 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — 66.193.40.138 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KEEP. I added a couple of missing references. Hope that helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDXProlific (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) — PDXProlific (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 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Relister's Comment': This AFD was relisted despite 5 keep votes so to have more discussion/comments from non possible SPA accounts.JForget 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Warrior4321 23:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Comment - The Dandy Warhols are a HUGE band who just put out Logan Lynn's new record on their label this week. The video for Logan's new single premiered NATIONWIDE on MTV's Logo Network last night 9/6/09. This is the 3rd single which has aired on the channel since 2007 and his last video was picked up by Time/Warner ON DEMAND for the month of October '08, was picked by MTV as #8 in Logo's "Top 10 Videos of the year for 2008) here: http://www.logoonline.com/video/logan-lynn/259577/feed-me-to-the-wolves.jhtml?id=1600444 and he filmed a 1-hour hosting interview episode of the show "NewNowNext" in 2008/2009 here: http://www.logoonline.com/video/misc/274255/logan-lynn-on-newnownext-music.jhtml?id=1594234. "The Deli Magazine" just reviewed "From Pillar To Post" last week and called it "the best album, electronic or otherwise, to have been released out of Portland this entire year." here:http://www.thedelimagazine.com/portland/index.php?name=delirious-audio&itemId=221825&mode=comments#post —Preceding unsigned comment added by PDXProlific (talk • contribs) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) — PDXProlific (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• KeepComment Deleting this article now would be a terrible and foolish waste of time, given how notable Logan clearly is at this point to Wiki guidelines. If an abortion happens, we will just be starting over from scratch two months from now when his album hits stores everywhere. From Pillar to Post is available digitally now via his website for purchase, and will be in stores on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 (a revision from my last post; the date has been moved up from November 3rd). His previous videos, along with the new release "Write It On My Left Arm", have been airing on Logo for the last two years. I seriouly doubt any of you would have contested the inclusion of A Fine Frenzy or Corinne Bailey Rae on Wiki when both were up-and-coming artists (just like Logan) three years ago on VH1's "You Oughta Know" playlists. Logo, a sister channel to VH1, has "NewNowNext" which is the exact same thing as "You Oughta Know". I think instead of hastily deciding to delete this article, we should be encouraging others to recommend what facts should be cited more/better/clearer, and if the writing tone needs adjustment. Also, there are many more important missing pieces of info I need to provide, including how Logan began working with Carlos Cortes. XxSoulSurvivorxX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep. I believe the article should be kept. I have been working on the article as well and I believe it falls under the guidelines that it needs to fall under. He has been recognized by multiple reliable sources, which have been noted on the article itself. From local papers to a national cable channel and even reliable internet sites and reviews. He recently has even been included as the featured artist for ads run by sonicbids.com. Would adding something like that make him more notible then he already is at this moment? I don't see what is wrong with the article. If you can, please clarify what about it is not within guidelines. danielquasar (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC).
• Keep MTV says she is notable, so she is. Otherwise they wouldn't bother interviewing her and showing her videos. Dream Focus 14:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Who is "she"? In case you haven't noticed, Logan is clearly male. XxSoulSurvivorxX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • And the reason we should use MTV's standard of notability instead of our own is...? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above..--Judo112 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Per what? The fact that she? was on MTV? The article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Please see WP:PERNOMINATOR as well. warrior4321 17:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Per what the other keep sayers has pointed out already.. which i agree on.--Judo112 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well all i can say is that it seems like most people dont agree with you andthat the article indeed passes WP:GNG, you need to read WP:Assume good faith.--Judo112 (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"What" have the other editors pointed out already?

Are you talking about this: MTV says she is notable, so she is. Otherwise they wouldn't bother interviewing her and showing her videos.

Or this :I believe the article should be kept. I have been working on the article as well and I believe it falls under the guidelines that it needs to fall under.?

One is talking about another person, and the other has been working on the article, and does not want their article to be deleted. Please provide a reason for deletion by yourself. warrior4321 17:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Who" does not agree with me? Are you talking about these users : XXSoulSurvivorXx (talk · contribs) PDXProlific (talk · contribs) 66.193.40.138 (talk · contribs). All of those users have made no contributions outside of Logan Lynn. So, who exactly does not agree with me? Three single purpose accounts, someone who worked on the article and does not want it to be deleted, or someone who has the wrong person in mind? warrior4321 17:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is well-written and all sources indicate notability in one way or another... Even one source would have been enough for establishing the minimum of fame/notability for a singer. You dont have to be extremely famous like Britney Spears etc etc.. to be worthy of your own Wikipedia article.--Judo112 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Are any of those sources reliable? warrior4321 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that she has released a number of studio albums talks for itself....--Judo112 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Logan is a male? Who exactly is she? warrior4321 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Dont blame me for someone elses mishap... i know that she is a he:)--Judo112 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

KEEP - well-written and sourced article already exists. Keep it. #REDIRECT Target page name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astanhope (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was no consensus. lack of consensus on WP:N/WP:ORG JForget 22:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation[edit]

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (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 charity with no reliable sources listed and none found outside of press releases and social networking sites. TNXMan 15:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment It was previously deleted for being written like an advertisement and I recreated it with less of an advertising spin and included information on their lobbying practices. It is a notable charity within a niche community but I think that with the recent attempts to add it to mesothelioma, something odd is going on. I'll remain neutral on this. Boston2austin (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep -- it is a notable charity, per comment above, (or it has been, but this is orthogonal to what's happening to the meso article) --Mokhov (talk) 14:46, 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 22:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Searches on any of its identities, nicknames or key people fail to provide any significant coverage or basic verification of this organization as notable. Even "niche" charities have to meet WP:N, and this one does not. Flowanda | Talk

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Mesothelioma. Racepacket (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This charity passes WP:ORG. See Conquering Cancer: Progress in 2003 by Noel L. Griese, as well as Asbestos : still lethal/still legal by DIANE Publishing. There are more sources, such as this article from the Star Tribune (see here for proof that this abstract is about this foundation) and 100 Questions & Answers About Mesothelioma by Harvey I. Pass. Notability is fully established, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment and Edit to article. Google book pages or anything with an ISBN aren't automatic keepers; they have to meet the same standards as any other reliable source. The above links provide little more than a paragraph of coverage of this subject, hardly the stuff of "significant coverage", but if they are going to be considered as reliable sources or evidence of notability, then the content they contain should definitely should be included as I did here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mesothelioma_Applied_Research_Foundation&diff=313523093&oldid=311097860. 07:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Conquering Cancer: Progress in 2003 covers Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation (abbreviated MARF) in significant detail. It is not solely a paragraph long. This article from the Star Tribune (see here for proof that this abstract is about this foundation) is much longer than a pargraph, so it means that the organization has received "significant coverage". Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Flowanda on this one -- Cunard, it's better next time to add the said references directly into the article by yourself. I have added the other two after Flowanda from your list and added some meta info at as well. --Mokhov (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Flowanda and Mokhov, thanks for adding the sources to the article. Cunard (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: flagged the article for rescue. --Mokhov (talk) 19:34, 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) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brett Chatz[edit]

Brett Chatz (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 article is about an author who does not meet notability. There are no independent sources writing about the author, nor are there any reviews of his fiction work Serum self-published through Xlibris. As a journalist, there is evidence his work has been published but without any sources writing about him, this only verifies he is a working journalist rather than a notable journalist. The PROD was contested and links added to the article presumably to demonstrate notability. I've reviewed those links and they are generally not independent of the source or is an article written by him. There is also a mention of him in somebody's thesis. None of these links establish notability, and indeed I had found many of them myself when doing my own search before placing a PROD on the article. Now bringing it to AFD for a fuller discussion. See also Talk:Brett Chatz. Whpq (talk) 15:48, 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 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete DOes not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:11, 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. JForget 23:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

St. Mungo's Church, Balerno[edit]

St. Mungo's Church, Balerno (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)

Run-of-the-mill church that appears to fail the notability guidelines. The only at-all-substantive independent source I'm able to find is this, which appears to be part of an exhaustive treatment of every Episcopal church in Scotland, which can't all be notable. Deor (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 18:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable (in the sense of receiving coverage on more than a local basis), with an article dating from the days that Wikipedia was taking all comers. Wikipedia is not a webhost. Mandsford (talk) 18:55, 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 22:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Although info is sparse, the building is categorized as a heritage site perhaps as the design is an early work of Scotland's premier architect. Category B listing would seem to meet notability threshold as it is defined as: "buildings of regional or more than local importance, or major examples of some particular period, style or building type which may have been altered" Canuckle (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that when I was researching the nomination; but since there are ~25,000 category B listed buildings in Scotland, I didn't (and don't) think that the listing by itself establishes notability. Deor (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 01:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. Netalarmtalk 06:01, 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) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ericka Boussarhane[edit]

Ericka Boussarhane (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 individual lacking any GNEWS. A number of GHits shown, but most are appearance listing and press release type entries. I could only find a single article of marginal importance supporting the individual. Appears to fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:11, 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 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Non-notable. Reads like resume. Has published a children's book this summer to no reviews. Canuckle (talk) 07:10, 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. JForget 22:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Jordan[edit]

Jessica Jordan (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 individual - no coverage in significant third party sources of the sort we would associate with a notable individuals. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - She's a Miss Bolivia winner. That would indicate that notability is likely to be established. A search reveals multiple reliable sources writing about her although much of it is not in English which is not surprising for a Bolivian person. There is this (english) article in the Christian Science Monitor [5] which is non-trivial coverage although she is not the main subject. There is also [6], [7], and in Vietnamese. I stopped looking at more of teh search results from Google News at this point because it's quite clear that this is enough to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:20, 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 22:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - As shown here [8] Ms. Jordon has not only local coverage, but international coverage. It also seems that Ms. Jordon is not only a pretty face, but is gathering quite a political clout in her country (Boliva that is, not the UK). Regarding the nomination statement "...no coverage in significant third party sources of the sort we would associate with a notable individuals", have I missed a new policy or guideline that names specific sources we can use or not use. My understanding was that if the source was verifiable - reliable - creditable and thrid party, it was fine to use. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:02, 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. JForget 22:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Jumping Into Rivers[edit]

Jumping Into Rivers (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 redir to Diana Vickers. This article is about an unreleased, uncharted single by a not-especially-notable artist (talent show contestant). Clearly fails WP:MUSIC: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song" and as the only ref is to the artist's site that you can download it from, also fails WP:N, WP:V and WP:SPAM. I42 (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Don't AfD - Redirect it until it's notable, if redir contested WP:DR procedure is there. --Triwbe (talk) 11:17, 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 22:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect to Diana Vickers and protect. Song is not notable. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Delete, fails notability in every sense. There really is no supporting argument. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC))
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete NeoJustin (talk) 06:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I see no notability here. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. There really is no notability here whatsoever. Unreleased promo single by a talent show contestant. I don#t see why the page was created in the first place. --MissusCitrus (talk) 16:42, 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) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul Sample (cartoonist)[edit]

Paul Sample (cartoonist) (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 references to verify notability. Closedmouth (talk) 08:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete and merge with Ogri. Completely fails WP:N, I'm not even sure we should keep the Ogri article but thats an issue for another AfD. – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 11:14, 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 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 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) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Surf folk[edit]

Surf folk (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 music genre is unlikely to be notable unless the band characterizing it is notable, which it gives no evidence of being. No independent sources. Prod removed by author. Rigadoun (talk) 06:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete Lacks notability as a genre. No independent and relaible sources and I have looked but cannot find any.--Sabrebd (talk) 13:31, 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 22:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Let us know when "emerging" becomes "emerged" and then when "emerged" becomes "notable". --DanielRigal (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 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) 19:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Vitlin[edit]

Alexander Vitlin (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 individual lacking GHits substance and with no GNEWS. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:35, 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 22:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No clear claim to notability. The article appears to delve into WP:HOAX territory by claiming that the subject was hired to take photographs for Bruce Springsteen's Lucky Town and Human Touch albums -- which came out when he was 9 years old. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:55, 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 . Marasmusine (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Croc III[edit]

Croc III (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 appears to be pure speculation. Yahoo! and Google yield no results related to the game's announcement or release information. Hibana 05:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It is probably a hoax. Attlee Enterprises does not seem to exist. Can't find anything else on it either. RP9 (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – Doesn't look like a hoax (some boards are talking about what it might be like since the original company abandoned the series), but there certainly isn't anything verifiable here. MuZemike 14:39, 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 22:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Unable to find any information about such a title. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: No proof that this will ever be released. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 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) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anton Trees[edit]

Anton Trees (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 individual lacking GHits of substance and with no GNEWS. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 05:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No indications that WP:BIO is met Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 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 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete no real notability shown, nothing here satisfies wp:n or wp:music Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:53, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Stu Hughes[edit]

Stu Hughes (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 - Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENT. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete -- Even if FunnyFest Calgary Comedy Festival can be considered notable (and the indications are thin), none of the available references mentions Hughes anything more than in passing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I am not finding secondary sources that deal with this guy directly and in detail. Fails WP:BIO so far as I can see. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:47, 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. JForget 23:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Rafael Roman[edit]

Rafael Roman (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. Only claim to fame provided is that he once competed in an international racing competition of very little note. The first source is self-published. This leaves no sources to verify the information in the article. Further, with zero Google news hits that I found, it is highly unlikely that there are sources for this person. RJaguar3 | u | t 05:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Sorry for the creator MiliHistoryWV who clearly cares deeply about the subject, but the sheer fact that he is a "local hero" proves lack of notability. The sources are trivial as well. McMarcoP (talk) 08:47, 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 22:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I have doubts about how we can judge notability of armed conflict where much of the information regarding the operations are not disclosed or classified (which negates the ability to provide reliable secondary sources). The long list of medals and awards seem to indicate notability among his peers and perhaps these awards can be linked to proper sources (if military awards and commendations are available publicly) to satisfy verification standards. AZFitness (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC). — AZFitness (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:BIO. It makes me wonder about my priorities when I put forth the argument that the subject is notable enough for a Bronze Star or Purple Heart but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. I hope this guy succeeds in his business and racing careers so we can re-create this article. Location (talk) 23:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:BIO per secondary sources. FWIW the various claims about his military record have not been substantiated to meet WP:V (though I am not, of course, questioning them). Of the three sources; the first is self-published, the second broken, the third is a passing reference and most likely submitted by the subject. Obviously a worthy individual with a brave and commendable military record but not notable in our terms. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:00, 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 keep. Withdrawn nomination with no delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 08:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bendigo Weekly[edit]

Bendigo Weekly (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, no sources to back up claims. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral: If there were sufficient sources to cover all the claims then it would be a keep. I am seeing some coverage but possibly not enough as it seems to relate to one reporter who won an award, rather than the publication as a whole: [10], [11]. --DanielRigal (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few reference sources have been included in the Bendigo Weekly article to prove that it does in fact exist as a newspaper, has won a range of awards, has run prominent and effective campaigns successfully fighting for critical infrastructure for the local population, and is a paper with a remarkably high readership in a competitive market. The Bendigo Weekly is notable as a newspaper in several aspects. Firstly, it is one of only two newspapers to cover this large area. It is notable in currently having an astounding 77% readership figure as indicated by the independent Roy Morgan Research organisation.

Since its inception the Bendigo Weekly is notable in the respect that it has had a large impact on the lives of the local population, being instrumental in forcing government to build a pipeline to supply water in a drought prone area. Bendigo Weekly has also been notable in its efforts to secure a public hospital. These claims can be verified by entries in the Parliamentary record "Hansard" where the Bendigo Weekly is named as a source of information. It is also notable in respect of the amount of awards this newspaper has won in a short period of time. From 2006 until 2009 the Bendigo Weekly got no less than 12 awards, remarkable for a country regional newspaper. No less remarkable were the "Walkley" awards won by the Weekly's editor - awards which generally go to city based newspapers. If any newspaper deserves an entry in Wikipedia it is the Bendigo Weekly.

STATE OF VICTORIA, AUSTRALIA, PARLIAMENTARY HANSARD

link 1

link 2

link 3

link 4

line 5 Markjenni (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you found the sources as it was quite hard for myself however I congratulate your effort and withdraw my nom.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:29, 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 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I am not sure why this got relisted as Hell in a Bucket has withdrawn the nomination. Anyway, the new sources seem sufficient to me so I am changing to keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 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) 04:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Flying Snooker[edit]

Flying Snooker (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)

Unreferenced article on a (quick-play) variation on the game of snooker that fails to demonstrate any notability. "How to Play" section removed, but what remains is still primarily about the actual game itself rather than its history, impact etc. Delete. I42 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"How to Play" section since replaced. I42 (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this deletion. I'm not sure why this isn't any more notable than other variants of other sports. It is an interesting variation of a popular sport which is clearly played in a number of regions. If I were a snooker player and not aware of this variation I would find the article very informative.

As a compromise perhaps the main snooker article should have a similar section to the darts article where some variants are described fairly briefly whilst others have a distinct page. glynandtess —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

The main objection is that there is no indication of notability and no evidence anything is true in the article. Plus, WP criteria explicitly state game guides do not belong here. WP is not a repository for everything and anything, and being interesting is explicitly not, of itself, reason for inclusion. I42 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm an amateur snooker player from Staffordshire, and have played this variant of snooker, so it's certainly a widespread, if little known, game. I would be surprised if people who are not snooker players have heard of it. I certainly haven't heard of the variants of other sports and games, those which I don't play, and yet many appear on Wikipedia. There is very little information about it elsewhere on the web, and therefore it's inclusion on Wikipedia acts as a informant to people not in the know. Hopefully someone who knows something of it's history (sadly I don't) will come on here and add to the article - after all, that's what Wikipedia is all about. If the article is deleted, that can't happen... Keep. Chingwakabungya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC).

That is absolutely not what WP is all about - see WP:OR. All WP content must be backed up by published material in reliable sources; the snooker historians should not come here first. I42 (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I support the proposal for deletion. It is a "variant" that someone has dreamt up and has no credibility. I've never heard of it in more than 25 years close involvement with snooker as player and administrator. bigpad (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is a nonsense really, Mr Administrator; one or two people are supporting its retention when there is no justification for it, as I have explained above. It is *not widespread: I have never heard of it. What is to stop me creating a new "variant" of snooker, let's call it "Staffordshire snooker", with 14 reds instead of 15, and to claim that it's commonplace in Belfast? Let's get real here! Regards to all. bigpad (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC) DELETE NOW

• Delete - this snooker variant is not covered by reliable sources. The only information I could find were some Yacht club announcement of a "Flying Snooker Tournament" and some forum discussions. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 17 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. Those "voting" delete bring up valid points that the article does not meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG, as there are not significant, in-depth reliable sources about this individual. Those arguments are more well reasoned than those of the keep side, and so consensus falls towards deleting the article. NW (Talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Golan Yosef[edit]

Golan Yosef (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:ENT, mainly passing mentions in third party coverage. [12]. LibStar (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice as curently failing notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:59, 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 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per references.. which point out notability, references is always an indication on atleast a minimum of notability needed to establish an article. so its a keeper.--Judo112 (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

And the fact also pointed out by a source that he is currently doing a new film is also enough for establishing his article.--Judo112 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I have been unable to uncover any significant, in-depth reliable sources about this individual. The results on Google News Archive are all passing mentions. Furthermore, if MichaelQSchmidt believes that Golan Yosef fails the notability guidelines and thus WP:ENT, then without a doubt, Yosef is non-notable. Cunard (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per my earlier statments has not changed my mind.--Judo112 (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a no consensus article afd..--Judo112 (talk) 13:56, 18 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. JForget 23:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Christopher W. Sudbrink[edit]

Christopher W. Sudbrink (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)

City council member for a city with a population of 3K. Ghits are mainly just local city reports mentioning his activities, but not focusing on him. According to WP:POLITICIAN, this doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Also note that the article was almost certainly created by the subject of the article, so there is COI. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This city is located in the Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Metro area, its a significant part of the metro area, the topic in the article have been reported on and published in local newpapers. Plus he is one of only a few openly gay elected officals in the entire state of Kentucky. Sounds notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.11.208 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Note that the only activity the above IP has done is remove the autobio tag from the article (claiming that the article is neutral) several times [13] [14], and modify the entry for Park Hills, Kentucky, city of Mr. Sudbrink's residence. Whether this is a sock or just a friend is left to the judgment of the reader. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Based on suspicious activity of the above IP address and others, I have opened a sockpuppet investigation on CSudbrink and several IP addresses: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Csudbrink. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:05, 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 22:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Candidate clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN, being a gay local councillor is nothing notable and there are no other claims to notability. A few mentions in local community newspapers is to be expected and virtually every local councillor in the world will have that. Valenciano (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - council member of a very small council who appears to have achieved nothing of note. Fails WP:Politician. Most of the content is so utterly trivial it would have no place here even if sourced; e.g. he voted against a tender to buy a fire truck; we are jesting, yes? Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:32, 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) 04:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Kaiser[edit]

Cameron Kaiser (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 to meet notability criteria Paul1337 (talk) 02:42, 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 22:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Only mentioned in passing in reliable sources (three Google news hits[15], but e.g. the Wired article is only a passing mention. Of the few thousand Google hits, the vast, vast majority are postings in newsgroups and so on, not sources about him. I could not find reliable, independent sources with a significant amount of info on him. Fram (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This individual fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 12:35, 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) 11:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-symbiotic Acinomycetes[edit]

Non-symbiotic Acinomycetes (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)

We already have an article at Actinobacteria discussing these bacteria. The article was created by the scientist who discovered them in the lake, whilst WP:COS does allow this, this article is not going to go anywhere in my opinion. Smartse (talk) 02:24, 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 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, delete. But please notify author of this page.Biophys (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - the author was notified when I nominated the article for deletion. An IP originating in India blanked the page shortly afterwards which I suspect may have been the author when they weren't logged in. Smartse (talk) 04:21, 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) 04:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Sara Sidner[edit]

Sara Sidner (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 sources for this BLP. Not wikified. Willking1979 (talk) 02:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this article from rightpundits.com a reliable source? Cunard (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Article appears neutral to me. Willking1979 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:01, 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 22:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. This article in The Hindu apparently appeared just today. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note:RElisted for final time. --JForget 00:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. What is notable about Sara Sidner? That she left CNN? The article doesn't meet WP:Notability. Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 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 no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Davfs2[edit]

Davfs2 (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 software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:19, 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 22:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Worthwhile though this software may be it does not seem to have enough coverage. It gets mentions in various books and articles but always as a minor component of something bigger. This might be enough for verification but not notability. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, though notability may be an issue. --Mokhov (talk) 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Notability is an issue. What's your reason for wanting to keep it when notability hasn't been shown? Is it because you think that it's useful? If it is, that is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Joe Chill (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
    • My basic reason here is that most file systems are notable in some way to exist (leaving aside my personal attachment to them). And also I am more of an inclusionist :-) Perhaps not the most compelling reasons to keep the article from some editors here, but nonetheless the said reasons prompted me to cast the vote. If the general consensus will tend to deletion, I would recommend perhaps merging it into some place referenced in File system or at least documenting some of it in Comparison of file systems. --Mokhov (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Not notable in the Wikipedia sense. Keep and delete !votes in AFD that don't reference at least one guideline are discounted by the closing admin. Joe Chill (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. I am not wedded to it; if I were I would look up a couple, but won't expend any more effort regarding this article for now to see what others have to say. --Mokhov (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: from the Department of Second Thoughts: if the consensus is to delete please move it to my user's space; I'll try to salvage and nurture it to an acceptable level, including notability proofs, for re-inclusion into the main article space, when I have time. That is if you guys practice such things for non-creators. --Mokhov (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
  • That's allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brandon (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• ... Joe Chill, what's the quality of O'Reily and other couple of books as well as some Google scholar refs in your opinion WRT the coverage of davfs2? I think they are acceptable 3rd party sources, at least some. I have [to] go now, but I can definitively convert some of these into inline refs for sure. --Mokhov (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that it is enough for free software, but I can't withdraw it because of the weak delete. Joe Chill (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The article exists already, covers a valid topic and is structured properly. Granted, it is not an exhaustive article, but it serves the purpose of being a simple reference for this tool. --AStanhope (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:GNG, something that the keep voters are yet to deal with. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:GNG is not applicable here. There are a number of independent academic and non-academic publications covering the topic over a span of years at least between 2004-2008 published by IEEE, ACM, and USENIX, and O'Reilly of works that use and/or reference davfs2. I've added 7 of them to the article as examples, and now I am laying my case to rest. --Mokhov (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge I don't believe the subject of this article fails the notability guideline. I think the article should be expanded and while it could certainly use some citations, it provides enough information to easily meet the stub guideline. I found coverage of this software in a number of published books such as Version Control with Subversion ISBN 0-596-51033-0 and others so the authors of these books and the WebDAV community at least consider this project to be important enough to give coverage to. The software is also included with many major Linux distributions such as Debian Linux [16] which has often been used as a metric to establish notability for articles about open source software. While I think there is enough information to work with to expand this article, if it is to remain a stub, merging or expanding this article into a larger article about WebDAV is another option as I can find plenty of coverage for mod_dav and mod_dav_fs with Google Books [17] [18] and other searches. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  But does the coverage add up to significant? I've only been able to find brief mentions which include almost nothing but the name. Ironholds (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  As I already said above, I found enough material via Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books where I feel the subject of the article meets the notability guideline. As I also mentioned above, the software is included with major Linux distributions so the larger open source software community clearly considers it important and thinks it receives enough usage to warrant inclusion and distribution with major Linux distributions. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• @Ironholds -- it certainly does. Subversion is a notable and widely used version control system today. Plus see other refs. I added for example. --Mokhov (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• @Tothwolf -- the references have been found earlier. I suggest to also add them to article when you mention them here, just like I just did. It would help the article tremendously, or, if not tremendously, it may improve it to an acceptable keep level. I added 7 of them to the article. You can add other noteworthy ones as well as help expanding the article. Thanks :-) --Mokhov (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, sources given establish that it exists, not that it is notable. Minor mentions do not establish notability. Miami33139 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Subversion mention in the books is far from "minor". Some contain entire sections on how to install and configure it for Apache and why. --Mokhov (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment User:Miami33139 showed up here as part of their wikistalking me after I added the WP:COMP ((WikiProject Computing)) banner template to a number of articles that Miami33139 prodded as part of a mass-prod of software articles. They have gone on to prod, AfD, and revert all sorts of my edits. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into WebDAV (or even into a new article about WebDAV-based filesystems).

The general topic of WebDAV-based file systems is important enough that Wikipedia should cover them, but articles about the individual file systems would be short and repetitive. So we should create a section of WebDAV (or even a new article) that discusses WebDAV-based filesystems, both the one built in to Mac OS X and those for Linux: davfs2 (the most important, AFAICT), fusedav, and wdfs. (We would keep davfs2 as a redirect, of course.) I'm afraid I'm too busy to do this myself; any volunteers? CWC 04:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Change to merge. This sounds good to me. There is enough coverage to justify brief inclusion of this product as part of another, more generic, article. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:53, 16 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 speedily deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Grasso[edit]

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

Non notable, unpublished writer. I can find no WP:RS Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I am this author. It looks as if the body of the article has just been taken directly from my myspace page, so the language will no doubt need to be edited for your purpose, but it is more or less factually accurate. FYI, I appear in the books listed below to date, with more in the works this year:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Generation-Hex-Louv/dp/1932857206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246286504&sr=8-1

http://www.scarletimprint.com/devoted.htm

http://dreamflesh.com/journal/one/

http://www.strangeattractor.co.uk/shoppe/equinox_sell.html

I don't know whether this makes me "notable" enough for this entry to remain on wikipedia, but if it helps, I am a published author, speak regularly at festivals and London occult events, and am reasonably well known in my field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gypsy Lantern (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment It is, indeed, a complete copyright violation of Stephen Grasso's myspace page. I have requested a speedy deletion (G12) to rectify the situation. Thank you Gypsy Lantern for bringing this to our attention. Editors are encouraged to draft articles in their userspace and bring them to a level where they are useful and do not violate policy before posting them on mainspace. Enki H. (talk) 00:48, 30 June 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) 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Go Chuck Yourself Tour[edit]

Go Chuck Yourself Tour (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:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Non notable concert tour. Nothing that makes this tour any more notable than any of the other thousands of tours each year. Perfectly adequate fan site material but not for Wikipedia Nouse4aname (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See also the two tours below, nominated for similar reasons to above.

Sum 41 2009 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Underclass Hero Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Delete all, a bunch non-notable tours, that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 13:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Oooh, lots of pretty blue links... must click on them... turn them purple.... oooohhh. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lol'ing, I know, I just HAVE to justify myself  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 09:44, 31 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) 00:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 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 22:06, 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) 11:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

SoundCloud[edit]

SoundCloud (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 had nothing but passing mentions on news articles. At its present state, the article has used primary sources excessively. Delete if it cannot be rewritten. Alexius08 (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 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 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete It has received a limited amount of coverage in independent sources, but nothing hugely significant. Aslo it has received an award, but as I've never heard of them before and we don't have an article on them I'm not sure how much significance to attach to it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Spam, award appears not significant, lacks non primary sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:10, 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 no consensus. Sources have been provided though neither demonstrated to fulfill or not to fulfill the requirements of the general notability guidelines. As this discussion has already been relisted twice, I am closing it as not having reached consensus.  Skomorokh  01:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Mister International[edit]

Mister International (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 beauty competition Cameron Scott (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Most of the contestants did not come from a national competition unlike the contestants in the female category like Miss World or Miss Universe. Although Mister International's unreferenced wiki article claims to be "the male version of Miss Universe", it's far from reality. This male pageant has no notable history just like the Miss Universe; no worldwide publicity, and it's not broadcasted just like Miss Universe. There are no notable third party references other than personal pageant websites; the article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The pageant has no any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and non-notable websites. Additionally, you do not see the titleholder of this pageant making the news. Unlike Miss Universe and Miss World, Miss International still has a way to go to prove itself worthy of global news and be included in an online encyclopedia.--Ped Admi (talk) 23:25, 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) 00:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Also to be considered in this nomination: Mister International 2009. Cenarium (talk) 20:31, 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 22:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly not really "the male version of Miss Universe" (despite what some news says [19]) but it doesn't have to be nearly as big to be notable. Google News has many hits including maybe good refs, [20], [21] and many not in English that may be good. Also others such as from Borneo Post [22] and New Straits Times [23] might be ok. It appears to have news coverage (including international), passing wp:n. Article needs changing to reflect its real status. Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. While this is not exactly the most notable competition in the world, Duffbeerforme does provide some sources that are worth considering.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:49, 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 speedy keep as withdrawn by nominator. lifebaka++ 00:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Yasgur[edit]

Sam Yasgur (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)

doesn't meet notability criteria for biographies. Nomination withdrawn (see below). JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I just located Sam Yasgur's website, and in it he says as follows, "Sam's consultations with his father played a crucial role in the events leading to the Woodstock Festival." [24] While the language is a bit ambiguous, in light of this, as promised, I'm withdrawing this AfD nomination.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per my nomination. Sam is the son of Max Yasgur, famous for allowing his farm to be the site of the Woodstock Festival in 1969. This article was created some years ago by an IP, on the basis of Sam supposedly talking his father into allowing the festival to take place on his farm. However, the sourcing for the article did not substantiate that, so I removed this dubious assertion a few days ago. If it was not accurate, as apparently was the case, it was one of the longest running hoaxes in Wiki history. If it is true, and if it can be sourced, I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination. Otherwise I just don't think that Sam Yasgur, while prominent in Sullivan County, meets the notability criteria for biographies.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC) see above
• Keep - I understand the reasoning behind the nomination, notability is not inherited (which I assume is the main reason for the deletion request), but feel Mr. Yasgur has gained notability on his own, though riding on his father's coat tails. As shown here [25] Mr. Yasgur has gardnered quite a few references, in his own name. I releaze that many are in relationship to his father and his fathers involment in Woodstock. However, quite a few also talk about Sam's participation in the event itself and the events leading up to the concert. Likewise, on the backside of the refrences, you will note that Mr. Yasgur has gained notority as an attormey. Put the two together, and I believe he meets our criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• PS I did find a source to the claim you alluded to in Maxes: Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases‎ - Page 136 As shown here [26]. Hope this helps. ShoesssS ^Talk 22:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PSST! Those Webster's Quotations, Facts and Phrases‎ books are printed compilations of snippets of Wikipedia articles. Notice the "[WP]" at the end of the entry? Deor (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are absolutely right! How about this one [27] or this one [28] or this one [29] or maybe this one [30] maybe these are more palatable to everyone's though process. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk

I'd like to see something to substantiate the bald assertion that he persuaded his father. It may be an urban legend. If he did, I'd think that he'd be reminiscing to that effect in all the voluminous recent coverage, but he hasn't. A quote from Sam Yagur himself would satisfy me, but I haven't found one.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa there - if you agree, as in your own words "... voluminous recent coverage". Why would you than bring to AFD? Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 23:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Voluminous coverage of Woodstock's 40th anniversary.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• LOL - thanks for the explanation - I always had a tendency to take things to literal. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Shoessss' argument. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Plenty of mainstream coverage in his own right. Here's a source for the claim you deleted, don't know how reliable it is: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/13/766020/-Back-to-the-Garden:-Remembering-Woodstock,-40-Years-Later Little Professor (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"It was so rainy that summer, we couldn’t get the crops in," Sam Yasgur told the newspaper. And having been denied permission to hold the festival in Walkill, Lang and his partners were scrambling to find another site. Besides, Sam loved rock and roll. And so Sam lobbied his father to rent their alfalfa field for the concert. Max Yasgur ultimately agreed, seeing an opportunity to tide the farm over financially.

The accounts of Woodstock that I have read make no mention of Sam Yasgur persuading his father, and neither has this been mentioned in the 40th anniversary coverage. Here's a report of a lecture by Sam Yasgur recently[31]. Nothing about persuading his father.

Keep in mind that Sam Yasgur was a grown man, a prosecutor in New York City at the time of the Festival, not a kid living at home. The article until a few minutes ago gave the opposite impression. I don't believe that Sam being mentioned in the press 40 years later as a proxy for his father in some places is sufficient upon which to hang notability. A single quote from Yasgur claiming he talked his father into taking the festival to Bethel would be sufficient, but we don't have even that. If he did it, why is it that we don't have Sam saying, "I said, 'Dad, it would be groovy'" or something to that effect?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:06, 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) 11:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Grillifilms[edit]

Grillifilms (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 commercial producer. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The fi.wikipedia article states that they have won several awards including "Platinahuippu" and "Kultahuippu" awards by Grafia ry. as well as a Muuvi award (it's some sort of a Finnish musical video award), and directed music videos for Lordi, among others. Sadly, I can't find any sources for these claims by either title ("Grillifilms" or "Kaivopuiston Grillifilmi"). News search turns out empty and a web search reveals only trivial mentions. Jafeluv (talk) 21:04, 30 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) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 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 21:47, 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. Tone 10:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Islamic marketing[edit]

Islamic marketing (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 article has multiple problems, firstly the topic does not probably meet WP:N, there are only ~7000 google hits for "islamic marketing". Secondly the article seems to be promoting a new journal that is not launching for another 6 months and the article seems to have been created by the founder of this journal. There are obvious conflict of interest and spamming problems because of this as well as possible original research. Smartse (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - This is just spam. By admission of what can be presumed to be the article creator/promoter under an IP, there simply are no references available which if nothing else makes this article fail WP:V. -- Atama頭 22:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Nidrosia (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing useful in article apart from a WP:PROMOTION. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I PRODded the first version of this article as OR, but three books were then added as references, which suggested to me that "Islamic marketing" might be a valid article subject. I raised the matter here at the COI Notice board, and explained my concerns to the author, who has replied on my talk page:

I am actually working on developing a comprehensive article on the subject and the small article that has been contributed is only the start of a much larger project. I understand your concerns about promoting self and I already removed my name from the begining of the article. I am adding Islamic Marketing to Wiki for knowldge purposes only. I will remove or rewrite the contents to make sure that there is no conflict of Interest.

This is inceasingly becoming a hot topic and it seems natural that Wiki has something to say about it. Just give me sometime and I think I add something of value to your online encyclopedia.

Clicking the "findsources" links above confirms that this is not a non-notable new OR subject, and I think there could be a valid article here which should attract contributions from others. We should give it a chance to develop, while making sure that COI and promotion issues are monitored. JohnCD (talk) 09:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'd have to see evidence that such an article would be more than a "how to" based on those references. From what I can tell from book summaries those are essentially guides on how to market to Islamic areas. -- Atama頭 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this page. Not only is it a promo for a forthcoming magazine, it doesn't address the main issues associated with Islamic marketing, e.g., Halal and shariah compliance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspennow (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC) — Aspennow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 14:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pancomputationalism[edit]

Pancomputationalism (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 title seems to be a neologism(WP:NEO). Hardly any references support the assertion that this view is called "pancomputationalism". There's an impressive list of references and external links, almost none of which support the name "pancomputationalism". Google gives very few non-wikipedia hits for the term. Moreover, the entire article is written by User:Gordanadodig, who seems to be one of the authors of a reference listed in the article, thus this might fall under WP:COI (this being pretty much the only article the user has edited on WP). Almost all the google hits on page 1 for "paninformationalism" seem to be about a talk given by Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic, who is possibly User:Gordanadodig. Finally, it seems to be describing the same concept as described in Digital physics. I think redirection to Digital physics might also be a reasonable alternative to deletion. Robin (talk) 21:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with a merge/redirect with digital physics. 1Z (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to digital physics, which this just seems to be a variant term for or slight variation on. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete without redirect. It is not a standard term, it seems from the article is much less well defined than digital physics, and the people listed as supporting it mostly do not do so. A redirect, which would preserve the text would be misleading., DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, original research, plus a lot of gratuitous science & philosophy mentions. A computational theory of mind has just about zero to do with "Pancomputationalism". And I'm particularly peeved by the gratuitous, irrelevant and inaccurate mention of Naturalized Epistemology. Hairhorn (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 06:07, 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 redirect to Jonah Hex#Recurring villains and supporting cast. Tone 20:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Tallulah Black[edit]

Tallulah Black (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:N. Sources are one that merely mention the character, one that only mentions the character as part of a review of a comic containing her and things like DCU Guide and Comicbookdb, which mention all DC universe people in some way and aren't really indicative of notability. Ironholds (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep That's why its just a stub right now. Up until now I wouldn't have created this article However she's been recurring character within the current Jonah Hex series for a number of years now. In the Six Gun War, the story arc the series is in the middle of, Johan Hex and Tallulah Black are have become lovers, making it pretty clear that she's going to have many more appearances in the future. She's a main supporting character on a series published by a major comic book company. There's more than enough justification for her to have at least a stub and that's why I started it. Stephen Day (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Fails W:N. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment For the record, I have added a reference link to an interview with the character's creator Jimmy Palmiotti in which its mentioned that Tallulah Black is Jonah Hex's main love interest in the current Jonah Hex ongoing series. Like I said, she's a main supporting character of a series published by DC Comics, a major comic book publishing company. Stephen Day (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just Merge it with Jonah Hex until there is better information. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment That would be acceptable to me. :) Stephen Day (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Done, except for changing Tallulah Black into a redirect to Jonah Hex. I wsn't sure I was supposed to do that until after the AfD is done. Stephen Day (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Jonah Hex#Recurring villains and supporting cast per the compromise reached by Stephen Day and Sharksaredangerous. Cunard (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 21:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
• Merge as per the discussion above. (Emperor (talk) 12:35, 17 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) 00:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Tendowon[edit]

Tendowon (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Abc518 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologism with no evidence of widespread use; do not transwiki to wiktionary. Searching for "Tendowon" -wiki found absolutely nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:NEO. (This is a disputed PROD I had originally tagged, I was unable to find any significant usage of it.) ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Make-believe words don't belong here. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:52, 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. JForget 00:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland national football team head to head[edit]

Northern Ireland national football team head to head (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 article based on an unreliable source, and an arbitrary cut off date, probably what wp is not Fasach Nua (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment The website appears to be a fansite, and is not official - so as a source, it is unreliable. But is the article itself notable? This is the criteria for deletion? BTW, the information appears accurate according to the FIFA website. --HighKing (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - I would have suggested that the content be merged into the Northern Ireland national football team article, but if the source can't be trusted then the article must be deleted. – PeeJay 15:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete OleOle isn't reliable at all and even so this doesn't warrant an article Spiderone 15:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - non trusted source means this article has little merit. GiantSnowman 15:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Unless I'm missing something, I can't find this data on the OleOle website. However, if this is indeed a compilation of past results, this table looks like it would fit in rather well with the open wiki section there. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unsourced (source does not work on me) WP:TRIVIA which does not really deserve its own article. --Angelo (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep a good article categorising results. If out of date it can always be updated. Eldumpo (talk) 17:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unreliable source BUC (talk) 21:26, 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 keep. JForget 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)