< 10 April	12 April >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, per WP:HEY, WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 03:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Koyen[edit]

Not a notable freelance writer and has no books either. Passel (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Apparently his leaving the New York Press stirred up some controversy, relating to the Muhammad Cartoons. There is detailed coverage: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] including in Salon and NY Times. But he also seems to have been well-known, and high-profile, long before this event happened. Here is an article in the NY Times covering him in detail, not related in any way to this event, and giving some biographical information that would contribute to a detailed and adequately-sourced wikipedia article: [[6]] This seems pretty clear-cut to me. Cazort (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - Perhaps you could elaborate as to why you think the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The articles Cazort found demonstrate that the subject is notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I looked around a bit and expanded the article slightly with a short section on the controversy. I see him as plenty notable, especially seeing as he was the editor in chief of the magazine and not simply a writer. -- PEPSI2786^talk 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Drudge says you're tacky, you're pretty much notable. Excellent work done so far to source the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Salon and the New York Times both have articles about him, plus others. Dream Focus 21:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amarim[edit]

Contested prod. R&B singer with no asserted notability. No reliable sources can be found on Google to establish notability, although there are lots of sites where one can download his music. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not finding a single reliable source. The only source listed currently is a blog. Cazort (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No credible sources. Fails WP:BAND.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Unionhawk ^Talk 00:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as failing notability requirements. The one reference provided during the discussion can not be used to establish notability as it is merely a directory listing. Other than that one reference, no references have been provided here or at the article which meet all the requirements for verifiability of claims made in the article via reliable sources. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Schwartz (broadcaster)[edit]

Self-written biography with no secondary sources to establish notability. BJ^Talk 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious Delete This one is problematic because the name "Howard Schwartz" is so common that searching for sources is difficult and time-consuming. For example, there are a number of people by the name of "Howard Schwartz" who may be notable, including, bizarrely as it may sound, one who has worked in a related industry, see: [7]. But a search for "Howard Schwartz"+ CJAY-FM comes up with no google news archive hits, which is why I say delete. Cazort (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as autobiography; article was started by a username that matches the name of the article. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ho hum Keep: Notwithstanding that the article was written by the subject, it maintains WP:NPOV and avoids WP:PEACOCK. It passes WP:N and WP:ENTERTAINER. It needs some references to back up the assertions of notability claimed. Here is one, but I really had to dig for it. Perhaps the author can provide some more.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Towards Delete - You also have to take into account that this cites nowhere near enough sources for a BLP. I don't know... it's a toss-up for me--Unionhawk ^Talk 00:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IODE[edit]

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary SparksBoy (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination appears to have nothing to do with the article, which seems to be a perfectly acceptable disambiguation page. Edward321 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Disambiguation page, and already marked as such. Take it to WP:MFD if you think this does not belong in Wikipedia. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I wish to withdraw my AFD I didn't realize it was a disambiguation page. Thanks SparksBoy (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rice University. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Wilson (Rice University)[edit]

Professor at Rice University with no assertion of notability besides tenure as RA at a residential college. Appears to be an obituary and a copyright violation of an essay written for a retirement dinner. No significant coverage in reliable sources independent of Rice University. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Official Rice obituary and gScholar results. Madcoverboy (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge : into Rice University Ipatrol (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Although a touching memorial, it doesn't meet notability criteria WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BIO.~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wiess College. Wilson is the most important figure in the college's history, which is not complete without a history of him. Also, assertion of copyright violation is incorrect; permission information is indicated in the article's discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgewebb (talk • contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Per Ipatrol and Georgewebb, to either article, RU or WC, or maybe both. Not enough notability to justify a standalone article.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, bordering on delete. Sandstein 05:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Pakistan relations[edit]

Yet another bilateral relations stub randomly created by Plumoyr, apparently based on the presumption that the title is something that should be notable. Listing after a contested PROD. Embassies for the two countries are not even located in each others' countries. Relations thus far have produced nothing of worldly significance compared to any other two. Little content, no context, fails WP:N BlueSquadronRaven 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the usual reasons, non-naotable bilateral relation. As JJL noted on the Hungary-Pakistan AfD, it may be time to move towards drafting a policy or guideline to deal with the issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no signs of notability and none is likely. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Okay it is not the closest relationship out there but at the same time there seem to be just enough connections to justify notability. Here are a few links that might help this article, [8], [9], [10] and the links that are found within the article currently should be enough to prove WP:N. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The articles cited by Marcusmax (and whether or not you agree that these show notability, kudos to him for showing what's out there so that we can judge for ourselves) are

Pakistani human traffickers use Malta as staging post for Europe ,

Malta, Pakistan review, strengthen bilateral ties,

Pakistan, Malta agree to continue ongoing cooperation at international forums

The last two are both from June 2007; Malta's foreign minister met with his counterpart in Pakistan; the first one is intriguing ("according to a report published in a leading Pakistani daily newspaper on Friday... sources within the Pakistani Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), say that the illegal migration of Pakistanis to Europe is being carried out through Malta, from where the migrants are being transported by ship to Sicily and onward to countries such as Italy and Spain")-- Granted, this is about illegal activity that does not involve diplomatic relations between Malta and Pakistan, but I would be surprised if it did not affect the relations between the two nations. In retrospect, DGG's renomination order was correct. Mandsford (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw in one more on the illegal trafficking issue, this one by The International News. Thanks Mansford for interpreting these sources I only want people to at least attempt to look first before heading to Afd. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've seen a lot of these bogus "relations" pages (rightly) deleted, but they were ones with no sources and essentially no nontrivial relations between the countries. The three sources given by MarcusMax convince me that there is something here. One of those sources is not public access and I found a public access version of the same article if anyone wants to read it: [11] That article in particular seems to be important for establishing notability. Cazort (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I commend those who found some sources, but let me explain my rationale. There's a whole series of "human trafficking in..." articles. There's certainly scope for a Human trafficking in Pakistan article, and I believe this information would fit much better there. (Also Human trafficking in Malta, if appropriate.) The other links are very boilerplate, of the "hey, let's strengthen our relationship!" sort. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that there is anything more than the usual workings of international politics (formal recognition, basic trade agreements, something being moved illicitly from point A to point B via point C) here. The types of things shown as RS would be found for essentially any two randomly chosen countries. JJL (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' there is no evidence findable in reliable sources that the malta-pakistan bilateral relationship rises above the level of extremely trivial. Fails GNG.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! - This has been turned into a propoganda. I think the user who nominated this hasn't seen these for example: India–Mexico relations, Belarus–India relations, Bulgaria–India relations, Cyprus–India relations, Finland–India relations, India–Mexico relations, India–Paraguay relations, India–Ukraine relations (all this is for one country only). Have fun handing out deletion notices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teckgeek (talk • contribs) 13:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of these articles and I think the vast majority of them ought to be deleted, and have actually chipped in in a few discussions to delete a few of them. But I still am leaning to a keep of this one--although I'm certainly not going to cry you a river if it is deleted. Cazort (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Well, here's a difficult one, according to my new standards. There have been no academic conferences discussing the relationship; no state visits; no ambassadors; no recall of ministers; no stories in pop-culture; and the two nations are widely separated. However, the two nations were once colonies of the British Empire; were (are?) members of the British Commonwealth; have had stories in reliable sources; and have an issue in common. It is not clear that they have a reasonably significant trade. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep per sources given by Mansford. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Physics envy[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Nom) Cheers. I'^mperator 22:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Original Research, neologism, no references to verify or establish notability Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Sorry, after references were listed and googling, I realize I jumped the gun. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per new sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Pakistan relations[edit]

Yet another bilateral relations stub randomly created by Plumoyr, apparently based on the presumption that the title is something that should be notable. Relations between these two countries have been in place for only 44 years and have thus far produced nothing of worldly significance compared to any other two. Little content, no context, fails WP:N. BlueSquadronRaven 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - random, non-notable bilateral pairing; no sources establishing any level of notability; salient facts covered at relevant "diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable bilateral relation that fails [WP:N]]. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the usual reasons; a policy is needed here. Most of these should be speedied in my opinion. JJL (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that there's a need for a policy - countries which have never had an embassy in each other and where the article makes no claim of a notable relationship, perhaps? Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Once again I wouldn't call this a huge relationship but enough to be notable. I use some of these sources to justify my opinion [12], [13]. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: one of those sources confirms the presence of an embassy, already reflected in "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. The other - well, I don't know the significance of that pact, but the burden of proof is on others to show the pact is notable (which, given the geopolitical situation in 1956, is somewhat dubious; it was probably symbolic in nature). - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the sources brought up by MarcusMax.Umbralcorax (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — to Foreign relations of Pakistan. Ipatrol (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources cited by Marcusmax are: Hungary, Pakistan Sign Pact (1956) and "Hungary Embassy in Pakistan" from Visa HQ website (12 Margalla Road in Islamabad). Two weak for me to say keep. The problem with the Groubani articles (and Plumoyr apparently used to be Groubani) is the apparent lack of any actual interest in the nations themselves, and the assumption that a separate article must be written to reflect that two countries have diplomatic relations. That particular fact-- exchange of ambassadors-- is already mentioned in the "Foreign relations of____" articles. An article specific to the relations of two nations should actually reflect that the media of the two nations consider the relationship (cordial or adversarial) to be newsworthy. Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Delete changed to Keep After just putting in my two cents to keep Malta–Pakistan relations, I think the sources given here are not good enough. I did find another source, with very brief mention: [14], and one other very tangential relationship between the countries, in soccer player Adnan Ahmed: [15]. I note that that fact, however, would be interesting to mention on Adnan Admed's page. But altogether none of this is enough for a keep! Cazort (talk) 02:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without taking a position as to this particular article, I would disagree with the nom's argument that diplomatic "relations between these two countries have been in place for only 44 years". Note that Pakistan has only existed for 61 years, so I don't think that "only" 44 years applies here. Besides, countries can have a significant relationship without having diplomatic relations with each other. See North Korea-South Korea relations, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps that North Korea and South Korea share the 38th parallel. I have it on good authority that Pakistan will not share its 38th parallel with Hungary. Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources establish this bilateral relationship rises above the extremely trivial. Fails gng.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable in the usual way. I see no argument why we should treat this article esoterically or apply highly irregular criteria for it's inclusion. See Pakistan, Hungary to discuss civilian nuclear cooperation )2006)Com: Hungary keen to enlarge Trade and Economic relation with Pakistan Punjab to set up power stations on canals FM (Pak-Hungary to enhance cooperation Pakistan thanks Hungary for promoting Afghanistan's peaceful...FM Goncz on mission to firm Pakistan economic links]Hungary offers talks on nuclear cooperation Pakistan, Hungary agree to boost trade relations - bilateral trade in the $100s of millions, transfer of nuclear technology to Pakistan (now that sounds ho-hum), et cetera. Wily D 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the sources. These seem to clearly establish notability of this relationship. You have convinced me to change my recommendation above to a keep. Cazort (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any relevant content there can be covered at Nuclear power in Pakistan and Nuclear power in Hungary - no need to have three related articles endlessly developing in parallel. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have many, many related articles. Related articles covering different topics in ways appropriate for each topic is a sensible way to organise information in a reference. Wily D 15:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show the information you contend should be here is discrete enough from that which should be at the other two, that would be a start; otherwise, merging is advocated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my new standards; sources found by WilyD. Full embassies, reliable sources, relatively large trade, etc. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to Keep based on the 2006 agreements on civilan nuclear cooperation. WilyD's sources are sufficient to show notable bilateral relations between Hungary and Pakistan. Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the large number of links, it is baseless to delete this article. Teckgeek (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rassy Ragland[edit]

Article fails WP:N as has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Also, notability is not inherited from famous husband or son. Her single claim to fame - other than her husband and son - is being a panelist on a TV show which only ran for one season back in the early 1960s. A quick Google search only brings up hits related to either her son or husband; nothing about Rassy Ragland herself. Giant Snowman 21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's wholly irrelevant how long the show ran, or when; being a panelist on a notable game show is a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself. Notability is not lost by the passage of time; while people whose notability is decades old might be harder to write detailed articles about because the sources are less likely to be online (which does not mean that such sources don't exist at all), if a person was ever notable for any reason they stay notable permanently. And the article does not claim that her notability rests in any way on the fact that her husband and son were also famous in their own right, either; while it's likely true that nobody would have gotten around to writing this up without that additional note of interest, it's merely supplementary information and not the core of the notability claim. Keep, even if only because the deletion rationale is a misrepresentation. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unless it can be demonstrated that this subject passes WP:BIO, the article ought to be merged to the show or a list of contestants thereof. Permastubs are not desirable. Skomorokh 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I agree with Bearcat's statement: "while people whose notability is decades old might be harder to write detailed articles about because the sources are less likely to be online (which does not mean that such sources don't exist at all)", I do not agree that being a panelist on a notable game show automatically makes one notable. I think the problem here is that there are no sources, and that we can't find any (I know I sure can't!). I say, Delete, but, I welcome someone who can provide sources and would gladly say to keep if we could find reliable sources establishing notability. Cazort (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly, WP:NOTINHERITED applies, and as to the gameshow I agree with the nominator's view of the show's relevance and I note that there aren't articles for any of the other regulars (Stewart MacPherson, Gene Telpner, Nola MacDonald or Bill Trebilcoe)(http://www.tvarchive.ca/database/18885/twenty_questions/details/). PK T(alk) 19:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does WP:NOTINHERITED apply to an article that isn't claiming inherited notability? And "other stuff doesn't exist" is no more valid an argument than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is — there can be articles about any of those other four people anytime anybody decides to write one. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You state above that "being a panelist on a notable game show is a sufficient claim of notability in and of itself"; to most readers, that translates as the contestant inheriting the notability of the show. There has yet to be any argument that the subject is independently notable. Skomorokh 03:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Skomorokh - her inherited notability is implied by her having been Neil's mother and Scott's wife. Her claim to fame in her own right is her role on the TV show, which in my opinion is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article because the show only lasted a few months in 1961. PK T(alk) 14:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are three sources of inherited notability, none of which I consider to justify a standalone article. Skomorokh 15:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does Edna Ragland's (Razzy) being repeated mentioned in various Canadian Who's Who over the years count for anything? 1938, pg.1408, 2001, pg.1408, 2002, pg.1453 , 2003, pg.1477... for example. My sense it they do not list just anybody. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - No, because is simply mentioned on her son Neil Young's entry; she doesn't have a seperate entry of her own. Giant Snowman 11:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who's who's are very rarely valid sources for establishing notability because most of them are Vanity publications. Cazort (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent notability established via multiple, non-trivial reliable sources about her.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galeria contrast[edit]

Looks like an advert to me. Computerwiz908 | Talk 21:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources provided, and Googling for Galeria Contrast +Barcelona (in Web, News, Scholar, and Books) turns up no usable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Deor (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable sources either. Cazort (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was I'm going to be bold and speedy close this as keep. The underlying issue (the page revision in question) is currently being addressed by the OTRS team, at ticket #2009041110021549, and AfD isn't a venue which is suited to this matter being resolved. I hope that no-one has any issues with this. Daniel (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transona Five[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

LEAD Technologies[edit]

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

The result was Speedy Delete Cheers. I'^mperator 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable. Couldn't find any sources. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. No assertion of notability. Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Just because this individual has made unverified claims doesn't mean that his article contains unverified claims. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry Remigius Kanagarajah. There may be more claims of notability, but the whole thing is still just a vanity hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What aspect of the article is a hoax? He was certainly one of the three stars of the recent BBC show "Undercover Princes", that's certainly true (see here). If his claims to a royal title are disputed, then couldn't that simply be noted in the article? If he doesn't merit a standalone article based on his other claims to notability, then the article should at least be redirected to the TV show he prominently featured in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not finding many sources but I'm finding some and they seem to all back up the material. I'm also finding nothing that says this is a hoax. Here is a source that does not mention "The Undercover Princes" (which seems to have attracted the most attention for this guy) and that covers this man in much more detail: [16]. Remember...wikipedia's standards are verifiability, not truth. The source I gave does mention potential controversy around the authenticity of this guy's claim, so we should include that in the article. Cazort (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - It's poorly sourced contentious material about a living person. Straight forward deletion. --Rob (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To clarify, the objection to this article is not that it is a "hoax", but rather that Mr Kanagarajah's claims are absurd. There have been no kings or princes of Jaffna since 1619 CE. It is absurd for someone to lay claim to a title that became extinct nearly 400 years ago. Furthermore, even if there are surviving descendants of the Jaffna royal family, Sri Lanka is a Democratic Socialist Republic - and therefore does not recognise titles of nobility, least of all titles that have long since become obsolete (when the royal family was deposed by the Portuguses in 1619, the titles became extinct - they did not fall into abeyance awaiting to be reclaimed by a man in 2003). In addition, Mr Kanagarajah has not been able to produce a complete family tree tracing father-son descent from any of the Arya Chakravarti kings, so even his claim of being a descendant of the Jaffna royal family is tenuous. An individual's decision to lay claim to a throne that has ceased to exist for several centuries by constructing a website does not warrant a wikipedia article, let alone an article which appears to recognise his claim to the dubious title "Prince" in its heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.164.19 (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources saying what you're saying (I can't find them, honestly!) and you will have grounds to include this material in the article. But this is not an argument for deletion--there are sources for this article, and fairly mainstream ones. Yes, I don't think anyone takes him terribly seriously...but that's not what notability is about. Cazort (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cazort, a cursory glance at the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffna_Kingdom will verify that the Jaffna kingdom came to an end in 1619. A glance at Mr Kanagarajah's personal website http://www.jaffnaroyalfamily.org/royalfamily.php will reveal that he laid claimed to the title in 2003. Further, an examination of the poorly constructed and sourced genealogical chart he provides on the same website will reveal that he cannot uncontroversially trace father-son descent from any of the Jaffna kings (note that the chart is devoid of dates). Furthermore, Sri Lanka is currently in a state of civil war, with Tamil separatists fighting the Sri Lankan government for independence - this individual is attempting to restore the monarchy in Jaffna (this came up in an episode of Undercover Princes). Understandably, many find to be in very poor taste, especially in a time of heightened national tention. In addition, the article's very title is controversial as it appears to affirm his dubious claim to the title "prince".

Honestly take the time to read the wiki entry on the Jaffna kingdom, his genealogical charts, and the claims he makes on his personal website. I'm astounded that you weren't able to find sources I mention above especially when most of the links appear on Mr Kanagarajah's wiki entry. Regarding the charts, Rohan Titus (an Australian lawyer and genealogist, who is also a fellow of the Royal Asiatic Society) corresponded with Mr Kanagarajah in the early days and assisted him with piecing toegether a complete chart, but dismissed his claims when the evidence didn't support his claims - see http://ceylontamils.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=9 for an informal discussion on this, you could also try contacting Mr Titus through the website for more information.

I hope that helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.138.253 (talk) 11:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the person, however dubious his claims are, was brought into the public focus by BBC (although in comedy-ish style), hence public deserves to have an encyclopedic article available. Twri (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Of the ~50 unique google hits for this guy, the only good sources are the ones mentioned so far. Those would be an entertainment piece from a BBC syndicate (and a piece from The Independent that only advertises it) and a short biography in The Nation. I wouldn't really recall the latter as an obviously reliable source, given it's greater than normal biases, coupled to the complete lack of transparency on its editorial process. So there has been no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. There has been substantial coverage in a dubious source, and an entertainment piece from another source. These are apparently the only times this man has ever been mentioned outside of blogs and his own writings, or trivial lists of "exiled royalty" on unreliable websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the man was foolish enough on the TV series. These would-be Royals need to be known about so we can avoid them.Sjoh0050 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Twri (talk) 00:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sources that I would consider reliable in the sense of having independently examined this guy's claims. Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, your agrument is misdirected. Wikipedia is not in the business of verification of people's claims about themselves. He may claim he was born on the Moon, there are still his claim and it need not to be verified that he was indeed born on the Moon. The only thing to be verified is that he indeed claimed it, and the encyclopedic phrase must be "He claims that he was born on the Moon", rather than "He was born on the Moon". Twri (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Arnold (actor)[edit]

Non-notable child actor. He's only played one significant role, and I'm unable to find any sources about him that aren't either Wikipedia forks or incredibly trivial. He's still at school, and this article has been repeatedly vandalised (by his classmates, I'm guessing); I don't think it's worth the effort of keeping it clean. In accordance with WP:BLP, we should minimise the harm to him and delete the article. Robofish (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP. Minors shouldn't be suffering from Wikipedia's open-editing, particularly when they are non-notable. لenna vecia 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. — Jake Wartenberg 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the BLP concerns are a reason to delete the article; it can and should be protected. Notability seems the main issue; IMDb only lists three roles; is he still acting? Matt Deres (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my improvements. I think it is within WP:ENTERTAINER now, with a notable play and a tv production, backed up by proper sources. The vandalism, which seems rather sporadic, is a non-issue in my opinion. decltype (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can only find trivial mentions of this actor, e.g. automated entertainment profiles with no real content. Hazir (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you review the non-exclusive, but non-trivial mentions in The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph cited in the article? decltype (talk) 06:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fleeting, apart from The Times. Hazir (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Thread[edit]

Article should be deleted since band is not notable, in that they have generated no independent coverage anywhere, their records are not released by a notable label, and there appear to have been no charting singles or significant tours. I've already merged the three albums into the main article. Drmies (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the nom. The band's website is a broken link. — Jake Wartenberg 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Matt Deres (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - nz26 Talk | Contribs | Email 07:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Such a list is not notable in itself; independent, reliable third-party sources are required for inclusion. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this should. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of objects in Pirates of the Caribbean[edit]

Thoroughly trivial and non-encyclopedic, with some fan-site type speculation thrown in. Content fork on the movie plot summaries elsewhere, and there are no sources independent of the subject that establish notability sufficient to support having such an article separate from the various pirates of the caribbean articles already extent (40 or so others. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since this kind of list is not encyclopedic. Not even here. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'keep because this sort of list is encyclopedic, and the material not only can be sourced, but is sourced, to both the primary source, accepted as a source for plot and related material like this, and also a secondary published source. Trivial=I DON'T THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, PERSONALLY, which is an exceedingly weak argument. The % of things in Wikipedia that i don't think important personally is very high, and. in fact, I don't think this important myself, but that's not a reason for deletion--if it were, I'd suggest deleting all the wrestlers and such. DGG (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and remove the wrestlers, and the monster trucks, and the pornstars...but leave the solar eclipses and the movies please (I have a use for those sometimes). My problem, and I should have been more specific, is the in-universe aspect (is that the proper term?), which the "official" guidebook does not help to mitigate. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it can be sourced to the primary source (I am assuming you refer to the movies) and a secondary source (assuming you refer to the official Pirates of the Caribbean guidebook) does not help to satisfy the requirements for inclusion, because the first is a movie (making the article essentially a plot summary), and the second, is little more than a plot summary with in-universe background info. Either way the article fails WP:PLOT. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the issue here where the material belongs? I don't dispute that sourcable material belongs somewhere on wikipedia, but why not weave it into the plot narratives of the appropriate movies? If it doesn't fit naturally into those narratives, it probably doesn't belong on wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the objects can be sourced, I have no problem with their inclusion in the individual movie articles (if they can't be a passing mention can be used in the plot summaries). The issue I have is that the sources mentioned are not reliable third-party sources, they are an official guidebook (which only speaks to in-universe notability, not actual notability) and the movies themselves. If third-party sources could be found (for each item) I would be in favour of allowing this list; however, until it can be demonstrated that these items meet our guidlines for notability, and reliable source, they should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point, I am in complete agreement with you here! This would be the difference between for example, star trek articles on Memory Alpha and on Wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish to move away from the non-encyclopedic argument (which I would argue it is)to the fact that it doesn't meet WP:N. Individual items/props from notable films do not inherit the notability of their film, if they did we would have Darth Vadar's Mask, List of objects in Star Wars, List of objects in the Wizard of Oz, etc., which would be impossible to maintain. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yet rename - say, List of canonical objects in Pirates of the Caribbean? I was ready to disagree with DGG and then read the article. I personally don't like the movies series, but this is exactly the sort of stuff we need in the Category:Popular culture. I see lots of good sources, and some marginal ones, but overall it's a rescue case. Bearian (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- DGG said it really better than I could The items on the list are notable and sourceable, and just saying "its trivia!" isn't much of a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duplication of a licensed guide, spiced with personal observation. WP:N is still significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, and this strictly fails the "multiple" and "independent" parts. We already have all of this plot summary in the movie articles as well; we don't need it duplicated here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not listcruft, and it is a very good addendum to the Pirates of the Caribbean article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The unusual juxtaposition of plot tidbits, focusing around objects, seems to be approaching original research to me, even if we could pare down the article to the well-written and well-sourced material. More imporatantly, it's not clear to me why anyone would be interested in the information on this page in the format it is in. Plot summaries on the pages of the appropriate movies seem the way to go--and then, if there is enough page to justify splitting off one particular object or two, then split off those objects--but having different (unrelated) objects together on the same page seems kinda absurd to me. I also agree with A Man in Black's comments that we need to consider the notability guideline here--and I don't know of any source that talks about the objects from these movies as some sort of coherent entity--and I think that would be necessary in order to justify having a page on this topic. Cazort (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Trivial and encyclopedic. Seems to be almost entirely numerous plot summaries. Definitely not independently or well sourced. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 04:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a legitimate reason for a list. Dream Focus 00:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple non-trivial sources is the threshold. Seems the very definition of trivia. -M^ask? 10:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the sort of interesting topic an encyclopedia can cover when we are not constrained by paper. — Reinyday, 03:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep Reasonable spinout of a major series of fictional works. A list of fictional objects is not inherently indiscriminate, and tagging it as such doesn't make it so. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having no reasonable criteria, overarching topic, or reliable sources to guide us does make it indiscriminate. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TRIVIA, no significant independent coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 03:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Trivia incarnate. Eusebeus (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: To the people arguing to keep...can you give any justification why keeping whatever content here is salvagable/sourceable ought to be kept on this "list" page instead of woven into the narratives on the appropriate pages of the movies? In the absence of addressing this point I think it is hard to take the arguments to keep this page seriously. I worry that some of the statements to keep are being made without addressing any of the arguments to delete that have been given. Cazort (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A mere mention of these objects in the plot summaries is not sufficient to help someone understand the plot of the movies. There has to be, somewhere, an explanation of what is meant by that. Comparing these objects with Darth Vader's helmet is not helpful, since that's just a helmet that serves the same purpose as any other helmet. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how you can believe that argument achieves an end run around the general notability guideline. Multiple reliable sources independent of subject are still required, otherwise the list should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 11:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is this different from Beckett's letters of marque, which are just letters of marque, or his branding iron, which is just a branding iron, etc.? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are the parts of eight just parts of eight? Please don't put all the contents of the article into the same basket. Cleanup is another matter entirely. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, but they're a brief joke easily explained in context.
        It looks like we have three categories of stuff here, and none of them require this list to explain them.
        Guy's thing: This is a thing belonging to A Guy. You see it on screen in the foo scene, and it's used on Another Guy until A Third Guy takes it. (Most of Beckett's stuff.) This can always be replaced with "a branding iron," it doesn't need that much explanation.
        
        Plot device: Some key object in the plot, which cannot be reasonably explained without explaining most of the plot. (The Aztec medallion, the Dead Man's Chest, the Pieces of Eight.) These are always covered in sufficient detail in the movie plot summaries, because otherwise the plot summary doesn't make any sense.
        
        A background prop: Some object not really important to the story, but Pirates of the Caribbean: The Complete Visual Guide offers some fannish background info for it. (The codex, Terra Incognita). These don't need to be covered at all, as they're only important to a licensed guide of little import. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crufty listing of plotcrap and trivia for a bunch of non-notable fictional elements. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TRIVIA. Dalejenkins | 12:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world notability. Completely unsuitable to a formal encyclopedia. This content would be reasonable at a dedicated Pirates of the Caribbean wiki, if one exists. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete as rewritten, that is. Sandstein 05:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Will Be Crowned[edit]

Non-notable bootleg. This isn't etree, we don't need an entry for every bootlegged concert. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the references listed not reliable, third party sources? Rlendog (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, a non-notable bootleg. JamesBurns (talk) 02:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bootleg with no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bootleg with no major 3rd party coverage or notability. A-Kartoffel (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, refactor and rename to be an article about the concert and radio broadcast. This bootleg recording has a lot of references to it on the Internet, but I realize these may not be up to the standards of reliable sources usually demanded. The actual concert, however, broadcast on BBC Radio 1 as part of their In Concert series, is notable. There is coverage of it in the book Queen: The Early Years. And according to the book Classic Queen, the concert was recorded on 13 September 1973 and broadcast on 20 October. I sure wish I had access to 1970s British publications because I'd be willing to bet that plenty of reliable source coverage could be found there. In my extensive online research of Queen for the last day or two I don't think I've found any British publications from that decade that are available online, other than the the few Times reviews I've found at www.queenarchives.com. DHowell (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've accordingly added references, edited and renamed this article to Queen Live at Golders Green Hippodrome. DHowell (talk) 21:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable independent coverage of bootleg. TheClashFan (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you miss that this article is no longer solely about the bootleg, but about the actual concert and broadcast, which does have reliable independent coverage? DHowell (talk) 06:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DHowell (talk) 07:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per the work DHowell has done since nomination. !Voters should look at the article, its sources and the changes since nomination first, and then !vote. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 07:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air à Danser[edit]

Not a notabel song. Trying to do deletion properly this time! Veetformen (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can quickly show cause for notability. The band is definitely notable, but this track? IMHO there are far too many articles about individual tracks that do not show any good reason for their existence. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree the band is notable, but not this track.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CITE. South Bay (talk) 03:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Roberts (author)[edit]

Does not meet notability criteria Sabrebd (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. We have one legitimate source at the moment (interview on Australian national radio). Is that "significant critical attention" as per WP:CREATIVE? Perhaps - but more review references etc would be a great help. Tevildo (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE. I have linked to another legitimate source from the guardian.co.uk HERE, and other independent references can also be found. Esasus (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear which bit of the criteria are we looking for? Is it:(c) 'has won significant critical attention'?--Sabrebd (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at WP:CREATIVE The person has created ... a significant or well-known work ... that has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Esasus (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks that is helpful. It cannot be considered 'significant', (given the only academic review found is negative), but it could be 'well known'. We have four sources now - which is multiple. It seems a low bar, as every academic book would pass it, and therefore every academic with a book, but there it is. I am prepared to accept this as grounds for keeping the article.--Sabrebd (talk) 00:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No amount of stretching can make this a "significant or well known work"... needs to be both that AND receive plenty of reviews... and a couple of reviews is certainly on the extreme low end of "multiple". At best the argument to keep would maybe make an article about the book possible, but not the author, as of the two the book is the more well known. And, frankly, a book that's self-published with only 2,000 copies doesn't cut it either. DreamGuy (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of proving I am indecisive, you have a point - the wording suggests that it has to be both. I would offer to try to build a consensus around deleting the biography and producing one on the book, but it makes almost no contribution of signicance.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin needs to be aware that DreamGuy is a well-known wiki-stalker of mine who has been blocked multiple times for edit-waring and other violations (see block log). DreamGuy is wrong when he says that WP:CREATIVE requires BOTH "significant" and "well-known". The wording is "a significant OR well-known work", and requires "MULTIPLE independent periodical articles or reviews", not "plenty of reviews" as DreamGuy falsely states. Also, DreamGuy is wrong that the book is self-published with only 2,000 copies. As I will not assume bad faith, I can only assume that DreamGuy has not bothered to read the entire article, or he would know that the book has since been widely published in both Europe and North America. The bar for this article's inclusion is clearly met by the fact that this author has written a "well known" book, as established by the "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" that have been located. Esasus (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that the above is false... it was actually Esasus who was blocked for harassing me, not the other way around. It looks like he's still going around lying.DreamGuy (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOR is not negotiable. Sandstein 05:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chakras - Number of Petals[edit]

Delete Appears to be mostly original research, lots of claims made without any references. At best should be redirected to Chakra TheRingess (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I saw this coming a mile off, but for all its non-WPness I liked this article and appreciated all the effort that went into writing it. Some of it might be relocatable to Charles Webster Leadbeater or Chakra, or maybe the article as a whole could evolve into a book summary of The Chakras. Maybe it could find a home as-is on a less proof-hungry wiki. K2709 (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheRingess and K2709,

I will provide inline quotes from publications and show references to publications from where the data and subject matter originate. Most of the publications from which the info was gathered are in the list of references.

What I have done so far in this Wiki article is: collecting the data from various publications, tabulating this information, describing the information in the text, and referencing it (much of it just "dry" numbers) by pointing to public domain illustrations.

When the data from these publications are juxtaposed as I did in tabular form, certain correlations show up, something that does not become obvious when these books are read apart from each other. There is nothing new to these data on their own, nor is there anything new to the noted correlations, as they have been discussed by Leadbeater (The Chakras) and Anodea Judith (Wheels of Life), albeit only in a few short paragraphs, without any illustrative anatomic support (such as from Gray's Anatomy) - something I aimed to provide in this article.

I myself would not consider this "original research," but correct me if I am wrong.

As you, K2709, have noticed some considerable effort indeed went into this (some 4 years ago and over the last three weeks), and my plan is to spend as much time on this as needed to make this a worthwhile and comprehensive contribution.

Merging with the Chakra Wikipedia article I already considered myself, and I suggested merging in my Talk page previously. However, I find that the style of that article is rather different from this one, and the treatment of the subject matter there is somewhat superficial considering the cultural, religious and spiritual history of this topic as evidenced by ancient literature from as early as the 8th century BC.

A few days ago I thought the article was ready enough to be checked out by Wikipedia "insiders," hence my request for GA status. So I very much welcome your comments.

There is a problem though as I will be going on an extended vacation to Europe (I live in Canada) for the next two months, so I will hardly be able to attend to this article during that period.

On my return though (July 1) my plan is to keep working on this article until hopefully at some point a GA status is achieved. Any help or guidance from peer or expert (if available) will be greatly appreciated.

In the meantime, I would request if the "deletion consideration" could be dispensed with for now. The other notification re: "Multiple Issues" is quite alright. Thank you both.

--wv (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge: Merge Non-OR (very little of it seems to to be non-OR) in Chakra, Delete the title. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I'm not at all against merging with the Chakra article, that's where the issue belongs.

I'm concerned that when it is done that the style of the combined articles will appear "seamless.'

As I'm traveling for the next two months, I won't be able to spend very much time on this, so if merging is decided upon, and if anyone feels up to doing it, please do go ahead, if not it may have sit there for a while. No matter what though, when I return I will spend much time on "inline citations." I'm presently collectiong the needed bibliography for it.

--wv (talk) 19:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vast majority of this article is based on non-reliable sources. The rest is from non-mainstream sources. Priyanath ^talk 00:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: About "non-mainstream sources"... With all due respect, but doesn't such a qualification depend on from which section in a library, bookstore or Amazon.com category one tends to get one's reading material?

--wv (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them look ok, but Charles Webster Leadbeater and Elizabeth Clare Prophet as authorities on the chakras? I just don't see it. Priyanath ^talk 03:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That is hardly a neutral standpoint... wv (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's based on WP:RS: "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence." If you can provide high-quality reliable sources that use these authors as authorities on the chakras, please do so. I would also add that if any of this is merged into Chakras, then it should be expressed as the opinion of the authors, according to WP:RS: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact.... When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion." In fact, the main Chakras article should also be doing that in places. Priyanath ^talk 14:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Could easily be merged with the Chakra article using a sub-section. I found the information contained here useful and vote it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.232.153 (talk) 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a vote, but a discussion. The usefulness of information is never really an issue in discussions of this kind. Wikipedia has no policy on the usefulness/uselessness of material as grounds for inclusion/exclusion. It does have a policy regarding original research, and that policy is that original research is not allowed. In my opinion, for the content of this article to be considered non-original research, the majority of it must have been published in a reputable journal that publishes peer reviewed and fact checked articles on topics such as the relationship between the chakras and the human body. Since this article seems to be written primarily in the style of a lecture (just my opinion) and does not cite where this lecture was first published, it's hard for me to believe that it is anything other than original research. Keep in mind, I am not commenting on the usefulness or validity or quality of the material.TheRingess (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm sure that according to the argument expressed above:

"...for the content of this article to be considered non-original research, the majority of it must have been published in a reputable journal that publishes peer reviewed and fact checked articles on topics such as the relationship between the chakras and the human body..."

that pretty well all articles dealing with this type of topic should be considered for deletion. If that were the case we would be doing something close to medieval book burning but... the cyber way!

:-) And what about the Easter Bunny...? Easter Bunny

By the way WP policy [Reliable Sources] is more generous than what the above quote suggests:

"...In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses..."

"...The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context...."

The way I see it is that when one considers "the realm" of the religious/spiritual/mythical/occult/etc., that when respected and reputable publishers over the years have published and republished books written by reasonably well accepted writers (there will always be sceptics trying to dismiss and pooh pooh anything in this field) that when that material is used as a "reliable source" for citations, that it passes enough of a test of verifiability-through-citations. In this case verifiability is not defined as to whether what is written is based on tests and lab measurements, but whether there is enough of a peer supported consensus, attested by contextual, reliable sources on the issue at hand.

It is for that reason that I've listed the sources in the reference section, from which the information in the article will - as soon as I can - be in-line-cited in detail.

--wv (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I'm still not convinced. It's one thing to merely present material from reliable sources, it's another to publish your own research. The article as written, in my opinion, is not merely a presentation of already published material, but original material. Why not publish it elsewhere first?TheRingess (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advice User:William Vroman to move the article to his user space, improve the content by inline citations and then merge in Chakra, this article is not confusing only but also smelling of WP:OR to remain in mainspace. I repeat my vote: Delete article (WV had posted on my talk "Re: "Chakras - Number of Petals" concerns", this is the formal reply).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied the article Chakras - Number of Petals to my Userpage.

I have no time working on it for a while as I will be leaving for Europe shortly...

Hope to see all of you back later.

Please carry on with the deletion process if that is deemed necessary.

Thank you all for your input and advice... wv (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or userify). This article seems to be a content fork of Chakra, and the title is definitely inappropriate. The article currently reads like an essay and has significant POV and OR issues; these are not a reason for deletion per se, but combined with the lack of inline cites it makes it impossible to judge if it contains any verifiable and due information beyong what is in Chakra. So, as Redtigerxyz suggests, the creator should move it to his userspace, work on inline citations and then add any relevant, verifiable information to the main article. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already copied the article to my userspace.

I have added reference locations in preparation for footnote data. wv (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as presidents of major universities are inherently notable. Blueboy 96 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Dinter-Gottlieb[edit]

no references, and she is no longer president, a lot of this is not notable. Finakra (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep She clearly passes WP:PROF she was the president of a major university, and notabiulity is not temporary. The second she was became president she became notable (if she were not already.) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the nom is a single purpose account. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Keep. (Speedy since this is a bad-faith nomination.) I don't know if the 21 hits on Google Scholar are enough, but she also got a half a million dollar grant for AIDS research and generates plenty of interesting hits on Google News. Just look down the list to see how notable she is. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, thanks for pointing that out. Looking through the history I see an IP vandalizing the article, and hmmm...I wonder what "Finakra" has to do with that. I've reverted as much as I could, and I see that you've been at work restoring/adding content too, for which I thank you. I hope a passing admin will do something about the IP, who is clearly guilty of vandalism. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge into Akasha (disambiguation). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akash[edit]

This appears to be silly self promotion, combined with nothing more than a defintion of a Sanskrit work and unrelated links, completely lacking noteworthiness

Delete Any notable people/objects/Hindu deities with their name can have their own article, no need for this one. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Or make into dismbiguation page. No need for article.TheRingess (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 06:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: its a valid disambiguation page.--GDibyendu (talk) 19:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only as a disambiguation page, without the intro paragraph. Just the dab links. Priyanath ^talk 00:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page has somehow been a magnet for the immature since its inception. I see no reason to keep a page simply to state the translation of a name, or as a component of other words.

Keep as disambig. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Akasha (disambiguation) --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Akasha (disambiguation). Abecedare (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that *Redirect to Akasha (disambiguation). KrishGR (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Show-Me Institute. Sandstein 05:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Hannasch[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per consensus at DRV [17] the previous AFD [18] is overturned and relisted. This is a procedural listing by the DRV closer and no opinion is expressed. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Show-Me Institute. The institute may be notable, but this guy is better shown in relation to his company. It cuts down on the BLP problems that come with his borderline notability. Same as before. Them From Space 19:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for reasons noted by themfromspace. لenna vecia 23:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I closed the first AFD as a redirect to Show-Me Institute as suggested by the first two !voters. However, his mention in that article was removed for the reasons given here. Therefore at this point a redirect would not be proper. We need to consider whether or not he is notable on his own. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Taylor (Stourbridge RFC)[edit]

previously prodded, non-notable rugby player, fails WP:ATHLETE, not competed at the highest level of a professional sport Tassedethe (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, not to mention that it is written like and advert and needs a lot of cleanup. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 17:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. لenna vecia 23:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little British Car[edit]

This article has no references at all, much less references to whether such a term exists or not. A Google search leads almost unanimously to pages from the website of Little British Car Company, an auto parts supplier. There is no evidence of "Little British Car" as a classification. There is no evidence of notability of the term or classification "Little British Car". Respectfully, SamBlob (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google hits, no references, and no way to prove notability. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom, appears to be original research. Postoak (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M.B. Nash (Jurassic Park character)[edit]

Non-notable fictional character who played a bit-part role in a Jurassic Park film. Clearly fails WP:N. – Toon ^(talk) 16:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, and non-referenced. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 17:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-time character in a not particularly notable film, who may only deserve articles in very unusual circumstances (which are not given here). Unlikely search term. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can you possibly call the film non-notable? The film meets all inclusion criteria and it is part of a notable franchise. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable character. Trivial clutter at best. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not even notable in his own Universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This particular character had no lead part and also no part that was important to the plot. Utter trivia at best. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as complete and utter spam. Author blocked as spam-only account. Blueboy 96 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simona Bercova[edit]

Porn star now working as an "international escort". No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable, spammy, article from single purpose account Simonafun, so just some ex-porn star having a go at a cheap autobiography. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Postoak (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G3. The infobox suggested he was 16-17 years old when he first played for a top-level club. If this player were real, we'd have certainly heard about it given the coverage players of that age receive. Therefore, it's a hoax. Blueboy 96 21:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sirak Solomon[edit]

Suspected hoax. Nothing on national-football-teams.com, nothing on weltfussball.de. Punkmorten (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; possible hoax. Giant Snowman 16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A possible hoax. All I could find was a few Facebook hits and some unrelated stuff about a lawyer. No coverage in reliable sources. tempodivalse [☎] 17:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

This is an atrocious article. Its creator, Yawja (talk · contribs), has stated, on the article's talk page, that xyr reason for creating this page is that "Israel Hilton deserve[s] serious attention". The article is purportedly sourced, as noted below, to the subject's own MySpace page, which of course says no such thing as the article itself does. In fact, the "sourcing" is entirely bogus. It's of the "Look at this person's picture! Aren't I right?" form. (I'm carefully not repeating the analysis made in the article, in this closure.) That's completely unacceptable for Wikipedia. This is a non-public figure, who has not had the "serious attention", in the form of studies by reliable sources, that would allow content that accords with our content policies to be written here. Wikipedia is not for stirring up such attention. This is not a travelling freak show, nor a supermarket tabloid newspaper. It is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Hilton[edit]

I removed the Speedy A7 tag as I believe the article did not qualify for a speedy because it attempted to assert notability; however believing that it would be a non-controversial deletion I proded it. It has since been contested and I feel that it does not meet the standards of WP:BIO and it lacks verifiable sources per WP:V (myspace and a private picture gallery being the only sources.) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, no notability whatsoever Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Postoak (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rlendog (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No news coverage. All sources appear to be self published. Pburka (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peng Lai (martial art)[edit]

Nonnotable martial arts school. Page was originally at Peng Lai ([19]) but that page was redirected, first by me and then after a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Page was recreated after the initial redirection, including the February-dated Orphan tage in an article created in March. Lacks reliable sources or claim of notability. JJL (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 16:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability jmcw (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable advert. --Nate 14 81 09:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW and nomination in bad faith. Non admin close. Equendil Talk 16:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Europe[edit]

This term has no objective meaning and there is no objective criteria or defining characteristic that make something 'eastern European'. Hence this article is misleading and should be deleted. Seriously, it's an article about a poorly used phrase rather than any significant objective thing. Communism is long gone and the ethnic groups of these lands have nothing in common, it's just that Britfags and other west Europeans think that a bulgarian and an estonian and a hungarian and a romanian are all the same. Veetformen (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was converted into a disambiguation page - nice work. (Non-admin closure.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central junior high school[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable middle/junior high school. Blueboy 96 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator has been blocked indef. Oliver Fury, Esq. message • contributions 15:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to DMB page - there are many 'Central Junior High Schools' and a DMB page would be useful. TerriersFan (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't convert This school is not notable in the least bit, and the other schools probably aren't either, and as such they don't merit a DMB page. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Terriers' idea isn't that far-fetched, since we have a dab page for Central Middle School and it leads to school district articles as well as to some of the middle schools that are notable enough for their own article. There are plenty of school districts on Wikipedia that have a CJHS [20]. It seems like a sensible enough navigation page to me. Mandsford (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to disambiguation page which I have done. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy Keep. As the nominator, I'm happy to withdraw this. The article has undergone a radical improvement! --Ged UK 06:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Sitas[edit]

Doesn't appear to be notable. Brief search doesn't turn up much. Verifiable, but not notable. --Ged UK 14:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking weak keep on this one. A Google Scholar search turns up a few articles written by the subject. The articles are in JSTOR, and have been cited by multiple other articles. I would say that probably meets criterion #1 of WP:ACADEMIC. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Per LinguistAtLarge, meets mimimal criterion #1 of WP:ACADEMICWacko Jack O 15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per LinguistAtLarge, also results on Google news and books searches suggest that he is notable and verify some of the content. Article will probably need to be rewritten as parts of the article (particularly in the second paragraph) appear to be more like an essay or opinion than an encyclopedia article. —Snigbrook 15:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with a patina of "weakness". Subject appears to meet notability requirements. Article itself needs a ton of work. -Quartermaster (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have wikified the article somewhat on behalf of the WP:ARS. Skomorokh 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per WP:AFTER, I checked Google Books, Google News, and Google Scholar and have begun a much needed sandblasting of hyperbole and adding of sources. This gentleman is an amazing fellow. Quite notable. Thge article does need more work, but its now snowing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyatt Regency Birmingham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Building with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Judge for yourself: "The Hyatt Regency Birmingham is a hotel in the city centre of Birmingham, England. It stands at a height of 75 metres 24 floors and has 319 guest rooms. The hotel has a blue glass exterior facade." At 24 floors, this wouldn't even be a pinky finger in Birmingham skyline. I'm sorry, but we don't have a project to write an article for every 20+ story building in the world. Mandsford (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to International Convention Centre, Birmingham. There is more now than there was when the article started, but I don't see that it's notable beyond its proximity to the centre. In all fairness, the article now points out that the hotel security (including below ground access between the hotel and the ICC) was a factor in the 1998 G8 summit taking place in Birmingham; that would be an argument in favor of notability enough for an article about the hotel. However, I don't favor keeping a separate article. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep. Deleted as not notable after an AFD in 2007. The article certainly does nothing to address the notability issue, or even to claim notability, and nothing jumps out as evidence of notability from Google/Google News searches...--Michig (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try books. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...but Google Books brings back one good source (Smyth), which is sufficient to keep.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~as per previous AFD -- specifically, there's nothing particularly notable about the building. No real mention in 3-rd party sources. tempodivalse [☎] 14:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)~~ changed to Keep. My bad, didn't look well enough. Google Books comes up with quite a few relevant hits, found lots of mentions in reliabe, third party sources. tempodivalse [☎] 23:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, there is. Where did you look? Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete since the article does nothing to establish the subject's notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- That's not a criterion for deletion under Wikipedia:Deletion policy. We determine whether subjects are notable at AFD. Establishing notability is merely a forumla for ensuring that articles, about certain specific classes of subjects (which do not include hotels) are not permitted to be speedily deleted. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point, I hadn't checked properly for sources on Google Books. And a Google Books search suggests that it is notable. It even gets mentioned in a Ben Elton novel. So keep. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage in third-party sources appears to be trivial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite. The whole of chapter 10 of Smyth (q.v.) is devoted to it, for example. What sources did you look at? Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's now a few more sources than when I last checked, and now notability is more of a borderline case. I'm still not convinced there's scope for a meaningful article beyond a stub here, but I can't think of a suitable article to merge this to. I'm changing to Neutral for now, with scope for keep if coverage out of very local or very specialised sources can be found. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources have to be reliable. Their subject specialization is irrelevant (otherwise there are a lot of subjects, from physics topics through automobiles to railway stations, that we wouldn't be covering). It's their reliability that counts. Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and I will add that whilst it is considered courteous for participants in an AfD discussion to look for primary sources, the onus is on the article creator to make a case for notability (especially if the article is re-created after an AfD on grounds of notability). Any attempt by other editors to establish notability for an article I consider a favour and not a right. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you aren't putting Wikipedia:Deletion policy into practice. The onus is on all of us to look for sources, and doing more than just reading the article itself. This has been in our verifiability and deletion policies since they were first written. We need multiple slices of Swiss Cheese at AFD. And that means everyone, independently, looking for sources, double-checking one another.
      This isn't a matter of courtesy, or a matter of other editors condescending to look for sources as some sort of favour to an article's creator. (Regarding helping to improve articles created by other people as a some kind of favour to other editors is rather missing the point of this being a collaboratively-written encyclopaedia, and is based upon an erroneous assumption that creators own articles.) This is a matter of ensuring that we come to the correct result so that the encyclopaedia gets better and deletion policy is followed, given that (quite obviously) no one editor has access to the entire corpus of human knowledge, or indeed to every source in the world. Looking for sources is not Somebody Else's Problem. The proper study of encyclopaedists is the finding, reading, evaluating, and using of sources. We are all included in the "finding" part. Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The closest thing I can find to the policy you are claiming exists is for the nominator to make a good faith attempt to check that sources aren't likely to exist. It is very unusual for an article to get zero coverage in Google and GNews but be saved by a book found in a Gbooks search, so nominating an article for deletion after searches in Google and GNews seems a perfectly reasonable nomination, especially if a prod tag asking for sources of notability is removed without any attempt to discuss the issue. If an article is deleted because no-one found an obscure source, anyone can repost the article later with the better sources. But with gazillions of articles going to AfD every day, and most participants having their own articles to contribute to, you cannot reasonably expect people who pick delete to make extensive searches for sources every time. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Clearly been vastly improved since nomination. Thanks Uncle G. Looking at this AfD, looks like a keep is imminent; now it's just a formality. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Hyatt Regency Birmingham article has already been deleted once and has been recreated. More information about the hotel has been posted on this page and it should not be deleted a second time. 206.255.176.234 (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added a reference to emporis.com where it said citaion needed. Why was such a basic piece of info (the height) not already footnoted????? Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deonte Roberts[edit]

Non-notable college athlete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability.--Giants27 ^T/C 13:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not appear sufficiently notable for inclusion. tempodivalse [☎] 13:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to be notable per the guidelines at WP:ATHLETE. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Turbokoala (talk) 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wizardman 18:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. WP:SNOW delete now I think.Broadweighbabe (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subpar stats; would have to list everyone in D1 if he qualifies for a Wiki page. Mandermagic (talk) 03:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources - no article. Sandstein 05:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Kalan[edit]

Asserts notability through mention of published books and academic work, but Google (both search and Scholar) finds nothing to mention of this guy. Unless verifiable information is found, suggesting deletion. —Cyclonenim | Chat 13:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no mention of this guy in reliable, third party sources, thus, he is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. tempodivalse [☎] 14:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tempodivalse. Unreferenced, non-notable BLP with no RS to pull in. لenna vecia 23:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and source. If he was the teacher of Ulugh Beg, he probably qualifies,though that's not a formal criterion. Printed sources is the need here,since by no means all of them on on Google yet. There are two possible alternate nmes: Amir Kalam, Maulana Amir Kalan, and Abul Kalam Azad which may or may not be the same person--I do not know Urdu. Personally, I refrain from saying there are no sources when i lack the languages to justify that statement. DGG (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We could be waiting forever for written sources, and given that Google finds zilch, it's unlikely that any academic books exist on the matter. Research papers, perhaps, but we'd have to find someone with access to written papers in a library on this small topic. —Cyclonenim | Chat 11:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A Google Books search confirms the main claim to notability, but we can't see from Google how extensive the coverage is. When looking for sources this subject shouldn't be confused with mathematician Amir Kalan al-Bukhari, who was active about a century earlier. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Source does indeed confirm the identify, and his relation to Ulugh Beg, but does not explicitly indicate the persons notability, nor does it confirm the rest of the article. Regards. —Cyclonenim | Chat 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether sources are readily available for free has no bearing on their notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paramahamsa Hariharananda[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject fails WP:N and one of only two references provided fail WP:RS. The Miami Herald obituary, which is not sourced at the official website of the Miami Herald and is not available in full, falls under WP:1E. Lightweight religious leader mentioned only in websites and publications of his own followers. Shannon Rose (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— Just a simple search establishes the notability and presence of secondary sources. See for ex: Google book results, Google news results. However, citations, copyediting of the article is necessary as per wikipedia quality guidelines. --Nvineeth (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello! Please note that the search examples you gave, namely Google book results, Google news results are for Paramahamsa Prajnanananda and not for Paramahamsa Hariharananda. But if you're implying that Paramahamsa Prajnanananda's books are sufficient references to establish the subject's notability because they mention Paramahamsa Hariharananda, please be aware that Paramahamsa Prajnanananda is the successor of Paramahamsa Hariharananda (ref. 1), and so his writings don't exactly constitute "reliable, third-party, published sources" per WP:RS nor establish notability per WP:GNG specifically "Independent of the subject." Thanks! – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry for the mistake, I just mixed up :). Check these searches : Google books and Google news. We have secondary sources, like Times of India, Chicago Tribute, Washington Post etc., to mention a few., I see no problems with reliable, third-party, published sources. Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, we all make mistakes. You make me smile with this latest report of alleged "reliable, third-party, published sources" because, as I'm sure you've already thought, I already did those searches before filing the AfD and so I am absolutely sure that the case is solid. There are no reliable, third-party, published sources in those search results. As an example, I will give you the Washington Post one. That bit was taken from the Religion Events section where readers email the Post to notify them of events they are hosting or celebrating (please scroll at the bottom of the page to verify this fact). The announcement only said that the Baltimore-Washington Kriya Yoga Center will be sponsoring a free event in celebration of Paramahamsa Hariharananda's birthday, then it was followed by an announcement of event sponsored by the Mormons, the Washington National Cathedral, etc. How is that even a "source," Nvineeth? What is it a source for? You see, this is the problem, there is really no reliable, third-party, published source for about 90% of the article's contents, and it is Wikipedia policy that if there are no reliable sources then the article should be deleted. I also observed that you are confusing news with ads (such as the Washington Post one) and opinion pieces. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations is quite clear on this, "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of India article is not an opinion piece. As is apparent from both the url and the organization of the red section boxes at the top, this is a "Cities" article, a regular news piece. For an example of an opinion piece, see e.g. this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What I found alarming about this biography is that it is essentially unreferenced (barring his birth and death date). Ryan4314 (talk) 17:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier versions like [21] and [22] have many more references. I just reverted to a more recent version, (by the nominator of the last AfD, who withdrew it). John Z (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Miami Herald obit and other sources and discussion in the first AfD.John Z (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, the Miami Herald obituary is WP:1E and the other sources you speak about are non-existent. The first AfD is gone, this is a new one, the discussions in the first AfD don't apply here unless you wish to bring them up in detail specifically for this AfD. The bulk of the details in the article, roughly 90%, are not sourced from the references you provided. Kriya: Finding the True Path and Sri Yukteswar: A Biography fails WP:RS as they are self-published by some unknown author. The further readings you listed are both by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda, the successor of the subject, thus failing WP:GNG (please refer to the part explaining "Independent of the subject."). Perhaps you're wondering why I said that both further readings were by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda's when A Blessing in Disguise: 39 Life Lessons from Today's Greatest Teachers has the name of Andrea Joy Cohen as the author. Please know that the said book is a compilation of essays written by over 20 spiritual teachers (Rachel Naomi Remen, Dean Ornish, Linda Schierse Leonard, etc.), and the one mentioning the subject (twice) was written by no other than Paramahamsa Prajnanananda (I invite everyone with an Amazon.com account to investigate this fact yourself here). Again this fails WP:GNG. Thank you! – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1E has nothing to do with obituaries, and a substantial obit in a major paper is usually taken as strong evidence of notability. It is of course available in full, though not freely online without registration. The prior discussion still seems relevant and convincing. Books by and about a person are essentially always proper for "works" and "further reading", whether they are reliable or independent or not. The book about Hariharananda and the chapter in the book by Cohen are by his disciple Prajnanananda, true, but they are published and edited by independent people and organizations, and so do go toward proving notability IMHO. I didn't provide any new references, just restored some of the ones that were earlier in the article, and pointed to a couple earlier versions that had more references. I gave better bibliographic info for the True Path and Yukteswar books currently cited in the article, they seem to be independent and published by Sanskrit Classics Publishers.John Z (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there exists no rule (even a commonsense one) exempting obituaries from WP:1E. If such is one's only major coverage then it falls under WP:1E. Paramahamsa Prajnanananda is the subject's successor (not just a disciple), he leads the organization once led by the subject, thus anything written by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda about the subject will fail WP:RS and will fail to establish WP:N. Sanskrit Classic Publishers is Swami Satyeswarananda (I invite everyone to check the evidence), it does not carry any other title save his own (i.e. self-published). Self-published books don't meet the stringent requirement of WP:RS. Bottom line, Miami Herald WP:1E (+ where is the real article?) and the bulk of it is original research. – Shannon Rose (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cander0000 explains below why WP:1E is not relevant here. The obit is at the link provided, at the Herald site and in physical newspapers. The question is not reliability of Prajnanananda's writings, but their independence in order to show notability, and I argue above why they should be considered sufficiently independent. The state of the current version is not too relevant to AfD, some of the facts are in the references cited, or were referenced in earlier versions of the article. The gnews and gbooks searches given by Nvineeth above provide more (clearly independent and reliable) references showing notability. You may be right about Sanskrit Classic Publishers.John Z (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cander0000 was giving his opinion why he doesn't believe that WP:1E is "fairly applied " here, not that it is irrelevant (you are the only one saying that). His issue is: is it being fairly applied?, I will address that. The gnews and gbooks searches given by Nvineeth were for Paramahamsa Prajnanananda, not for the subject. You should have at least clicked on them to see what comes up before asserting that they are "(clearly independent and reliable) references showing notability." For not even one such thing comes up in those searches. What comes up are either books by Paramahamsa Prajnanananda (failing WP:RS) or about Paramahamsa Prajnanananda and not the subject. You said that the question has nothing to do with the reliability of Paramahamsa Prajnanananda's writings. No one here is actually judging their reliability, he may be writing pure facts, we do not know. But regardless, what we have to eventually accept here are rules that were approved long ago by community consensus for commonsense reasons to safeguard the integrity of our articles, and one of them is WP:RS which states that "articles should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources" not third-party published sources. There exists a comma between "third-party" and "published." You misunderstood it to mean that it is okay who ever wrote it as long as it is a third or disinterested party who published it, that is not the rule. The rule is that a reference should be reliable, should be third-party, and should be published (as opposed to original research). Do you see where I am coming from? Paramahamsa Prajnanananda, being the subject's direct successor, is not a third-party source. Now, what happens if we don't have reliable sources to support the contents of the article? It is very clearly stated again in WP:RS "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." If the writings of Paramahamsa Prajnanananda is not a reliable, third-party, published source and Swami Satyeswarananda's are, as you have admitted, also not reliable per another rule (namely, Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources) then what else do we have about the guy? Nothing! And so we have to delete the article. Why are you finding it so hard to find reliable, third-party, published source about the guy except for that unverifiable WP:1E Miami Herald obituary? Simple... because he is unnotable. You would have a good number of reliable, third-pary, published source if he is notable. I'm really sorry, but this is the fact. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nvineeth made a mistake at first, linking to searches for Prajnanananda, but he corrected it. As Paramahamsa is an honorific, searching on (Hariharananda Kriya) also helps - 16 gnews hits and 57 gbooks hits. I argued above why the particular sources by Prajnanananda used here here may be considered reliable, third-party, published sources. I understand what you are saying about the comma, but the publisher and editor is relevant to the "third-partyness"; it is a matter of judgment. For notability / AfD it is worth noting that clearly independent editors and publishers thought Hariharananda notable enough to have a book or article on him. The Herald obituary is of course not unverifiable. The gnews searches have articles from several other major outlets - Times of India, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Daily Herald, which are not opinion or advertising. There's also Awakening to Consciousness By Sandra Heber - Percy, that covers Hariharananda on about 15 pages. This Princeton University Press book cites Hariharananda's book on Kriya Yoga.John Z (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Meat of the article is unsourced and doesn't appear to be possible with no available independent RS. لenna vecia 23:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't agree WP:1E is fairly applied here. The obituary does mark/ is triggered by the event of his death, but the article is not asserting notabilty because of his death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs)
- Regardless of why his death was allegedly given coverage in the Herald (we can speculate all we want about the specifics of their motive), the glaring reality that we have here is that it was the subject's only notable coverage, which is exactly what WP:1E is all about. The obituary is his only claim to fame, so to speak. That is the only reliable, third-party, published source that we (believe we) have to consider that he may be notable. All the rest were just written by his also unnotable successor. And if we are going to keep this grossly-unsourced entry just for that obituary then it will violate every principle that has been painstankingly established through time to make sure that we have an encyclopedia that we can be proud of. – Shannon Rose (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment, Shannon Rose, you are misreading WP:1E: it refers not to one source but to one event. The obituary might function as a source substantiating statements about several different events. In any case, a gnews search (all dates) on this guy's name gives roughly ten results. I'm not going to get into the details -- perhaps he isn't notable -- but I'd like to help keep this discussion from being derailed by a misinterpretation of WP:1E. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for pointing that out. I know that, and it is the meat of my contention regarding the WP:1E factor as you will see if you will follow the flow of my argument throughout. I just mentioned "source" afterwards as an addition because, from the time the AfD was set and up to this point, the obituary is ALSO our only reliable, third-party, published source. I'm sorry if I left you with the impression that I'm mixing up WP:RS and WP:N matters, they are interrelated but I am fully aware which is which. The event was his death, the coverage was the obituary, which is being argued against the AfD as both a reference and proof of notability. And so I am trying to hit two birds with one stone in my replies because, you know, in AfDs the exact same issues just gets repeated over and over and I want to make sure I've plastered everything in place, as much as possible within a single reply per person, because I cannot be possibly watching this thing everytime. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I have now read the Miami Herald article (easily accessible if one can use Nexis -- in any event it is hardly "unverifiable") and found another one in the Calgary Herald. The obituary covers not only his death but his life and accomplishments. There's no problem at all with WP:1E here and I think he meets WP:N. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the article is "easily accessible if one can use Nexis" is like saying that it is "easy" to tie your legs around your neck if you can do yoga. The "easy" part is deceiving because the task requires something apart from the ordinary and is therefore not "easy" at all (Nexis is a paid service). It is no good using newspaper articles that only you can read to support your stance. Now, granting for the sake of argument that you've really read the Miami Herald obituary and that there exists another obituary in the Calgary Herald (which I highly doubt) then it is still WP:1E because the coverage is for the same one event. A person only dies once, and we don't need a PhD to know that. But, as I have said, that is just for the sake of argument. Please provide a direct link to the articles so that we can officially verify, examine and discuss them. – Shannon Rose (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1, Strongly suggest you re-read WP:AGF. 2, there is no policy/requirement (e.g. in WP:RS) that a reference be available on-line (or at no cost, for that matter); your lack of access to high-quality resources is no-one else's problem. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I strongly suggest you read WP:V, specifically where it states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The fact is, only you can see your alleged WP:1E Calgary Herald obituary. It is not in the archives of the Calgary Herald website, the same is true with the Miami Herald obituary. Granting for the sake of argument that they do exist, how do we assess if they are paid ads, opinion pieces or news reports? Such distinction should be made per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations which states that "News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Anyone can edit an article and pull a reference out of thin air complete with page number and other invented details. Should we let it there just for the purpose of assuming good faith? It will be a complete disaster. Using WP:AGF to justify this is just plain wikilawyering. 2. Telling me that my lack of access to your ghost reference is no-one else's problem is just plain nasty (I am not stupid to pay money just to read old newspaper articles). It is actually your problem because only you have access to your references, even the official websites of those publications housing an extensive archive of articles don't, making your claim spurious. WP:RS clearly states, "Additionally, an archived copy of the media must exist." Where is the archived copy of your references? You must present it because someone is contesting their existence and, if they do exist, their quality. Nevertheless, even if you are able to do so, those two obits (or even a million) will just amount to WP:1E as they only cover one event. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look up the word "solipsism" in a dictionary: the fact that you can't^ see this source doesn't mean that only I can. (^Actually, the right way to put this is: the fact that you are unwilling to do so, using the suggestions I left on the article talk page.) There isn't the slightest problem with WP:V here. Anyway, it's hardly worth arguing over at this point, since the article will undoubtedly be kept. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look up the word "hyperbole" in a dictionary since you seem to dissect and interpret sentences in a most literal way at the preschool level. The fact that I don't see this supposed source doesn't mean that you can. For all we know the source may not even exist or, if it does, it could be an ad or an opinion piece and cannot be used to state facts perWikipedia:Reliable_sources#News_organizations (even if it is a genuine news report it will not pass WP:1E to establish notability, it will just be counted as one reliable source). I applaud your confidence that the article will undoubtedly be kept, but that's all you have at the moment. 90% of the article is still unsourced and there is still no proof that the subject is notable. – Shannon Rose (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Last time I !voted "Keep", with the caveat "cleanup article and merge criticism section into body of article". The article still needs cleanup, and the criticism section is still there, which may be one reason why we're here again. He is arguably notable, but it will always be difficult to find neutral, third-party sources for his life story, and for the issue of his claims and counter claims about whether he was a disciple of Sri Yukteswar (my personal 'reliable sources' at the source all say "no", so how reliable can those newspaper sources be, since they could only be based on the subject's claims?). I'm leaning towards Meh... Priyanath ^talk 04:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Responding to Shannon Rose's questions on my talk page:
  - Meh, because he's notable enough to keep, and the article almost surely will be kept again, but it doesn't solve the problems with the article. Going through this exercise all over again is not very helpful, unless it causes some editors stay with the article over time and keep it on track (which didn't happen after the last AfD, thus my skeptical and indifferent 'meh').
  - I agree that the Times of India article reads more like an opinion piece, whether it's stated there or not.
  - Non-English sources can be helpful when there is a dearth of English sources available. But that French language source was just suggested reading, and there seems nothing wrong with that.
  - WP:1E doesn't apply, as others have pointed out, because he wasn't notable for his death, but because of what he did while living. The obituaries make that very clear.
  - Regarding the discussion above about online news sources behind a firewall - the fact that it appeared in a mainstream print newspaper means that it fulfills the requirement for WP:RS. We assume good faith that the person using the source is doing it accurately. The fact that the only online version is behind a firewall is immaterial. There is a print version that can be found in the right places, probably behind a librarywall.
  - So yes, Keep is right, with the hope that some editors will 'keep' with the article so it doesn't come back here again. Priyanath ^talk 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, most notably an obituary in a major US newspaper. Alansohn (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have one from a major Canadian newspaper as well, if Shannon-Rose didn't persist in deleting it. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where to get some assistance with that problem? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look through the article history, and I have serious concerns about the manner in which the article has been edited in what appears to be disruptive fashion by the nominator. User:Shannon Rose seems to have a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLP1E, which has been used in the nomination as a rationalization for deletion. I have used obituaries from the Miami Herald and other independently-published major newspapers and magazines to create and expand several hundred Wikipedia biographical articles. Obituaries are not establishing notability based on the circumstances of an individual's death (e.g., "Man killed after being impaled on telephone pole in freak trampoline accident"), the issue raised by WP:BLP1E. Published obituaries written in such publications are summaries of the person's life, which usually provide almost all of the details needed to reference details of the individual's life history and to establish notability. The use (or more accurately, abuse) of WP:RS and WP:V as justification to remove clearly reliable sources about the subject in major newspapers with a reputation for fact checking only demonstrates further problems with understanding Wikipedia policy. WP:V does NOT require that all or any of a source be available online. The links provided and the title, date and pages included in references all satisfy the requirements of WP:V. Statements by the nominator that these are "alleged" references that are somehow not acceptable are patently unacceptable. I'd love to see additional sources that would satisfy even the nominator's demands for sources, but what's in the article now meets the standards of WP:BIO in establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reasons given in the nomination do not seem to have held up to scrutiny. Chillum 16:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obituary in Miami Herald (republished inCalgary Herald), both of which have been verified by me and other discussants here, establish sufficient notability. Comment: User:Shannon Rose has made strong arguments above for deletion of the article, often based on poor understanding of wikipedia policies such as WP:V, and WP:1E; I urge Shannon to read the explanations of the applicability of these policies provided by Alansohn and Nomoskedasticity. In particular Shannon should not be removing sources from the article, simple because he/she does not have access to them. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Shannon Rose is in the Penalty Box for 220 hours, unless they get an early reprieve. Priyanath ^talk 01:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Death covered by Miami Herald obit. However, article does need cleaned up.Wacko Jack O 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 05:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Love[edit]

I will notify the original writer to ask for his/her input on this, but I find the information suspicious. First, there is no way that a 1977 film will be in public domain. Second, there is no IMDB entry. Third, while, admittedly, the martial arts movie genre is not particularly conducive to requirements of plausible plots, the plot line simply seems, well, implausible. Unless information is verifiable, delete. --Nlu (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While it does exists, mentioned in what looks like a Hong Kong version of IMDB here [23], also here [24]; but it doesn't seem notable - it's included on those 50-film DVDs like this one [25], so on that basis I'd say delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this search and send to WP:CLEANUP. There are always translation problems when Anglicizing titles for Chinese films, and this is no exception. Searches should include its "other" english titles: Legend Of The Tiger, Tiger's Kong Fu and Love Of The Tiger. It has notability in Chinese Cinema per So Good Reviews, Get-Movies, Hong Kong Film Archive, HK Flix, et al. Cleanup is no reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've done some sourcing and added a reception section and cast. The plot section needs some major reduction. Under its many different names in its 1977 theatrical and its 1980 DVD releases, it will have generated more response. Just a matter of diging. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also the title in French, "Le Jeune tigre du kung fu", which translates as Young Tiger Kung Fu. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It now appears to meet WP:N. Nice job! Hobit (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Hayes (journalist)[edit]

Long-term unsourced BLP (since 2006) of doubtful notability. Prod removed. Black Kite 11:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing found that would indicate notability.--Michig (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usourced BLP of questionable notability. لenna vecia 23:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not asserted, no mention in reliable, third party sources. tempodivalse [☎] 00:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warde Manuel[edit]

Not notable school official. There are also no real sources to write a biography here that would not really be a history of Athletics at the University at Buffalo. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Athletic director of a Division I school--and a high school All-American to boot. Blueboy 96 21:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The position says notable to me. --Stormbay (talk) 15:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Aside from the intrinsic notability from his position there are many articles which talk about or focus on him. Examples include [26][27][28][29]. Coverage over a 20 year period says keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonians (Greeks)[edit]

The article in question has been for a long time consensually redirected to Macedonia (Greece). I don't know if this is the best solution, but I do know that this article as it stands now is a POVFORK of the aforementioned article with no scientific value, promoting the ~~nationalistic~~ beliefs of User:Pyraechmes who does not like the redirecting, one-sided, and overlapping with not only the above article, but with others as well (such as Macedonia (region)). Since User:Pyraechmes who edited it insists on edit-warring, I thought that the best solution is to come here and confirm officially the long-time standing consensual solution: Delete the article as it stands now, and rediret it to Macedonia (Greece). Yannismarou (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Yannismarou (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the article, I would like to insist on its existance. I think we should focus on the indispensability of the article and NOT on the content. The content can change. Maybe I am not good in writing articles and maybe it has no scientific value. I am sure that wikipedia users are more experts in such issues and can help in this direction. Only if we delete it or redirect it all the time we can achieve to have a "POVFORK".

About my nationalistic beliefs: It is an effective and useful LABEL to call someone "Natioanlist". It is a tested strategy to keep someone silent. In Middle Ages, they used to call someone Heretic in order to keep him silent or cancel his reliability. In modern times of freedom and republic, we just call someone Nationalist or Fanatic and his voice will bump on the wall of the LABEL. Anyway, if you think that something of my scripts or my acts in wikipedia is nationalistic, you can tell me about it, so I could comply with your rules of behavior. And especially for this article, if you find something nationalistic, you can explain to me the reason, and we can delete it or re-write it.

In any case, the existance of an article about a subgroup of the Greek nation CANNOT cause problems. The absence of it, on the other hand, cause a lot of problems to wikipedia, to the readers of wikipedia and warrant the nationalists (like me, as you say...) to edit articles of doubtful quality.

Is it nationalistic to write about your tribe or to forbid an article about a tribe? Chrusts 11:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyraechmes (talk • contribs) 11:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. AfD is not dispute resolution. Not even the nominator is suggesting that the article be deleted without leaving a redirect. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and possibly redirect if consensus for such exists, per Blanchardb. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - If Greeks with a Macedonian regional identity (a subgroup) get their own article, why are Aegean Macedonians (a subgroup) forced to be apart of Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? Shouldn't they get to keep their own article also? The modern Greeks of Macedonia had no "Macedonian Greek" identity before the acquisition of Greek Macedonia, as many modern Greeks with Macedonian regional identity were Vlach, Albanian, or Pontic Greeks. In fact, if you consider population growth, non-indigenous peoples make up over 50% of the modern population in Greek Macedonia. I can provide data stating the Macedonians of the middle ages were speaking Slavic, not Greek and I can show data providing from the 1600s-today referring of Macedonians being the ancestors of the modern ethnic Macedonians (ie: Macedonians were referenced on an ethnic level). Even the Greek government wrote a book called "the Greek ANTI-Macedonian campaign" and "The contributions of the Slavic-like Macedonian on the Greek language" And Pavlos was stating their was a Macedonian language in the region of Macedonia. This is clearly a POV FORK, yesterday Greeks were arguing that Aegean Macedonians should not have their own article, today they turn into hypocrites. Mactruth (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Greeks from Macedonia possess a strong local identity and the subject is certainly notable enough. Similar articles exist for other local Greek identities, such as Epirotes, Maniots, etc...I don't see why the Macedonian Greeks shouldn't have their own article. This is article could easily be part of the series on local Greek identities. --Athenean (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect Jingby (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, no objection against delete. Of course we could conceivably have a legitimate article on this group of people, although (as I've often said) I cannot really imagine what it would contain that isn't already contained in the article on the region. Subnational administrative units and geographical regions don't normally get separate articles for themselves and for their inhabitants, because the coverage of those articles would be identical. (That such articles have been written for a few regions in Greece just goes to demonstrate why they are not a good idea: read those articles to see why. Those are not good models to follow. And it's done nowhere else; this format is a very strange predilection only of a few Greek editors.) But even if you want an article, I totally agree with Yannismarou that the present draft isn't it. It's too poorly written to serve even as a basis for a legitimate rewrite or expansion. Best to make it go away and have a clean slate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, WP;POVFORK of Greek Macedonia. There are many other article which have been designed to cater for this subject. Agree with the above users. PMK1 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blank the page or Redirect, as a temporary measure until at least after the forthcoming Macedonia arbitration to avoid drama. The article as it is now does not conform to NPOV. However, this does not mean that the subject is not notable, since we're referring to approximately 4 million people (including the Macedonian diaspora with its associations, which incidentally are not called "Greek" but "Macedonian", meaning that the regional identity is especially strong). In any case, the article title should be in either Macedonians (Greek) or Greek Macedonians which are both redirected to Macedonia (Greece) at this point. This needs to be revisited at calmer times and when the material is better. --Avg (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article and make it a Stub. Sure it must be enriched with a serious re-edit. There is no reason to delete the article solely for being of poor quality or because of timing concerns. We can make it an article about the obvious truths and put the redirect in a see also section. This will encourage other Wikipedia users to enrich it. Since the subject of the article is notable both historically and demographically, and there is no objection to the name, I suggest keep but remove all POV related text. Deleting would be contrary to WP:Purpose Shadowmorph (talk) 15:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to add that "AFD is not cleanup". And I believe, many of the above arguments are problematic as covered in the below policies. I present them for anyone to have some self-critique
  - WP:JUSTAVOTE, the votes of Jingby, Rlendog
  - WP:POV and WP:No Original Research, about the opinions of Mactruth
  - WP:UGLY one of the points made by Fut.Perf.
  - WP:DEADLINE, the vote of Avg
  - WP:EVERYTHING covers my own vote, I admit :) Shadowmorph (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. I agree with Shadowmorph.--Gkeorgke (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Athenean above.--Sadbuttrue92 (talk) 14:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI don't see why Macedonian Greeks can't have an independent article. Rirunmot (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirect to 82nd Academy Awards as a useful search term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academy awards 2010[edit]

Contested prod. Complete and blatant speculation. Strong delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: per nom. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are either about the Academy Awards in general or the Academy Awards of the past two years. The nominations part is just wishful thinking. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to 2010 Academy Awards and recreate as a disambig page, per 2008 Academy Awards and 2009 Academy Awards. Lugnuts (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; the contents of the article are speculation. When the 2010 Academy awards roll around, might not be a bad idea to recreate this page as a redirect. tempodivalse [☎] 14:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and do not move title to "2010 Academy Awards"; this is not something to be encouraged, particularly the "buzz". The list of likely nominees is the most repugnant part of this article. Yeah, "everyone's a critic", but unless you're one of the 5,000+ members of the Academy of MPA&S, you have zero control over who the nominees and winners will be. There are plenty of forums on the internet where people can give their 2 cents worth about who might when in 2010. Wikipedia isn't one of those forums. Mandsford (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is also an article at 82nd Academy Awards. PC78 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speculation and that is all.--Sabrebd (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 82nd Academy Awards. Obvious search term. Powers ^T 13:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per WP:CRYSTAL. A little soon isn't it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources - no article. Sandstein 05:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Movie[edit]

The film appears not to have been widely released if it has been released at all, the article is completely lacking references, and no significant coverage was found from Google, Google News, or Google Books searches. Michig (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to imdb it's in post-production. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This press-release suggests otherwise, and that it is actually finished and was premiered 3 months ago. IMDB is a useful resource but not a reliable source. I haven't found any significant coverage of the film, or any evidence that it passes WP:MOVIE.--Michig (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFF, as principle film has finished and National Lampoon and Christopher Meloni films get coverage. [30], [31], [32], [33]. Just a matter of letting it be and watch it grow. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may never be released. It may never receive significant coverage in reliable sources (which is still a requirement for future films). When it does, an article would be justified, but such coverage does not appear to exist at this time, despite the film being premiered three months ago. The film wasn't made by National Lampoon, which in any case has little or no relation to the organization that it was in its heyday, when National Lampoon films could be relied on to become notable. --Michig (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources covering this at all means no encyclopedia article. If this happens to get released and become notable some day, then and only then should an article be written. THat something might become notable some day in the fuzzy future is a poor reason to have an article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Bali ultimate. The article isn't bad, but unless sources are provided, it doesn't meet WP:GNG. TheAE talk/sign 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sucker Punch (2010 film)[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF; filming will not commence until later this year ([34], [35]). Prod removed without explanation. PC78 (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Zack Snyder's page and navbox have been targets of repeated crystalballing with some adding films up to 2013, he is currently working on a film and may not get around to this until the end of next year, fails NFF, delete for that reason and possible SALT for 12 months. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not salt - per WP:NFF, but no reason to salt since principle photography may begin within 12 months. Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF; suggest salt if it comes back soon - if in due course an RS confirms principal photography has started, any admin can unsalt. JohnCD (talk) 17:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable film with a notable cast. I don't see why it should be deleted, especially when we'll have to create it again in about 5 months. Wikifan12345 (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KiNK (movie)[edit]

Blatant spam for non-notable film per WP:Notability (films), unreferenced. Prod tag removed by another WP:SPA, probable sockpuppet, so taking to AFD. MuffledThud (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with reasons above. This article would be better served being promoted on a local blog. If being placed as spam, I'd advise original author to take it elsewhere. Pigman5 (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:Notability (films), no references or indication of notability in the article. —Snigbrook 15:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and userfy to author. Although I cleaned the article up and found (just) one source, there is not enough yet available to do more. Let it get released to a few festivals, get itself some coverage, and then allow it back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxi (EP)[edit]

Non-notable EP on band's own label. EP consists of just two tracks. No evidence of charts or awards. JamesBurns (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant independent coverage of this release, fails WP:NALBUMS. TheClashFan (talk) 09:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral-Delete Although I disagree about a need for charts or awards, I do agree with the lack of independent coverage and critical reviews. I created this article with the Notability based on Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Albums.2C_singles_and_songs "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." The article is notable because the band is notable. Creating the page was probably overkill... and "officially released" is probably a moot point. - Steve3849 ^talk 10:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:10, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. By default; no valid "delete" opinions remain. Sandstein 05:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of jam band music festivals[edit]

Poorly defined list. Many of the bands that play at these festivals are questionable whether all of them are strictly "jam" bands. Jam festivals are already listed in the section "Venues and festivals" in the Jam band article. JamesBurns (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless list. Stubby information can be added to the existing Jam band article. TheClashFan (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a sockpuppet of the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I created this page hoping it would lighten the list making on the Jam band article. The lists persist regardless. - Steve3849 ^talk 09:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the situation under which this article was originally nominated for deletion I'm changing my vote to Neutral. - Steve3849 ^talk 21:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The article was recently undeleted and relisted by Juliancolton because of this ANI discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it may be able to stand on its own, or merge back into the larger article. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balkanology[edit]

Article serving as an advertisement with no proof of notability. JaGa^talk 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real evidence of notability, appears to be advertising. There are some g-hits for the term, although the party usage is not prominent. --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is no place for drunk orgies... at least modern ones. NVO (talk) 06:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Gelli, Rhondda#Education. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gelli Primary School[edit]

Speedy denied Original author has made it unclear as to where this article is and has not improved article at all. Much important info is missing making this subject possibly unverifiable. I can't help but wonder if it would be non notable even if we could Postcard Cathy (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I believe the school is in Gelli, Rhondda, in Wales. They have a website and a blog. However I tend to agree that there is not likely to be sufficient independent coverage to make it a reasonably verifiable article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gelli, Rhondda#Education perusual practice. I have carried out the merge. TerriersFan (talk) 17:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gelli, Rhondda#Education per precedent. Cunard (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect merging only what can be sourced properly. JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lane hog[edit]

Wiki-dictionary material. Not encyclopedic. Not enough information to justify an article, and already exists on wiktionary. Questionable as to whether or not the issue is notable enough (might have references in popular use to justify definition, but not enough to justify a full article).

Also nominating road hog (driving) Shadowjams (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- Wiktionary at best. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as dicdefs, per nom. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily live with a redirect--but what's here to merge? Only some personal observation with a couple of wiki links, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect both to Aggressive driving (which needs a good cleanup) and maybe even combine that with Road rage. The different terms for types of aggressive driving are useful since someone may search for them. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both articles to Aggressive driving. tempodivalse [☎] 17:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Road hog (driving)[edit]

Wiki-dictionary material. Not encyclopedic. Not enough information to justify an article, and already exists on wiktionary. Questionable as to whether or not the issue is notable enough (might have references in popular use to justify definition, but not enough to justify a full article). Shadowjams (talk) 04:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also nominating lane hog
Delete dictionary definition, the phrase is unlikely to be notable enough as a subject. —Snigbrook 16:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lane hog

Delete both -- Wiktionary at best. J L G 4 1 0 4 04:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as dicdefs, per nom. Drmies (talk) 05:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dictionary entries, which belong in Wiktionary, per WP:NOT#DICT.--Michig (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect both to Aggressive driving (which needs a good cleanup) and maybe even combine that with Road rage. The different terms for types of aggressive driving are useful since someone may search for them. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both as LinguistAtLarge said. Redddogg (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Realistically, nobody is going to use "Road hog (driving)" as a search term and there's nothing worth merging. A pointer can placed on Road hog to Aggressive driving, but I see no benefit to keeping this article as a redirect.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect both to Aggressive driving. tempodivalse [☎] 17:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is more or less Wiktionary material...but if sources can be found to back it up, I say merge to Aggressive driving, which is an article that needs attention itself. _scootey ^talk 09:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete do not redirect this neologism. JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mulrunji[edit]

WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. The subject of this biographical article was involved in a series of unfortunate but newsworthy events that generated a fair bit of news coverage. However, he is still only notable for one event (his untimely death). Subsequent events following on from this are already well covered at 2004 Palm Island death in custody, leaving this obituary-style and not particularly neutral article redundant and unnecessary. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2004 Palm Island death in custody per nom and in line with the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Hurley. Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lankiveil and Nick. --Step hen 10:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2004 Palm Island death in custody. Insufficient notability to stand as a biographical article. WWGB (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination and per Nick-D. The incident is tragic and should be remembered, but Wikipedia should cover the event and not the person. The article on the subsequent riots covers the event adequately. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect and partial merge to Queen. OK, call me rouge for this if you want, but I read this AfD as follows: Those arguing "keep" note that the general topic of Queen bootlegs is interesting and sourced, while those advocating deletion consider the list of bootlegs to be unreferenced original research. We can accommodate both by merging the lead paragraph about Queen being the most bootlegged band ever to Queen and redirecting the page there. This means the list stays in the history and can be revived as a WP:SS article as soon as there is consensus and sufficient sources. Sandstein 05:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen bootlegs[edit]

Unreferenced Original Research. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, what a lovely indiscriminate list of unsource original research. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreferenced WP:LISTCRUFT, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Queen is one of the most bootlegged bands ever, according to their own website manager, as documented in Music Week. Bootleg recordings of Queen concerts have contributed to the band's popularity in Iran, according to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Queen bootlegs are notable, and a list of them, especially of the "Top 100 Bootlegs" that have been made officially available from the band, is appropriate here. DHowell (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notable bootlegs could be added to Queen (band), but this seems to be listcruft. It doesn't matter if particular bootlegs are well-known-- the subject of "Queen bootlegs" itself would have to be notable, and I don't see that at all here. FWIW, it's not some mysterious power of the bootlegs themselves that made Queen popular in Iran, it's the fact that Freddie Mercury was Parsi, I'm guessing... J L G 4 1 0 4 04:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable sources cited show that the subject of "Queen bootlegs" itself is notable. And it was the Fort Worth Star-Telegram that said that bootlegs contributed to Queen's success in Iran; while Freddie being Parsi may have contributed as well, it doesn't contradict the sourced claim that the bootlegs also contributed. DHowell (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a BBC News reference citing a 2001 survey showing that Queen had the highest number of bootleg websites (12,225) of any band. Queen bootlegs are undoubtedly notable. DHowell (talk) 08:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: ListCRUFT. Digg Translation: The Top 50 (or so) Most EPIC Pirated Queen Songs, EVER. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If some of the bootlegs were really notable, they could be merged to Queen (band). tempodivalse [☎] 14:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at least the points mentioned by DHowell (if not the whole list of bootlegs) to Queen (band) since the topic doesn't seem big enough for its own article. Leave this page as a redirect there since it's a likely search term and redirects are cheap. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an indiscriminate list of unsourced and independently unverified releases. TheClashFan (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've added sources for the 1973 recordings. All the rest are equally sourceable, but I'm not going to waste my time if this is going to be deleted. DHowell (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —DHowell (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to agree with Esradekan on this. A large indiscriminate list. Iam (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we don't need bootleg articles on every band, but Queen's certainly not every band. Bootlegs by bands like Queen were professionally made, sometimes with original artwork and people like Robert Plant were/are known to buy them. Today's college kids should know that bootlegs were far more important back in the days when there was no Youtube and no Internet for the public (see this and apparently this for more info). Even big magazines and newspapers wrote about bootleg releases and notability is not temporary. With some work this article could change to something similiar to The Beatles bootleg recordings. Is there a certain agenda going on these days to mass-nominate and delete articles related to 60s and 70s rock bands? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 07:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources given in the article (particularly the first three) indicate notability. As does the reasoning provided by HexaChord. I would prefer if some of the magazines/newspapers covering Queen bootlegs were referenced in the article, but I understand that 30 year old newspapers and magazines are generally not condusive to a Google search, and having lived through the 70s myself I know that such coverage existed. Rlendog (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only are there problems with listcruft, but the chief claim to notability comes from a statement from their website. We need independant sources to establish notability, and this article doesn't address why Queen bootlegs are notable, nor can I find any reliable sources which do the same. Them From Space 02:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any particular reason you don't think that BBC News and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram are reliable sources, or why the claims made by them aren't claims to notability? Or Music Week, where the "chief claim to notability" was actually documented, if you'd bother to look at the footnote? DHowell (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage isn't significant enough. There is a passing mention on BBC News, without anything to make an article out of other than one sentence. I'm not paying for the Star Telegram; but it appears to be more of the same; a one-sentence passing mention. Again, I can't see the Music Week publication. You're welcome to quote liberally from it, there's nothing within the abstract that talkes about bootleg recordings. It appears to be a paper on their reliance on emerging media. There's no way that they would actually rely on bootlegs, as they wouldn't get any profit from them. Them From Space 03:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 02:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Johnson[edit]

Unsourced BLP since 2006. Notability unclear. I am neutral. Black Kite 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP of writer with incredible claims, but no sources except for 3 external links, no proof of notability. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO. South Bay (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) to History of Eckankar. Having looked at the literature, his book certainly seems notable. Don't think we need a redirect. Ottre 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as G3. So Why 19:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickub[edit]

This article makes claims about the subject which are not confirmed by a Google or Google News search. I am bringing this to AfD to get second opinion confirmation that the article fails WP:BIO and might be a hoax. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax--Ice Cube's buddy? sold 10 million copies? and not a single hit on Google News? Drmies (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant hoax. Might have had a shot at fooling someone if they hadn't made outrageous claims. Founder member of NWA and sold 10 million albums? Okayyyyyyyyy. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:56, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as being unverifiable, and no mention in any reliable sources. Probable hoax. tempodivalse [☎] 14:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as blatant misinformation, fails the common sense test. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peruvians in the United Kingdom[edit]

Small group of people with no assertion of notability. All of the sourced material in this article is already covered at Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. These "Fooian Barian" articles, about people from country Foo living in country Bar, keep turning up and they very seldom consist of anything more than census data- and this one is no exception. Trivial intersections of groups of people like this one are not notable. Reyk _YO! 05:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On the other hand, we shouldn't assume that all such articles are crap. The author of this one, Stevvvv4444, is a longtime contributor whose articles about different communities in Britain have been pretty solid. Although there are some editors out there who crank out Fooian-Barian pages for their own amusement, Stevo has isn't one of them, concentrating instead on the UK. A good Fooian-Barian (or in this case, Peroovian-Baritian) article can be written, as witness Peruvian American. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of whether it is well written or not, the issue is notability. The article fails to establish why Peruvians in the UK are a notable group. Peruvian Americans are documented in plenty of scholarly research but I can't find the same for Peruvians in the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Latin American Briton#Peruvians, since the present sources (and those I found with a rather cursory search) don't indicate to me that the topic's notable enough for a separate article. Happy to reconsider if someone produces more sources. Also, several points to Mandsford for the Foobar pun! Olaf Davis (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully understand why the article has been nominated due lack of content and what you see as relevance, however many other articles about such communities have managed to expand succesfully. An example being Bolivians in the United Kingdom, the population of this group of people is much less than the number of Peruvians in the UK, I am sure much more information could be found to add to this article. I have tried improving many other such articles, such as Colombians in the United Kingdom. I more or less changed this [36] to this [37] all by myself, I would appreciate some help with possible source material as well as edits to this culturally significant articles. Thanks. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of those subjects turned out to have potential sources, which were used to expand them. If I was aware of such sources for this article, I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the understanding that the article creator is serious about expanding it into a full article, taking in good faith assertions that sources are likely to be present in the finished product. I'm normally wary about giving AfD candidates more time (usually they stay crap afterwards) but this is an exception. Should no sources be added, we can always re-nominate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: as requested, I've had another look at the article, and I'm sticking with Weak Keep for now. This article does now contain encyclopedic information, but a lot of it is statistical information from the census and much of the rest is general information applying to South America in general. Nevertheless, this does have a place somewhere in Wikipedia, the only question is whether it should be this article or another article. Since a merger in this case is complicated enough to warrant a discussion in its own right, I think this AfD should be closed and anyone who wants a merger can propose that separately. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep to give him some time as requested, with the possibility of renomination in a few months if it doesn't turn out possible to expand as hoped. JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: as requested, I have also had another look and am sticking with Weak Keep, my reason being exactly the same as Chris Neville-Smith's just above (thanks, Chris, for putting it so well!) JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is encyclopedic and an established editor has asked for time to expand the material, WP:DEADLINE. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also had a another look; the article has improved and the sources are enough to establish general notability. J^mundo 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmundo. --dicttrshp (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have already cleaned up the population section, expanded it and introduced more sources. Whilst in general improving the layout and citations of the article. I have also added a section about culture. I would appreciate any feed backs, and would like to know whether this is enough for the deletion tag to be removed or if more work is needed. If these changes are not seen a sufficient, I strongly suggest you take a look at the opposite of this article British Peruvians which has even fewer information, no sources at all, yet no ones seems to have cited it as a problem. Thanks Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article has been improved (and well done for that, Stevvvv) the fact that most of the sources are about Latin America in general rather than Peru leaves me still of the opinion that while Latin American Briton is a sufficiently notable topic for its own article, Peruvians in the United Kingdom is not. The only sources that are specifically about Peru are the CIA page (which doesn't mention Britain at all) and the Peru Earthquake wiki which looks distinctly unlike a reliable source.

But, since the AfD only needs to decide about deletion and not merging, I'll leave this here for now and move to the article's talk page. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has been significantly expanded since the AfD nomination --Cyfal (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made since the nomination per WP:AFTER and precedent set for inclusion of this type of article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Latin Americans in the United Kingdom. Topic is so narrow that having its own article seems daft. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Like a Whale[edit]

Non-notable band. Outside of an article in a college newspaper, there is no independent media confirmation of the band's notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't meet general notability or the notability criteria for bands. One local ref doesn't establish either. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--utterly fails WP:Music. A MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CSD G7. The only author has blanked the article, indicating an author request speedy deletion. Given that, and the concerns above, this should be speedied. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our criteria for notability or WP:BAND. tempodivalse [☎] 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Great band name though. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 08:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete - two reasons, G4 per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mirror,_Mirror_(Desperate_Housewives) and G12 (copyvio from [38]) Black Kite 10:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror, mirror (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

The article had originally been deleted - several users had come to the agreement that it wasn't notable, and the deleted article had been semi-protected to prevent recreation from .. a certain user. Now that the protection is gone, the user has subsequently felt the need to recreate the article. The article has no notability, no significance, and doesn't follow any manual of style. -- A ^talk/_contribs 02:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Episodes of popular TV series like Desperate Housewives are inherently notable. The article could probably stand some improvement, but I don't see how this meets the criteria for deletion. — Jake Wartenberg 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Per Sarilox—the only substantive part of the article is a copyvio, without that, it certainly meets the deletion guidelines. — Jake Wartenberg 15:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt permanently- Does this qualify for speedy deletion as a recreation of a previously deleted article? Since it fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N it's pretty clear that there's been no attempt to rectify the problems that led to it being deleted the first time. Reyk _YO! 05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this individual episode still does not demonstrate notability as it did first time around. JamesBurns (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Reyk. It appears that this article was recreated under a slightly different capitalization. Perhaps both should be salted. The plot has also been copied from ABC. Sarilox (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. Beforehand, it was "Mirror, Mirror". -- A ^talk/_contribs 15:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CSD G12. ~~Keep per Jake. This probably has a potential of becoming a good article, but the plot summary should definitely be trimmed.~~ —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails our notability guidelines and is a copyvio as well, so might be speedy deletable per CSD G12. tempodivalse [☎] 00:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPeedy delete this bad faith recreation.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by User:Athaenara WP:CSD#G11 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edu text links[edit]

Spam for a spamming platform. No evidence of notability. Sgroupace (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per either ((db-web)) or ((db-spam)) (I think it fits both). So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latter Day Church of Jesus Christ[edit]

Group fails WP:N and the few references provided fail WP:RS. The group is too small and obscure that it is impossible to find any reliable sources to verify the veracity of any information. All we have is a first-party blog site and a few youtube videos uploaded by the group showing three or four persons at the most. Hosting the article in this state does nothing but advertise the group hence amounting to WP:ADS. Shannon Rose (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without additional sources, this would seem to fail WP:ORG. The sources definitely do not meet WP:RS, as most of them are blog entries, and the Yahoo group has exactly 2 postings, both of them being the same press release as is featured in the blog sources. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Information about the group will be published in the new edition of Steven Shields's book (listed in the references). That book was expected last year, but still has not been published and the date as it stands now is unknown, possibly won't be until 2010. Which leaves us with nothing as far as RS goes, really. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this page should be kept, as it gives further information about this new group of the church. Matthew Philip Gill is the leader of that new organization and that makes him notable. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. The existence of multiple sources independent of him by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that document him in depth, would be what would make him notable. It's the same criterion that is being applied to this subject. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not meet WP:RS and WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If thais article does not meet WP:RS or WP:ORGstandards,then these other pages should also be proposed for deletion Whitfield Parish Glossop Derbyshire Village Mission Church of Jesus Christ (Bullaite). Please let me know if multiple pages can be added to this discussion. thanks. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. That's the long-since-debunked "If article X then article Y." argument. Those pages should be nominated for deletion if they, on their own merits, do not satisfy the sourcing and notability criteria. And of course a nominator should make the proper efforts to find out whether they do, in fact, fail to satisfy those criteria, before nomination, per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do, and others. Uncle G (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G ' I do understand what you are explaining because I read it in the Wikipedia rules. But still I have mentioned those articles because I searched in the Internet and also read them, and they have the same paramenters as the one in this discussion. Therefore my question still stands, if I can nominate those for the same reason in this discussion. I received an explanation from user Shanon Rose that it is posible to do so, and she provided a link which explain how to do it but,still not sure if it could be included here.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi, may I please answer your question? No, they cannot be included here. If you want to nominate them for deletion then you have to create an AfD for each one of them. – Shannon Rose (talk) 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bundling multiple different subjects into one AFD discussion invariably results in a train wreck of a discussion. If you've done the research and, based upon its results, come to the conclusion that those subjects, on their own merits, do not satisfy the sourcing and notability criteria, then you are welcome to nominate them. But separate discussions from this one are the way to go. And make sure that you explain what you found when you went looking for sources, so that your nomination (a) is useful and (b) makes a good case that has a strong foundation in deletion policy. Uncle G (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Shannon Rose (talk) 02:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott ^Weave 04:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and full of unverifiable information. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if deleted, redirect to the LDS article, as plausible misconception of the name. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 08:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's hard to judge whether this has made news outside of blogs, because Matthew Gill and Philip Gill turn up other people as well, and there seem to be no news hits on "Matthew Philip Gill". I don't see any proof that this has attracted notice for those of us who aren't associated with the "Latter Latter Day Church" Mandsford (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'll admit that I am looking for a reason to keep this article (identifiable communities like splinter religious sects should be notable), but after looking at this article from several different angles, I can't help but suspect this is nothing more than a single congregation of (at most) a few dozen people with limited name recognition even in their home town. Thus it is indistinguishable from a case of self-promotion. -- llywrch (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as notability is not established. Should notability later be established, article can be recreated then. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nom withdrawn -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Argentine football rivalries[edit]

I belive that this is an unreferenced, indiscriminate list, and there is no indication as to why these particular football rivalries are notable. Any relevant content is already covered by the well-established Major football rivalries article; if notable content is not covered, then it perhaps should be. Giant Snowman 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for exactly the same reason:

Giant Snowman 01:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - (As the editor that removed the Proposed deletion from the five pages) I believe that being unreferenced is not a valid reason for deletion, and that Football rivalries in Argentina‎ is partially referenced anyway. That proding and then AfDing a number of non-British lists and leaving Local derbies in the United Kingdom looks like anglo-centrism. That much of the content of these articles is not covered by the Major football rivalries article (which seems to less descriminate than the proposed articles, having no definition of "major" and no inclusion criteria at all, not even presumed geographic location) and would be deleted. That sourced lists by nationality with clear incusion criteria (such as must have been played between fully professional teams from said country) would be consistent with WP:LIST and useful to the encyclopaedia by providing better information on football rivalries doing so in more detail in a more structured format than the Major football rivalries article (by nationality, rather than in alphabetical order by continent on a POV list without inclusion criteria) allowing the reader to learn about rivalries that are played between clubs that have articles but for which no article about their rivalry exists. For navigation because lists such as these are a better navigational tool than a category because they give an overview of the rivalries and helps the reader to determine which are the most "important" or "relevant" to them for development because they allow the reader/editor to see which derbies and teams already have their own primary article an which don't and to develop the missing ones.King of the North East 02:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page of the nominated article, the reason I haven't nominated the UK article – and I did consider doing so – is because it doesn't have any of the problems that the others do; namely, it is organised, discriminate and well referenced. None of the five I have nominated for deletion meet ANY of these three criteria. Giant Snowman 02:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an admission that you believe that these articles could be kept if sufficiently improved, with better organisation and references, if this is the case perhaps exploring some of the options at Alternatives to deletion such as tagging the articles with ((cleanup)), ((wikify)) and ((unreferenced)) / ((refimprove)) or even by making improvements to the articles yourself would have been better. I say this because two of your given reasons for deletion (unreferenced and disorganised) are included in Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and the Major football rivalries article seems to be less discriminate than the proposed articles. The debate should be about whether the concept of football rivalries by nationality articles are consistent with wikipedia policy, not a judgement of how good or bad specific articles are in terms of references/organisation. King of the North East 02:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the articles have already been tagged for improvement/references, but no effort has been made to do so. However, if you can make a promise (cheesy as that sounds) that you will undertake to improve the articles to the standard of Local derbies in the United Kingdom or Football rivalries in Argentina‎ (which, upon a review of the page, is referenced and explains what makes the rivalries it details notable, and so I am removing it from this nomination), then I am happy to withdraw the nomination for now. Giant Snowman 02:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I just tagged them half an hour ago, how quikly am I expected to work? I can't promise to make such improvements immediately since I already have a huge list of projects to work on, I have commitments outside Wikipedia and the onus should not just be on me to improve these articles. King of the North East 02:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you tagged them? In that case, ignore me. But to be honest, I still have my doubts about the uses of seperate, country-specific lists. For example, France only has three seperate articles - listed in Category:French football derbies - and none of those articles are referenced either. I'm going to wait until the morning before deciding to withdraw or not, to allow input in the debate from other editors and WP:FOOTBALL members, and to see what a vague consenus is. Giant Snowman 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally feel that the major football rivalries article is bloated (122kb), POV (no definition of "major") and clearly anglo-centric, because of its inclusion of English lower league rivalries such as Bristol Rovers vs Bristol City and ommission of hugely important rivalries (from an Argentine perspective) such as Rosario Central vs Newell's Old Boys (9 national championships between them). It is too long and indescriminate and should be broken up by region/nationality (as per the rule of thumb guide at Wikipedia:Article size) leaving a list of only the truly major derbies, say between teams that have at least both won a national league championship). King of the North East 03:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you've persuaded me, I withdraw the nomination. Do I need to do anything or will a helpful admin pop along & close it for me? Giant Snowman 12:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - seems fair enough to separate football rivalries by the nation or league that the rivalries are based in. Aside from the size aspect, rivalries in some countries have different aspects to others (eg the sectarianism issues in Scotland, or the political background to some of the rivalries in Spain).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmorrison230582 (talk • contribs)
Speedy close Nomination withdrawn. Mandsford (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyPadlock Password Manager[edit]

Software with no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Quick Google search turns up no secondary sources other than freeware download sites. eaolson (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom. This one's an easy call. — Jake Wartenberg 03:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not asserted. tempodivalse [☎] 17:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. Postoak (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ad. Possibly a G11 speedy. Them From Space 19:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Smith's Snackfood Company. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chipsticks[edit]

Declining db-spam and taking to AfD; I think consensus is that this isn't what db-spam is for, but let me know if I'm wrong. None of the first 50 ghits strike me as reliable. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 01:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Purely in terms of the topic, not this incarnation of the article... I'm a little bemused that we consider crisp brands notable, but a quick flick through the category suggests we do - Frazzles, Hula Hoops, Salt 'n' Shake. I think my brain will try and dribble out of my ears if I do a relative study of their notability, though I suppose Frazzles & Chipsticks occupy the same "starchy, crumbly & artificial" niche... Shimgray | talk | 02:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same criterion as everywhere else: In-depth coverage by multiple independent sources that are by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. Bear in mind that, even though some people create articles on an "If article X then article Y." basis, the existence of an article neither indicates that other subjects are automatically notable or that a category of subjects is automatically notable, and "If article X then article Y." is a long-debunked and fallacious argument. Notability is not a blanket.
  Are Hula Hoops notable? Yes, because multiple instances of in-depth reliable coverage can be found (such as pages 72–73 of ISBN 9781592530069, for starters, which goes into such details as the name of the person who designed the packaging for the re-branding as "Shocks") and there are other sources that add further non-directory information (such as ISBN 9780748760848, which states how much money was spent on "Hoopy McHula").
  The question of whether Chipsticks is notable is answered in the same way: by determining whether multiple such independent in-depth reliable sources exist. We don't look for blankets. We look for sources.
  Sometimes one will be bemused. But it's bemusement as to the unexpected subjects that turn out to be extensively studied and documented in sources by the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've been reading deletion discussions for the same many years you have, don't worry, I know how we do this :-)
    I was not making a "long-debunked and fallacious argument" to argue the topic was notable; rather, I wanted to provide some context for someone who might find it useful it in order to reach an opinion. Logic dictates that if one brand of [horrific-tasting British maize-based snackfood sold in small bags to children] is found notable, another one is probably likely to be found in the same sources, discussed in the same way, and so looking at the comparable material is a good point to begin. Shimgray | talk | 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't think that you were making it. I was pointing out that the people who created this article, or other articles, might have employed it, which is why those other articles aren't really relevant here except as examples of how unexpected things like Hula Hoops can be found documented in sources (with information that our article, sadly, lacks, moreover). Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep or Merge to either The Smith's Snackfood Company or Walkers (it's a bit vague as to which one counts as the parent company). Chipsticks are sufficiently widespread in the UK to warrant a mention somewhere (but not details of nutritional information). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Smith's did not invent these things. I'd note that we don't currently have an article about what are called in the U.S. "potato sticks" and in the U.K. "chipsticks", though they are mentioned in Potato chip # similar foods. An article would be welcome-- for anyone who has ever tried these uber-greasy sticks, it is well known that they are not at all similar to potato chips, and most definitely are not a food. Mandsford (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a problem. See below. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Smith's Snackfood Company. Warrants its own article only if there's more to say than this one unreferenced paragraph. --Oscarthecat (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a problem. First of all, there appear to be several names out there. Products named "chipsticks" appear to have been sold, at one point in time, by The Smith's Snackfood Company, Walkers, KP Snacks, and Tayto. But there aren't enough sources, and the sources that mention these names don't go into anywhere near sufficient depth, to clear up the confusion as to whether this is one subject or many. Second, these products aren't necessarily made from potato. Several shopping catalogues carefully describe them as "Maize and Potato Snacks", for example. The Chipsticks sold by Awafi Foodstuff Industries Co. L.L.C. in the United Arab Emirates are "Extruded Corn Snacks", for another example.
It's really not clear that there's a single "Chipsticks" subject here, that these products are all necessarily the same, or that there's a single redirect target to be had. Uncle G (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 15:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Andrews (musician)[edit]

There is no real claim of notability under WP:MUSICBIO here, and I can't find any decent sources. The only one of the sources offered that is independent and reliable (the Google Books link) is just a few sentences saying how little there is to be said about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination, ~~its also WP:COPYVIO from here [39]~~ Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies,no its not WP:COPYVIO, didnt realise that site's a mirror Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Haig[edit]

Unnotable. The article can only be traced on derivations of this article or list pages such as freebase, maporado or Zimbabweprop. It may even be a hoax inclusion on such pages. Even on these pages it refers only to a farm. Babakathy (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm sure this isn't a hoax: User:Editorofthewiki created the article, and he tends to work from databases, government census data, etc. I'd forward this to him and see if we can come up with a references or several to sort out if this is supposed to be Haig farm or what. T L Miles (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haig as per your link is in Mashonaland East and Cape Haig is allegedly in Mashonaland West per the article. It is also a farm, not a settlement and unlikely to be notable. Babakathy (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: I'm not proposing this: it was listed in the discussion on the talk page of the article, and seems a reasonable starting point if you accept this is not a hoax but a case of confusion in a gazetteer or database. It would be nice to do some research here to see if this is a valid topic or not, and what if any of it is incorrect. T L Miles (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is a property for sale website zimbabweprop.com that has a linke for Cape Haig, but alas no listings and no indication whether it refers to a town or village (notable), or merely a farm, development, or condo complex (not). In either event, I wouldn't regard this as a hoax, but I would like the creator to chime in with some sourcing - which is really the responsibility of the those wanting to keep the article to show that it is WP:V. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sites freebase, maporado and Zimbabweprop have the same list of "towns", but no sources or other information. It is quite possible that insertion of a "town" into one list leads to the others picking it up. Babakathy (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Until some source is offered. Not to sound from the cabal, but... Ceranllama chat post 12:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NorthgateArinso[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable company, and on the wrong side of the advertising border. 9Nak (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete everything I can find on it is press releases, which aren't independant sources. Them From Space 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly far too promotional. — Jake Wartenberg 03:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- article is quite promotional, and the only sources I could find were press releases -- not reliable, third party sources. tempodivalse [☎] 00:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Worst Pies in London (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

There won't be an episode with this name. It was an April fool's day hoax by this site [40]. JayFS89 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The link doesn't back up the claim. I'll ask for better proof. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of sources which list the name: [41], [42]. SilkTork *^YES! 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no evidence of this (WP:V) and apparently no press releases about it or suchlike (WP:CRYSTAL). The two links provided above may well have added their information from Wikipedia, since 11 days have passed in since creation and no date is attached to them. They only article in the series that links to this one is also up for deletion Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Greg. This episode is certainly not WP:N if we don't even know whether or not it exists. Sarilox (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love (La Toya Jackson single)[edit]

This is an obvious violation of WP:Crystal. No official references are on Jackson's official website or anywhere else. -- 97.102.151.47 (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability yet to be established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this were about a song by hit recording artist (say Fall Out Boy or Miley Cyrus), it would still be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, but the likelihood of a LaToya Jackson single passing WP:NSONGS, even after being released, is about slim to none (and Slim done left town). TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side show pizza[edit]

I feel that being a party in a notable legal case is at least a plausible claim of notability, so I have declined the speedy deletion request on this article. However, I'm not sure that the article is really notable enough, so I am taking it to AFD. Danaman5 (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference for the Supreme Court finding is Commonwealth v. Irwin, 636 A.2d 1106 (Pa. 1993). Because the finding was in 1993 it is difficult to locate an online document, however, doing a Google search for "Commonwealth v. Irwin, 636 A.2d 1106 (Pa. 1993)" will return multiple cases where this ruling is being cited. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I have added the Supreme Court reference to the article. This should satisfy notability. --Bblboy54 (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. The _lawsuit_ is definitely notable, and I think we should have an article on it; however, I'm not sure that's sufficent grounds for the arcade to be notable in its own right. We _do_ have an article on John Geddes Lawrence, although it's flagged for non-notability; this is a similar case. Perhaps renaming the article to Commonwealth v. Irwin and changing the emphasis would be a possibility? Tevildo (talk) 08:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite - In this usage, a court case is being used as a WP:PRIMARY source, as it is instigated by the subject of the Article and simply a record of events. If the Article was rewritten about the Law and pointing out its notability, it could then mention the Wylie Irwin case as a Cite.Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating an article for Com v Irwin is a great idea and something that I will try to work on but even in the case of having that article, I think it is still beneficial to have a page for Side Show Pizza with a reference to the new Com v Irwin page and a reference back. --Bblboy54 (talk) 20:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would still be using the court case as a Primary source for the Side Show Pizza Article. Think of it this way, if the local troublemaker gets 45 days in jail, is the legal record of the judges order, alone enough to make him WP:Notable? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterness (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'm tagging this one for sure. All DH episodes have song titles as episodes and this one doesn't have a song to go with it. Sourced from a Tripod page, and to article creator AdamDeanHall; wait until the episode airs to create an article. Don't do it on speculation and certainly never, ever from a source that is not backed by a major media organization. Also, there's only 22 episodes in a season for the average American series. You should know that as well as anybody (this is advertised as a 23rd episode).Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL (but, note to Nate: according to its article, DH series 1 - 3 did have 23 regular episodes each, plus specials). JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Apologies then; the WGA strike's aftereffects apparently added on those episodes and I haven't noted it until now (a few other series are going over 22 this year I realize). Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Desperate Housewives (season 5) says that this episode is "TBA" and there are no sources on it. Hence WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. No articles related to the series link here. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piagentini[edit]

No notability, personal research for a family which is like thousands other ones; a genealogical tree has been self-enquiried by RiccardoP1983.[44], also autor of the italian version.

Are they related to each other? Is this more an article about a name or about a family?
What about this embleme? They are not in the italian libro d'Oro
Last but not least;What did they? They just "merited the highest consideration and esteem". Absolutely not enough.

--Invitamia (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there's an article such as Names in the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and CIS countries for Italian names, I might say redirect to that. But short of that, I see no reason to think this particular surname merits an article, especially since the article mentions no one with that name that's notable enough for their own article. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 23:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Invitamia (talk) 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorka De Duo[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:Creative. Although the subject is a working artist with many exhibitions to date, a google search brings up no results outside of self published blogs and this article, which as the creation of a single purpose account is likely also autobiographical. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found a (feeble) source for one of his efforts, or two -- or maybe even three. Though actually I suspect that these are just three ways of writing the same thing, so it's not impressive. -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. I see nothing as notable and there are no refs to support. Artypants, ^Babble 12:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This is now a redirect so any discussion on its deletion should take place on WP:RFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of generations, 1900-present[edit]

These terms are inherently loosely and inconsistently defined by authors who use them, and there is no source that establishes them as a concrete and cohesive series as purported by this article. The sources given do not meet WP:RS as reliable sources, and in any event references can't be used to back up these definitions because, as I said, different references use different definitions, or else they concede that the boundaries are vague. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These generations do not have clear boundaries, no, but generally speaking, they last around 15 years and average in those spans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwnera (talk • contribs) 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The author found there was already an article called List of generations and redirected his article there, which is fine. (He also then deleted the contents of that article and redirected it to another article he created, called List of cultural generations, 1900 to present. I wrote to him to tell him about article duplication and about deleting existing material. Then I restored the previous List of generations and his redirected title to it.) —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These articles have long been a problem, because there are a number of overlapping terms, with various incompatible definitions. But all of them are used, and need discussion. The attempts of some writers to make a formal scheme of them is only one way of thinking of them. DGG (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do not have to have absolutely determinative and clear boundaries. Neither does the Bermuda Triangle:"The boundaries of the Triangle vary with the author". These "generations" have been recognized by scholars and by writers for major magazines as a way of characterizing how, say, children born to WW2 veterans (Baby Boomers) were different in their values or career paths from those born years later, such as the "Generation X." Edison (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't arguing that the terms aren't worthy of discussion. I was arguing that the author's attempt to write an article that holds them out as a systematically and objectively defined, lockstep series is invalid. But as I noted above, it doesn't matter now, because it turns out an article covering this topic already existed, so this one is now a redirection to that one. No merger was called for because the new article had no new information. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete As this is now a redirect it is doing little harm. This is definitely NOT a reflection on List of generations (which would be a strong keep). Mark Hurd (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cox (clergyman)[edit]

Horribly confused BLP, unsourced since 2006, which appears to make a number of vague claims to notability, but is altogether unclear. WP:BIO also makes no reference to notability levels for clergy. BLP cleanup - I am neutral. Black Kite 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding much to back up the claims in the article. If the events were such big news headlines, should be easier to find. Not seeing much notability. Gigs (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and overhaul. Theo's information has convinced me. I did remove a slice of the article that was very out of place. I think the article can be salvaged, but it needs lots of work. Gigs (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google News search turns up a good chunk of information on the subject: [45]. The article requires better editing and referencing, and it passes WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Pastor Theo. Edward321 (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grounders[edit]

Article about a non-notable playground game that is completely unreferenced and only explains the rules of the game without explaining why it is notable. Fails WP:NOTHOWTO, borderline WP:NFT. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanfromthenorth (talk • contribs) 18:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be a redirect to Tag (game), but as observed there when it was erased from that article, there were no accompanying sources. Searching, I cannot find any sources documenting this even as a simple alternative name for Tag (game), let alone as a game in its own right, so there's nothing to support even restoring that original redirect here. The only things that even mention it are outdated mirrors on the WWW of Tag (game), which has suffered greatly from original research problems over the years (see its edit history). The only things that grounders appear to really be, according to what sources say, are ground balls in baseball. This is unverifiable. Delete, or redirect to batted ball, according to taste. Uncle G (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any source for this version, either - the only game I could find was basically hide-and-seek in the dark with flashlights, quite different form this. JohnCD (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourceable, failing WP:V. Reads like just another playground game that has not received any coverage beyond the people who play it. ~ mazca ^t|c 19:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tarkio (band)[edit]

No references, fails WP:MUSIC Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or redirect/merge with The Decemberists. Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, one rated review at Allmusic; [46], and another at Pitchfork Media; [47] for the album Omnibus means it meets WP:MUSIC#C1 for multiple non-trivial published works. While I will be the first to agree that Colin Meloy is better known for his work with The Decemberists, I reckon there is enough to warrant a stand alone article. If the commumitty doesn't agree I then reckon add the ref's from above, and merge the lot into the Colin Meloy#Musical career section. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe those sources are valid for establishing notability. Dlabtot (talk) 01:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Allmusic & Pitchfork are considered as credible published materials, with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the context of music. Both are written by staff writers, and are therefore independent of the subject. The subject is completely about the band or their works, and thus isn't trivial. There are 2 of them, and thus multiple mentions. To me that is the exact definition of WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been extensive discussions of allmusic at WP:RSN. I do consider them a fairly reliable source for information, but they are not a traditional source that publishes only about notable musicians or recordings. They do indeed strive to cover ALL MUSIC, and therefore an appearance there is not an indication of notability. My opinion of pitchfork is not as well informed so I will leave that discussion to others. Dlabtot (talk) 03:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so, (re. the discussions aboot Allmusic), but until such time as people stop talking about it, and actually do something, Allmusic still stands as a reliable source per Wikipedia:Music#Resources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchfork Media is pretty much the grand poobah of indie music journalism. Additionally, Metacritic [48] indicates a review from Spin, but I don't know if it's substantial or just a mini-blurb of a review. Poechalkdust (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Really quite notable, with plenty of coverage if one digs deep enough, ranging from substantial coverage to briefer mentions - plenty to allow a decently-sourced article: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]--Michig (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Those mostly aren't~~ None of those links are coverage of the band Tarkio, they are reviews of the retrospective Omnibus. There were a lot of reviews of Omnibus, and it is true that a fraction of them were published in reliable sources. However, a careful examination of those reviews will support the notion that Tarkio's only claim to notability is the fact that the frontman went on to greater success with The Decemberists. Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, reviews of a band's work are coverage of the band, and the band has sufficient claim to notability as they have received significant coverage in reliable sources. Criterion 1 of WP:MUSIC is satisfied by the coverage and the Decembrists link also passes criterion 6. The information in the article could be merged into Colin Meloy, but there is probably enough to be said about the band to make a separate article justified. A discussion of whether the content should be merged is a separate matter to whether it should be deleted. Merge or not, the subject of the article is sufficiently encyclopedic to be included here.--Michig (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claus Frein[edit]

Created a few utilities and a game, which itself doesn't seem very notable. Vossanova ^o< 14:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete unless evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources can be found. I was unable to find any such coverage in English, and while this is by no means definitive, I note that de.wikipedia does not have an article on Frein, the 'demo crew' he was a member of, or the game on which both articles hang their hats. Maralia (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable biography. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Smitty (talk) 01:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Heights[edit]

Unnotable. The article can only be traced on derivations of this article or list pages such as freebase, maporado or Zimbabweprop. It may even be a hoax inclusion on such pages. It is certainly not a town per the Zimbabwean definition. Babakathy (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything about this in google or google books. Fails WP:V. Also seems to fail common sense test - seems unlikely a town of this name exists in Zimbabwe. Most town names seem to be in indigenous languages. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment same as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cape Haig. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

As with the Cape Haig AFD, delete until sourcing is offered. Ceranllama chat post 12:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Beef Loco[edit]

This article fails the Notability Test. Its one source is IMDB, which isn't reliable, because it can be edited by its users. The article even admits it. There's no reason why Wikipedia should have articles on Xavier episodes. The question isn't if this will be deleted, but when.TBone777 (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If that's the case put a WP:PROD on it instead of AfD...... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. Completely unnotable episode that fails WP:N for having its own article, but a likely redirect target and the episode list plot summaries are rather pathetic. Clean up this one's, cull it down to the appropriate 300 word limit, and merge it in. Rinse repeat for the rest (IMHO) as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. No evidence that this can be improved beyond its violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn by Jennavecia; no !votes for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olga Pikhienko[edit]

I'm not sure that this unreferenced BLP meets WP:ENTERTAINER. She has appeared in two Cirque du Soleil productions, one opposite the lead, and performed in other circuses; however, I'm not sure that's particularly notable. (By comparison, other CdS performer bios have clear claims to notability.) Awards are for "International Festival", which I think is the Paris Festival? Search didn't turn up much. It's been tagged for notability issues since December 2007 with no improvements.

If circus performances count as stage performances, then this is probably a keep. However, that doesn't appear to be the current standard. Looking through the first few pages of the Google search didn't pull up anything that I would consider RS. Mostly fan reviews, blogs, social networking sites and videos. لenna vecia 16:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Circus performances of the type Cirque Du Soleil does are just as notable as any stage performance. The only relevant question is how important her role was in the production. We already have one female leading credit listed. Together with the medals that is notable. That "no one is working on it" as said by Kevin, is not a valid reason for deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's a BLP left unsourced for more than a year is, particularly when reliable sources don't appear to be available outside of, perhaps, sourcing her CdS roles. لenna vecia 11:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found what sources I could. Pretty much just the CdS site. I found a NYT article that listed her as being in the cast, but she wasn't mentioned in the article itself. I can't find anything on these competitions in English. The one page that seemed official was too large for Google to translate. They are not part of the Gymnastics World Championships, which are listed at WP:ENTERTAINER. I did correct the name, however. I'm really not finding anything that indicates she's notable. We're talking literally less than a handful of reliable sources to be pulled from Google, and mostly from one website; and I seriously doubt there's anything in print. لenna vecia 13:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found these google news hits, so I think it's probably best I withdraw this AFD. لenna vecia 04:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Condor Trilogy[edit]

There are already list of characters pages for each of the individual novels. See List of characters from The Legend of the Condor Heroes, List of characters from The Return of the Condor Heroes and List of characters from The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber. This page is therefore redundant. Redclifffan (talk) 13:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete the three pages seem to cover it much better, and this adds no significant information.. (Am I correct that the characters do not in general overlap--if they did, the proper solution would be more complicated.) DGG (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the other three lists do the job just fine. However, I would not mind a disambiguation page à la List of Stargate characters to give guideance on where to find the right character list quickly. But the current article title is not a common search term to justify a move&dabbify. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete confusing content fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant information is added here. JBsupreme (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TGT (group)[edit]

This group does not have any independent notability, and their album was never released. Normally I would merge it instead, but I wouldn't know whether to merge it to the Ginuwine, Tank or Tyrese article. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the group not having released an album, they received a fair amount of media coverage, including entire articles about the trio in the Los Angeles Times, the Los Angeles Sentinel, and Jet. I've added six references just now. The article's subject meets the general notability guideline, or WP:BAND criterion #1, so I suggest keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a little better, but are any of those sources verifiable? I mean, they do all claim to come from magazines and newspapers that are years old and whose issues don't appear to be accessible via the internet. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They're not available via the Internet. To "verify" them, one might have to resort to other means. :) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ...Which once again points to WP:V. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I might be missing your point...? Sources do not have to be on the Internet to be considered appropriate reliable sources according to WP:V. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It would certainly help though. JamesBurns (talk) 05:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - With some more careful searching, I was able to find a few links to articles and have now added them. If either of you has questions about the Sentinel article, please let me know and I can look it up in my library's database again. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In that case, I withdraw the nomination. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Longo[edit]

While the roles mentioned could be construed as claims of notability to skip CSD, none of the sources I found on Google or Google News were related or reliable. (For the moment, I'm not looking at the promotional tone of the entry and I'll assume that if he turns out notable, that it is an issue that can be fixed) Delete Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant coverage. Not there yet; most significant role is as a supporting actor in a TV movie. Maralia (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to the author without prejudice. I addressed the promotional tone of the article with a light sandblasting and copyedit for style. However, I am in agreement with the nom that the one role and a handful of student films and theater have not given enough to show any notability. This fellow needs a few more years of seasoning and he'll likley meet the inclusion criteria.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Alex Sánchez (author). MBisanz ^talk 00:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bait (novel)[edit]

Article gives no indication why it is notable. (but novels can't be speedied for that) Says something about the plot without providing much context and since it is not coming out until June, I believe any sort of speculation on whether the book should have an article would be too early. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too crystal bally at this point. Support redirect to author Alex Sánchez (author), who has done well enough that the book could be notable through him. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doree Shafrir[edit]

Fails notability. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable editor. feydey (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I'm closing this early, as it is becoming fast apparent that we won't obtain a consensus to delete at this time. I recommend to re-evaluate the situation in a few weeks when this situation is entirely resolved and no longer headline news. This does not preclude discussion about a possible consensus-based merger to the appropriate article about the event. Sandstein 10:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Phillips (captain)[edit]

As much as I hate to do this, Captain Richard Philips fails WP:ONEEVENT, he only has an article here now becuase of the media attention surrounding the attempted capture of the freighter and his surrender to the Somalian pirates in exchange for his crew's safety. Therefore, I believe the article should of either be deleted or redirect and protected until this whole fiasco sorts itself out. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Keep! I'm a Brit.Wikipedida is one of my first port of calls when i try to look at a background to a news item. its useful. John Ellero[reply]

Delete and salt TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV_Maersk_Alabama#Hijacking. Known for one event, but a plausible search term. JJL (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. WP:ONEEVENT seems inconsistenly enforced. See Chesley Sullenberger. Although WP:ONEEVENT is part of a hard policy, the subject's potential notability as part of a historical event (the first successful pirate attack on a US-flagged ship in months? years?) argues against hasty deletion. (JJL's suggestion about redirect is a good fallback. -- Gnoitall (talk) 00:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that this is an important current event though I may be personally bias due to my connections with the captain. Sanitas (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.243.201 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Possibly important enough. I think to delete the article while the event is so unresolved is a rush to judgment. DGG (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fore Now and maybe later - He is the focus of an international incident, although a lessor profile than Terry A. Anderson. Dinkytown 03:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete but merge into the article about the attack. The attack is the notable incident as per all the WP:RS at this time (this provides some distinction with the Sullenberger article, although I will not push that point any further). The thing about WP:OneEvent is not so much that it gives a definite answer as to the article's notability, but that it protects otherwise non-public individual biographies from veering off topic. This is a prime example. What is notable per the standards is the attack, not necessarily the individual, and any of the relevant information can be easily, and more coherently discussed in the parent attack article, rather than in this article. Shadowjams (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly any other crew member of the ship would fall foul of WP:ONEEVENT, but Phillips has a major role in this major event. Over The Desk (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Maerske Alabama article - and create a redirect 'Alabama hijacking' to that as well (Maerske not being an easy word for some...). Captain Phillips's actions are part of the whole thing. If he does it again on another occasion, a separate article would probably be justified. Peridon (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ONEEVENT and BLP concerns. Skinny87 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV Maersk Alabama, the article is way too short. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Somali pirates fired at a U.S. ship. His one event could end up leading to a lot more. Jonathan321 (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redir to MV Maersk Alabama - at the moment its a ONEEVENT, only time will tell if something further comes from the events currently playing out. For all we know, He may be the cause of further events. Attack upon bases of Piracy in Somalia ??? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 01:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect His name as a search term is pretty necessary -- it was necessary for me. At least keep an eye on google trends when it emerges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadewang (talk • contribs) 03:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV Maersk Alabama. Popular and important search term, but current notability sketchy, and the article itself is very sparse. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, with a final decision to be made after this situation is resolved.--Mr Beale (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the guy just got rescued, and his personal story of the entire event and rescue will be splashed all over the news for weeks. Rklawton (talk) 17:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep popular --OspreyPL (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not enough information, and only notable for one event at the moment --Tocino 18:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, with the caveat that the article should be revisited in a month or so to verify that its as notable as we think it is. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--notable as the first American taken by pirates since 1804, according to major media news reports. [58] This article will grow in sourced information as the story develops, but even after the initial news surge dies down, Phillips will remain notable for this distinction. Robert K S (talk) 18:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now There is no hurry. --rogerd (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand - Phillips is now well known worldwide. Scanlan (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is famous. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous does not equal WP:Notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 19:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we can finally get rid of the stupid article on Michael Jordan's father? Rklawton (talk) 19:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - SNOW Rklawton (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He will become an important symbol in the new age of combating piracy which started with his escape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucideyes111 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quote to the article from U.S. President Barack Obama saying that Phillips' courage was "a model for all Americans." That sure is noteworthy! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the President(s) have said that phrase about quite a few people. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to MV Maersk Alabama - textbook WP:BLP1E, in my opinion. No need for a separate article when this content can be merged into the main one. Robofish (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Based on news coverage so far, subject is probably more personally notable than the event itself. Hqb (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying that the Man is more notable than the news event he was wrapped up in??? Would you be able to point out anything notable he has done apart from things involved with this news event. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. What I mean is that the news coverage has been substantially centered on the man and his actions, especially after his first escape attempt. Pirate attacks, even with hostage-taking, are a dime a dozen in that area; it's the human-interest angle that propelled this one onto the front pages. Hqb (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated previously, Famous does not equal WP:Notable. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redir to MV Maersk Alabama. Not enough info to warrant a separate article unlike Chesley Sullenberger of US Airways Flight 1549 fame.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This will be a valuable reference in the coming months on a person that will undoubtedly be very important, prominent, and relevant in U.S. culture. As his relevance diminishes (if it diminishes?), possibly reconsider deletion at a later date. Per notability guidelines, "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I don't think Richard Phillips's major role in this event is in question; the only justification for deletion at this point is whether the event is considered "highly significant." I think it is, but especially so early, it's impossible to say that it's not to the point of justifying a decision in favor of deletion. --TonyV (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You realize your talking in the Future Tense. "will be", "will undoubtedly be" ... would it not make sense to merge to save information, then if it plays out as you forsee, it can be spunout into a standalone Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this person is an important aspect of the overall piracy situation in that part of the world; a situation which appears to be expanding in importance and newsworthiness. The Phillips event is already being used as a justification for more aggressive responses to the piracy. We haven't seen the last of this "hero"; he could be elected Senator tomorrow. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete for now - there's gonna be a book deal and Oprah appearances. You'll see. -- Y not? 21:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now, without prejudice for recreation if he achieves the fame of Sullenberger, as noted as above. This guy clearly fails WP:ONEEVENT, as he is only notable for this event. I can't stress this enough: all articles about this subject are on the hijacking, not on the man himself. Until someone provides multiple links to reliable sources about this guy himself, this deserves deletion. Bsimmons666 (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at the articles cited? This one from the BBC and this one from the NYT are all about the man and his family. Hqb (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the Articles? They would WP:Verify his existence, yes. But where is it that they state what makes him WP:Notable in his own right? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dun know, I think surviving a pirate attack is pretty notable. Not only that, his face is plastered all across the globe right now. It's a safe bet you can get PLENTY of sources to back up his notability and that is without "captain" or "Capt." in front of it Rgood erm ote 00:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a single one that does not mention him in the context of the events that involve the Hijacking, that would be a strong argument for his Notability. Otherwise it is WP:BLP1E. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC

Chesley Sullenberger. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and , Jimmy Wales, just give it time, a bio will come out very shortly and regardless, the things I listed are pretty much of people only known for one event and finally, WP:BLP1E says that if the person is known for an event that is historical they are allowed to have an article based off them. This person has done something historic in his own way, which is survive the first pirate attack on an American vessel in 300 years. If that isn't historical enough to warrant an article, then nothing is. Rgood erm ote 00:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If any captured American is worthy of a Wikipedia article, Richard Phillips is definately one. --JAYMEDINC (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Chesley Sullenberger. Rgood erm ote 23:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Absolutely no long term notoriety. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Relevant info is already in the other articles about the ship. No need for an article like this for a person lacking absolutely no long term notoriety. Corpx (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. What justifies Chesley Sullenberger's article if this person is, as some say, "non-notable"? Phillips' action is notable, and he made the front page on The New York Times website after being freed earlier today. Just because he will not receive further press coverage in the future does not justify a deletion of the article, or I think Cho Seung-hui's article could have been deleted quite some time ago. Imhyunho (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Per Imhyunho. Gage (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: I can't believe it's nominated for deletion. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MV Maersk Alabama per WP:ONEEVENT. Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV Maersk Alabama per WP:ONEEVENT. --Torsodog^Talk 04:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV Maersk Alabama per WP:ONEEVENT. WWGB (talk) 04:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, at least - Phillips was the first American taken by pirates since the early 19th century - we'll see how significant that is as events unfold over a longer time period. Seethaki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. If he's nn in a year, then nominate the article again. Chonak (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MV Maersk Alabama per WP:ONEEVENT.ALR (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Professor water (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Foxx[edit]

For a unelected candidate to meet WP:POLITICIAN, they should show "significant coverage". I don't believe this candidate for mayor of Charlotte, NC meets that (although there was an interesting article about the improper hiring of his wife here). Also, the page has no references and reads like a resume. JaGa^talk 08:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability has not been established per references and from what I can see, he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X to Y[edit]

Non-notable short film. Truthbanks12345 (talk) 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Delete without prejudice and Userfy to author at User:Tizzler27/sandbox/X to Y. I made the article much prettier per MOS, but it only barely has ~~just doesn't have~~ enough yet to meet wiki standards for film articles. I believe it will win more awards and get proper reviews which can be added ~~for an eventual return to main space. But right now... even prettier... it is just not enough.~~ Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film won an award at a notable film festival which can be verified by the sources. Not an award at the level of Academy Awards, but still enough to establish notability based on the guidelines. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since MGM is right. Again, nice job, MQS! Drmies (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Mgm. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 02:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreu Mateu[edit]

Non-notable self-promoting motivational speaker, not to mention some heavy borrowing from http://www.oceanrowing.com/Andreu%20Mateu/Andreu_Mateu_cv.htm. JaGa^talk 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. His books are not listed at Amazon or even in WorldCat; I do not think either was published. Maralia (talk) 21:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Hidden surface determination. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of mirrors effect[edit]

No significant coverage in reliable third-party sources, thus failing WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V that requires articles to be based upon third-party sources. There are sources that talk about various "hall of mirrors effects". However, they have nothing to do with either glitches or computer graphics, and don't verify this article. Randomran (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I'm having is finding reliable sources. A quick Gsearch certainly shows that this term is used in relation to computer graphics, specifically video game rendering engines. There's an article on the Doom Wiki for example. But I don't know if we will be able to find RS to establish notability and for verification purposes. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I'm saying. This might be a WP:NEOLOGISM, which means it's a popular term, but with no reliable sources to write anything significant about it. Randomran (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hidden surface determination where it can stand as a sub section or paragraph. It's not so much a "concept" as stated in the article as a name commonly given to an unwanted effect resulting from improper rendering. Equendil Talk 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Equendil, it preserves it for if and when someone can find something to do with it. I can't find anything reliable that can be used to verify this. Someone another 01:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross culture communication[edit]

Redundant. Anshuk (talk) 07:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which article is it redundant with? --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand/rewrite OR merge with Communication - No real reason given for deletion, although the current article isn't much of anything. I think the topic of "Cross culture communication" is notable and worthy of an article or a section in Communication. Culture actually affects communication to a great extent. It is not limited to language and language barriers, but also includes gestures, intonation, customs, lack of cultural background information that inhibits communication, and probably many other things. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close No valid reason for deletion given. If something is redundant merge and redirect are also options but without a detailed nomination there's no way to investigate it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Cross-cultural communication does not appear to duplicate Ethnolinguistics, Anthropological linguistics, or Linguistic anthropology, and although all three have a stake in understanding cross-cultual communication, they are certainly conceptually different. Certainly the more than nineteen thousand g-scholar hits for "cross cultural communication" is an indication that the term is in common use and the concept studied. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Standard subject. Just needs expansion--there are 511 books with precisely this title in WorldCat. When faced with a very sparse article like this, its wise to search BEFORE nominating. DGG (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Subject is notable. No valid reason for deletion given. Rlendog (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Ciesinski[edit]

BLP, unsourced since 2006, of doubtful notability. BLP cleanup - I am neutral. Black Kite 18:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The official site of the Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame confirms Ciesinki's membership therein and in the Delaware Track & Field Hall of Fame and sufficiently sources the claims to notability the article makes. On whether membership in the halls necessarily confers notability (as, e.g., in the absence of other coverage in secondary sources) I take no position; I mean only to offer that utter absence of sourcing need no longer be a significant issue. Joe 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, local notability not good enough in this case. Punkmorten (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Horton (bridge author)[edit]

No third-party sources establishing notability found; self-promotion. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He seems to have written several books on the subject, and he does seem to be the editor of Bridge Magazine. I think he's notable enough. The article could use a lot of improvement though. Gigs (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crising Aligada[edit]

Original PROD was "Has been unsourced for 3 months, fails the sourcing requirement at WP:BLP" IP added IMDB as source, and removed PROD, so I'm bringing it here. IMDB isn't generally a reliable source, and certainly isn't an indication of notability --Ged UK 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An actress with only three known credits would seem to have a difficult time establishing notability -- more so when only one of those credits is listed in IMDb. No other sources are provided in this article to confirm her other two credits, and I have not found any other sources elsewhere which tend to show that the subject is notable as an actress. (I realize that IMDb may not have complete coverage of Filipino actresses of the 1940s, but in that case the supporters of this article need to indicate the non-IMDb sources they are using to confirm the subject's credits and notability.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She made 3 films back in 1947 and 1948... none of which made much of an endurng splash. I cannot even find out is this actress is alive or deceased. This article was apparently brought over from WikiPilipinas... where they have less stringent criteria for inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Talbert[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Lack of significant coverage to establish notability; authored by the subject (WP:SPS /~~WP:COI~~). The limited-coverage provided discusses the carburetor he "improved," but the sources are not scientific and the subject is. This led to the deletion of the article related to the carburetor process in question, Gasoline vapor. E8 (talk) 06:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per statements above. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The two sources already used for the page cover him in detail. In my opinion, he meets the general notability criterion of "significant coverage in independent reliable sources". A google news archive search also pulls up a number more sources (although not public access) written about this man in the context of his inventive work on cars: [59]. Notability isn't the same as being famous--nor does he need to have enough material to write a big page to justify a keep. Also, conflict of interest is not relevant to deletion discussions and should be handled separately, see WP:COI for info on how to handle it, through communicating with the user and banning and/or semiprotection of the page as a last resort. Cazort (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google link adds a single source that is redundant with those posted, and as with the others, not reliable within the content area (the coverage is of the carburetor device, not Talbert). Talbert's only verifiable role is the use of the device. Clarifying: from WP:REL: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Further, it warns: "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." The news reports cited for this article make no attempt posting results or data, and given that this is an engineering topic (clearly scholarly), they are not reliable within this content area. Also note the exceptional claims require exceptional sources clause; the mileage claims made in the referencing articles are clearly exceptional, but entirely unsubstantiated (borderline hoax). The carburetor device used to establish Talbert's notability is not verifiable and was removed from Wikipedia (read the above-linked debate for details).--E8 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment...I understand your concerns about the sources being non-scientific and I would agree with you there. But I do not think this article is about science--it's about an inventor who has attracted attention for his claims. Wikipedia's standards are verifiability, not truth...and it's certainly more than verifiable that this man has done something to attract sustained media attention. Perhaps we should just rewrite the article in a more skeptical tone. Cazort (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Talbert does not claim to be the inventor; in the references, he states this was his father's invention. His role is the use of and promotion of said unproven device. This alone, does not establish notability, in my opinion. Perhaps it is simplest to make the suggested compromise, rewriting the page to more accurately reflect his role.--E8 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 Questions The two sources listed on the page, one of which you deleted, both meet WP:RS (do you dispute this?): [60], [61], and both cover the topic of Jack Talbert, in the context of his work on cars directly in detail (see WP:GNG)--do you dispute this? These two things constitute the general notability guideline.

And in a more practical sense, this man was driving a car that got well-over 40 mpg during a timeperiod where virtually nothing on the market did. I find it notable that a single man, perhaps working off the work of his father, was able to achieve more than the teams of engineers working for lots of big auto manufacturers. It may not be enough for a huge page but I certainly find it interesting and worth preserving. And it is WP:Verifiable. Cazort (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This individual claimed mileage gains, an important distinction. There are many alternative fuel / energy saving hoaxes that have found mainstream media attention (Brown's Gas, recently rebilled as water for gas is an example; the EPA has a list as well). My concern is, this attention is rarely accompanied by any scientific scrutiny, substantiation of claims made, or retractions when a hoax is established. What will prevent Wikipedia from becoming littered with this type of hoax?--E8 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about sources You claimed "Google link adds a single source that is redundant with those posted". My google news archive search, the link above, finds the following sources:

"Man fights the pain at the pump", Topeka Capital Journal - Jun 13, 2006.
"ABILENE MAN TOUTS HIS 'SUPER CARBURETOR'", Wichita Eagle - NewsBank - Mar 5, 2006.
"Necessity, they say, is a mother", Manhattan Mercury - NewsBank - Jun 18, 2007.
"Midwest Grows Wheat, Corn, Inventors; Creativity: The region is full...", Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Oct 19, 1997. This article reads: "Abilene inventor Jack Talbert, 30, has met mostly frustration in trying to interest major auto makers and the Department of Energy in a device he says ..."
"RETIRED FARMER, 83, SHOWS WHY KANSAS IS PRIME PLACE FOR INVENTORS TO...", St. Louis Post-Dispatch - NewsBank - Sep 14, 199. (covers same material as previous article)
Totally random (not useful for establishing notability) but this article also mentions him at age 18 and would provide some interesting background to generally improve the article: "LILLIAN DAHMAN, 110, LIKED TO TALK OF CHANGES SHE'D SEEN", Wichita Eagle - NewsBank - Oct 5, 1986.

There are two sources from 1997, and sources from 2006-2007, showing that this man has attracted sustained media attention rather than a one-time event. I am getting more and more convinced the more I look into this. I am changing my recommendation to a Strong Keep. Cazort (talk) 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point conceded. I find the differing Wikipedia inclusion standards confusing, as the device which is used to establish Talbert's notability is not itself, worthy of inclusion.--E8 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just did some cleanup, replaced the infobox with just a picture--it seemed self-promotional and contained unsourced facts. I also included some less-than-flattering facts out of the articles, such as the substential drawbacks of the modifications that Talbert made to his car. Cazort (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jowga Kung fu in India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jowga Kung fu in India

Non-notable intersection of a very specific martial art and a country. Orphaned and unreferenced. JJL (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability. jmcw (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryah Nikole[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable musician. The only thing even approaching an assertion of notability is the vague, "She is known throughout the Bay Area and Los Angeles as an up and coming artist." Not signed to a label, doesn't appear to have even released an album. If another admin thinks this is speediable, I wouldn't object. faithless (^speak) 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd say a minimum for a musician to be notable is an album. Or at least a contract with a label.Joe407 (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not my field, but I think this meets the conditions for Speedy Delete. DGG (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:MUSIC - borderline A7. No external sources in any case. Tevildo (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne to Attila the Hun[edit]

non-notable genealogical aspiration, as yet unfulfilled. Basically a genealogical '6 degrees of Kevin Bacon' with no actual known solution Agricolae (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencylopedic, unsourced and unimportant. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no really substantive content. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability; unencyclopedic. JJL (talk) 00:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Even if the line of descent could be traced, it is still not clear why it would be significant. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for triviality. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 05:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLScript[edit]

Non-notable scripting language being promoted by its developer. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable and independent sources to establish notability or to verify the information in the article. Wronkiew (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cymphonix[edit]

A non-notable company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since only coverage seems to take the form of press releases. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. [62] is a potential reference, but it's still basically a press release. Probably not quite enough to pass WP:CORP at the moment, but closer than many companies. Tevildo (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neologistics[edit]

lacks reliable sources, appears to fall under things made up one day RadioFan (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does do a rather good job of convincing one, right off the bat, that this isn't a field of study that is accepted or acknowledged, doesn't it? For what it's worth, there is an accepted idea of "neologistics", that I've turned up with some quick research, but it's completely different, and not documented as a standalone concept by sources. It's part of a three-era model of logistics by Richard F. Poist. So there's a case for a redirect to logistics, or perhaps green logistics, reverse logistics, closed-loop supply chain, or reverse supply chain, depending from where Poist's work ends up being discussed, now or in the future. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article specifically states that this is not a recognised field of study. When it is, then it can have an article. Since the term doesn't appear to actually be used anywhere else (at least in this context), even a redirect to neologism doesn't seem worthwhile. Anaxial (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the recently added link to this page. It is an academic paper written in Mandarin-Chinese by "刘升民". I think the paper demonstrates the usefulness of neologistics as a guide for students of language, especially students of a foreign native language. I quote here from the abstract: "Advanced learners should be taught the productive processes by which new entries enter the vocabulary so that they can make sense of the new words that they will come across. Teachers of advanced learners should acquaint them with the rules of word formation which native speakers intuitively apply to form new terms and understand those created by others. The knowledge of the patterns involved in word formation will help students to increase their vocabulary permanently." user:rarichter 03:25, 8 April 2009

Comment So far as I can tell, that paper does not use the word "neologistics" at any point, implying that "neologistics" is itself a recent neologism, and inappropriate for Wikipedia at this time. The article may well be useful as a source for the neologism page, but that's a different matter. Anaxial (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see the links found in word formation . This topic should be addressed in the linguistics page, and it is addressed on the neologism page under ==Evolution of neologisms== rarichter 17:50, 8 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarichter (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism, pardon the pun, and original research by creator rarichter. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

De la Naranja Mecánica a la mano de Dios[edit]

There is no indication that this Spanish-language book of football anecdotes is notable enough, per WP:BK, for an article in the English Wikipedia. - e.g. Worldcat does not show any library holdings and a search finds listings on Spanish bookselling sites, but no English-language reviews. Contested PROD. Delete as not notable. JohnCD (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - anybody out there? Please, somebody come and !vote! JohnCD (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not assert any significance or importance for the book and I can find no significant coverage to suggest that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mykoob[edit]

Disputed PROD. Software with no assertion of notability, no apparent notability and description that creeps into advertising. 9Nak (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No coverage on google news leads me to believe something fishy is up with this article. Them From Space 19:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overflow Crowds Band[edit]

Entirely non-notable; band may exist but not with alleged band members, there is no credible 3rd-party coverage of this group, and the page seems to be entirely filled with fiction. LazySofa (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This looks like a hoax. No allmusic.com entry. Their official website is hosted on a free website with non-related ad banners, very strange for an act that claims a member of the The Veronicas in it. It appears they once had a myspace page but that's now disappeared. JamesBurns (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BOLLOCKS, fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan DelMain[edit]

Non-notable bagpipe performer. Neither a Google nor a Google News search turns up adequate sources to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and was not able to find any sources for this musician. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In repsonse to Pastor Theo (talk), type into google "Dan DelMain" and the fourth link which pops up is a link to *Portland Bagpiper, showcasing a history and recorded songs. Also, the previous links take you to the *Bagpiper.com website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelmain (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also reference *Dan DelMain | Portland Metro Pipe Band which has a link back to the *Dan DelMain | Wikipedia article

--Dandelmain (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Dan_DelMain[reply]

Delete No evidence in reliable sources to prove notability. Spiesr (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Multibrands International Limited. MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supacell, etc.[edit]

Three non-notable products "manufactured" (I think they just import) by Multibrands International Limited. Created by an editor with a blatant COI. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Articles about non-notable products padded with generic details about, e.g., how batteries work. Possibly speediable: each appears to end with Multibrands International started trading as a local wholesaler in 1998 and by 2002 had grown into the largest parallel trader in the UK. Now Multibrands International manufacturer and supply fast moving consumer goods for markets all over the world. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - spam, not notable. JohnCD (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Multibrands International Limited per WP:Product. SilkTork *^YES! 01:49, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where Are They Buried? How Did They Die?[edit]

Non-notable book; no claim to notability; no third-party references at all; no third-party references to establish notability. Just an advertising page to promote the title, apparently. Mikeblas (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 01:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I need more of an explanation why this book fails the notability guidelines to weigh in here. If only some books are notable, what makes them so? Where are the guidelines that I can use to evaluated this book against? Failing any detailed explanation, my instinct would be to keep the article, but demand a thorough re-write. -- llywrch (talk) 17:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete non-notable is a poor word for the problem here. The basic thing is that we write articles to be neutral and factual, which means we summarize sources (the alternative is just adding our own opinions). Third party sources are needed, otherwise we are just repeating what the book itself says, in which case we're not really writing an encyclopedia article so much as a book summary. In the case of this book, there seem to be no third party sources. None are cited in the article, none come on a search of Google Books or Lexis-Nexis. No third party sources, no article. If you need a policy, see WP:V which says, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." It's rather sad that an admin would want to keep the article despite the lack of any third party sources, by the way... --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable, reads like an advert. Giant Snowman 21:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Broadweighbabe (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 09:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Snadowsky[edit]

Single book author. Book appears to fail WP:BK and individual WP:PEOPLE ttonyb1 (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete fails AUTHOR, fails BOOK, fails BIO, GNG, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 13:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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