< 18 April	20 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. Icewedge (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Kapoor[edit]

Little known Indian model of wich there are thousands, hence no notability. --Law Lord (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 01:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has number of reliable sources on the subject featuring biographical reviews and (exclusive!) interviews with the model, including one saying that "Today, she is one of the top models in the country and most of the designers want her to be part of their ramp walk." [1] I am somewhat baffled by the nominators reasoning; am I missing something or would (s)he care to expand ? Abecedare (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is clearly established in this article. --J^mundo 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If she's not notable, then how come all those publications heard of her? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ample sourcing in the article, demonstrating notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check sources If you look at the sources, you will see:
- 3 are short articles from Times of India, which means she has done moddeling in India. Being a model does not make a person notable in itself.
- This source just says she worked as a model in 2006.
- This source is too short to be of any use.
- These are all old: [2] [3] [4]

Could anybody show anything recent that can establish notability? (Also, had to remove one source, which gave a 404.) --Law Lord (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. What is the relevance for notability of publications being old or recent? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It seems the person has only been in the news for a few years 2002-2006, and being a relatively obscure one-hit-wonder does not make a person notable. --Law Lord (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable model, even if for a four year period. She is still referenced in the Indian press as recently as late 2008.[5] [6] [7] [8] Priyanath ^talk 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - properly referenced with many sources so both notability and verifiability is satisfied. -- Whpq (talk) 15:15, 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 Redirect to Paul Kurtz Cheers. I'^mperator 15:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupraxsophy[edit]

Delete per WP:NEO (it's a neologism) and WP:DICTDEF (Wikipedia is not a dictionary). The term isn't in the Oxford Online Dictionary nor Merriam Webster Online, nor in The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy (1999) nor The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (1994). The only dictionary I could find it in is a non-scholarly publication: the Dictionary of Atheism, Skipticism, & Humanism (2006). Out of the 10,000 libraries covered in Worldcat, only 187 carry the dictionary the term is in. In the review of that dictionary in Reference & User Services Quarterly (used by librarians to select books for their collections), it stated "cannot be recommended as a scholarly reference work. A better alternative would be to rely on general dictionaries and encyclopedias of philosophy and theology or to use The Encyclopedia of Unbelief." Well, it's not in the The Encyclopedia of Unbelief (1985), nor in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (MacMillan, 2006), nor the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (1998). I also couldn't find any articles on eupraxsophy as a topic in any major publication. In the New York Times for instance, the term is mentioned in articles about the guy who coined the term, Paul Kurtz. But WP:NEO states: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." The Transhumanist 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Paul Kurtz.
Paul Kurtz did come up with it in 2004 (reference) and the article as presently written is a hopeless dicdef, so the nominator's comments are correct, particularly where he says "we must cite reliable sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."
But having said that, the AfD process is for determining whether this title should be a redlink on Wikipedia. And it shouldn't, because a substantial source does exist (here), so it may be possible to write a full-length article about the subject.
Of course, until someone does, eupraxsophy should redirect to Paul Kurtz, since it's a plausible search term.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: according to Dictionary of Atheism, Skipticism, & Humanism he came up with it in the late '80s. Didn't say where. The Transhumanist 23:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the book was popular enough, that would establish notability. Worldcat shows that out of the 10,000 libraries it covers, 533 libraries carry it. Is that notable enough to qualify the topic for an article in Wikipedia? The Transhumanist 23:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think such a number (certainly for an academic publication) makes the publication pass WP:N--but I am not sure if the same counts for the topic of the publication, in addition to the COI issue. If you write that book about the term defined in Kurtz's book, and it ends up in 533 libraries, well, that's different perhaps. But maybe I'm splitting hairs. DGG, MGM, or Uncle G (it's a G thang) would be able to state chapter and verse of WP policy and give us an answer in a second. Let's stick with your direct redirect, for now. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect in agreement with S Marshall. Kudos to Transhumanist and Marshall for their hard work on this AfD--and both of you have gone a long way toward defeating the AfD with y'alls search work and reference-adding; pity those references are all by the phrase coiner himself. Drmies (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be fine with me. The search term should lead the reader to where the term is covered, and it can legitimately be covered in the article on its coiner, even if the term is non-notable (see Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content). There's now a section in Paul Kurtz called "Eupraxsophy", so a redirect can be made to lead straight to it. The Transhumanist 00:06, 20 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 (NAC). TheAE talk/sign 00:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unaffected soundsystem[edit]

Orphaned, unsourced, no claim of notability, and google shows no independent sources ColinFine (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a MySpace band. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Vejvančický (talk) 12:24, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathestate[edit]

No references about the subject. Doesn't appear to be notable. God Emperor (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources I can find are by Brown. Fails WP:RS. This nomination was incomplete, so it should be allowed to run from seven days starting from today. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. --Salix (talk): 06:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Since I can't close it, I'll add to consensus to the closing administrator. Per both above. TheAE talk/sign 01:17, 26 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.

RT-JD[edit]

The result was Delete. Icestorm815 • Talk 19:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article makes a lot of grandiose claims (the band filling a 15,000 seater stadium for instance), but I can't find anything to back this up. I suspect a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I agree with nom. If it's too good to be true, it usually is. The sophomoric writing is a dead giveaway. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC,WP:GARAGE and WP:BOLLOCKS. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 05:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure hoax. — Gwalla | Talk 17:40, 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. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gregory the Great Parish[edit]

Does every church get a WP page? No. Why is this one so special? gordonrox24 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I hate to zap a church, but I can't see any notability here.HeartofaDog (talk) 00:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not enough for me to say keep, but I think it's cool that they hold part of the remains of St. Gregory (540-604). Mandsford (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ya, I don't like tearing at the church, but for the sake of Wikipedia, it doesn't look like it belongs.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, average churches aren't notable. Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it alleges notability that it holds relics. I'd like to see a citation for that. Bearian (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC) I couldn;t find that, but I did find some information online. This seems to be one of the churches involved in scandals, which alone may confer notability. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - More or less by definition, all Roman Catholic churches are supposed to hold relics of saints or such in the altar, so the holding of relics can't be a claim of notability unless we want all RC churches to have separate pages. There does seem to be one external source, but I don't think that one source qualifies the article for being kept. John Carter (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for sources, as is as notable in its community as a high school, if not more so. [9], [10], [11]. And the delete arguments here act as an indicator that more such articles will be arriving. Let's pave the way. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per John Carter. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:02, 26 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) my name inc 19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs by Ashley Tisdale[edit]

Wholly redundant to the information contained in the discography, single, and album articles.—Kww(talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both We already have discographies, you know. They're pretty much the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both A list of songs and discography page differ greatly. Both lists are very detailed, and provide information you can not find on a discography page. Many artists have them including Red Hot Chili Peppers, The Beach Boys, Bright Eyes, The Beatles and Queen. Why would you delete these articles but keep those?Narcotics (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated these two because I noticed these two. We'll see how this AFD goes, and, if it's warranted, I'll nominate the rest.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see a reasonable way in which the information about the authors of said songs could be merged without killing the format of the discography, so keeping a separate list is the best option. Deletion would lose clearly encyclopedic material. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Narcotics and Mgm. You can check here how many lists of songs by performers are on Wikipedia. Decodet (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per editors above. Ikip (talk) 15:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus seems to be for these type of articles although i would rename it as 'by' implies written by which is not the case with many of the songs. --neon white talk 21:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Smanu (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.4.196 (talk) 09:48, 26 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. Notability is obviously established. (non-admin closure) Tim meh ! 16:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Starling[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable person. Failed Speedy T-95 (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have copied a trail of comments relating to this article for deletion nomination, below herewith: there does not seem to be any other comment forthcoming in order to help this newbie except from WereSpielChequers (thank you!)Shizuoka budoka (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Tarnee195 s initial request for deletion on 19 April was denied and notability was established by Admin user WereSpeilChequers at 16:46 , 19 April with the comment "the article does assert notability" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizuoka budoka (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion for this article was denied:

- 16:45, 19 April 2009 WereSpielChequers (talk | contribs) (8,397 bytes) (Decline speedy - notability is established) as per above Admin user.

- - Exact Comment as follows: Hi, I've declined this deletion request as in my view the article does assert notability. ϢereSpielChequers 16:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

- - Note : Notability is established.

Shizuoka budoka (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP ***Note : Notability is established. as per Administrator 19 April 2009 Notability as Australian Representative at Karate World Championships; Founder Martial Artist and only undefeated member of Australian team at the FIRST World Karate Championship (1970);Founder of Australian Karate Federation; First Caucasian Master Teacher graduate (in the world) of Japan Karate do College (1973). Shizuoka budoka (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Furthermore: See the following guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Athlete#Athletes Athletes/Shortcuts:WP:ATH /WP:ATHLETE

Additional criteria states:

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.

People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.[9]
People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shizuoka budoka (talk • contribs) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP *** Clear notability established Hollowinsideandout (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't make contact with this user: What does it mean when user name is red linked rather than blue?? Shizuoka budoka (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the user hasn't got a userpage (yet). But you can click the blue Talk link. Yintaɳ 14:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Failed speedy for obvious and good reasons. Clearly notable as far as I can tell. A little Googling would have gone a long way here. Yintaɳ 13:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.4.196 (talk) 09:50, 26 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) 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geijitsu[edit]

Found no reliable sources covering this. Seemingly created by fans to describe the fighting style of Lyoto Machida. Possibly notable if his creation, but I found nothing to support that. --aktsu ^(t / c) 21:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no clear connection to Lyoto Machida (despite [12]) and a gsearch shows it's typically used to mean (non-martial) "art". JJL (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to the single reference in the article www.geijitsu.com, "Geijitsu.com ... the Ultimate Lyoto Machida fansite". jmcw (talk) 09:21, 25 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. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manicorn[edit]

I do not think that this article, claimed to be about a neologism, can be supported by reliable sources to the level where it would be something other than a dictionary definition. In terms of coverage of the term the best I can find is this which itself just seems to be taken from an Urban Dictionary page ([13]). I have been unable to find any sources to back up the claims made in the article a Google serach of "Gone in Sixty Seconds" AND manicorn gives absolutely nothing. Guest9999 (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability Jezhotwells (talk) 22:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. —An gr 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and quite possibly WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, unsupported. Cnilep (talk) 13:48, 20 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. Keep "votes" do not address the fact that news coverage is not in itself sufficient to establish notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Elliott[edit]

Subject fails WP:BIO. At least two sources are not independent. The sources that are, talk about his bus project rather than Elliott himself. Delete Mgm|^(talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Mind-numbingly non-notable, written like an advertisement. High COI to boot--author is MyElliott (talk · contribs). Blueboy 96 21:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. (I dispute mind-numbingly, but it is Monday morning, so my mind's already numb to begin with...) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 14:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he got covered for what he did in the Washingtonb post as documeted int he article and I also found ths Omaha World Herald article. There's also some articles behind pay walls I can't access. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like another user said, Nathaniel Elliott is certainly noteworthy enough to be considered. He received coverage in the Washington Post as a high school student. Reread that last sentence. Isn't that in and of itself enough to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia, not to mention the fact he is doing work to combat the greatest pandemic facing the world today. If the Washington Post considers him noteworthy enough to dedicate their time and resources to write an article about him, then Wikipedia shouldn't have any hesitation in adding him. Honestly, the fact this is even being debated should be embarrassing for Wikipedia. When news sources as reputable as the Washington Post or even the Omaha Herald (a publication for a major city) are covering a person's actions, that person is, by definition, "newsworthy," and, by association, "noteworthy." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.242.175 (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reading closely, there is not an assertion of significance. Frankly, raising $43,000 is not significant enough to be considered of encylopedic merit. What he is doing is commendable, but not sufficiently notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Sources presented are either promotional, under the control of the subject or related organizations, or not sufficiently in depth to meet notability requirements. Coverage in reliable sources is not broad enough. One might say that the quality of the writing in the article-- vague, promotional, shallow in depth could be remediable through sourcing and editing. (I've said that myself in other cases.) However, that is not the case here unless significant, in depth, verifiable information|from reliable sources is brought forth. I find no in depth bio profile from a news service. Were he notable, someone would have made one. I find no national news service coverage. Not even a limited blurb or one off. I find limited news coverage with little more information than is presented in this article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Nathaniel was on Fox New, CNN and other new outlets concerning Living Hope. He conducted a national wide, 70-day trip that raised $70,000 and $50,000 before the trip began. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felipito1818 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Got news coverage. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost forgot-- getting news coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. This was not significant media coverage, it is barely even news coverage, and Wikiepdia is not the news. Also, just being mentioned on Fox New or CNN, and no links are presented to establish such, is not the same as in depth, significant media coverage. And if subject was mentioned in the context of an event, the article should be about the event. No indication of significant coverage of the event, either. Dlohcierekim 18:06, 23 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.

Churnalism[edit]

The result was Keep. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonnotable neologism based upon extremely limited number of sources for something of this nature. Tags for cleanup, etc., been upf or a while without improvement. DreamGuy (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources demonstrate the notability of the topic which is increasingly noteworthy as the traditional newspapers feel increasing economic strain and so cut back upon journalists. And at least one book has been written upon the topic. The title might be improved but I have yet to think of a good alternative which is not a clumsy phrase such as Journalism based upon press-releases and wire services. Suggestions are welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term is often mentioned in news media, blogs, and on the web, but all of the mentions that I have looked at amount to either discussions of Nick Davies's work or allusions to such discussions. That said, I am neutral toward deletion. This may turn out to be notable either as a concept discussed by journalists or media critics, or as an historical pointer to such discussions at one moment. Cnilep (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article. Re: "Tags for cleanup, etc., been upf or a while without improvement." an AfD is not the place to clean up an article, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. 13,500 articles on google, the first is BBC, second in Guardian; 68 google news hits in including Globe and mail, The Australian; 39 google books including a handbook on journalism. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have heard this phenomenon mentioned several times before. Ive added another reference to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikip. --Vejvančický (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Ikip pointed out, it's become a recognized term and has been used in many reputable sources, including books and newspapers. Graymornings_(talk) 03:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Recognized term in WIDE common usage. [14], [15], [16]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism of no established independent notability by the sources provided. Not that anyone has reason to believe me, but i worked as a hack in Asia, Europea, North America and the Middle East for 15 years (ending last year) and have never heard this term uttered in any context. Once it's deleted redirect it to Journalism ethics and standards.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. As Cnilep points out, nearly all references mention the coining by Nick Davies, which strongly implies that this is both new (as in NEOlogism) and not yet widely accepted as a word that people are expected to recognise. It may become widely used, but more likely will die out as memory of Davies' book fades. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO is a style guideline not a content guideline. In other ways, it's telling how to write about topics, rather than which topics should be covered. Please see WP:NEO#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms for its advice in such a case - it recommends retitling rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NEO#Articles_on_neologisms is the more appropriate section here. I have no issue with the title, just the notability of the content. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:58, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The points made in that section are not applicable here. In particular, the article is not a dictionary entry, having no special focus upon the word and I am quite willing to change the title. And the article contains numerous references to reliable sources - better than you'll find in the similar articles like Embedded journalism, Gonzo journalism or Investigative journalism. These are all phrases of recent provenance but this is irrelevant - what matters is whether there is a substantive topic, whatever one calls it. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On both Neo pages it says: "This page in a nutshell: A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing." There are abundant mainstream sources on this term. And while its true many mention Davies, many do not and use the term without explaining it, implying the authors expect it to be well understood. e.g. this article from the Independent As the Colonel's explained there is no elegant alternative term or phrase to describe this growing phenomena - in my view usage of the term 'Churnalism' is likely to become even more widespread, and anyway is already too well accepted for it to class as a neo. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:46, 25 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 Bernard (son of Charles the Fat). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf, Count of Rhaetia[edit]

Disputed prod. Original prod (by User:WikiDan61) read: Historical figure notable for one event. Sufficient coverage provided at Bernard (son of Charles the Fat) and I agree. It's just a stub that would never have a chance to be a fullfledged article, should just redirect to the mentioned article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you redirect it? Nyttend (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the editor who removed the prod notice has a long history of aggressively reverting redirects and other actions and insists that a redirect is a delete so that a delete vote needs to be made. I disagree with him, but filing the AFD to prove to him that the article doesn't belong as is seems to be the only step he'll accept, otherwise edit wars and tagteaming/sockpuppets take over. It's easier just to AFD it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What User:DreamGuy writes about me above is false. I have reported DreamGuy at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts for for harassment, wikihounding and uncivil behavior. Wordssuch (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good luck on that considering your edit history. DreamGuy (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this article gives all the information that will ever be known about Rudolf: one line from the Annals of Fulda. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bernard (son of Charles the Fat), which contains all the information on this person that a searcher can reasonably hope to find. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per FisherQueen, given the lack of information. However, AfD and prod nominators should note that WP:ONEEVENT applies only to living people, not 9th-century noblemen. Rklear (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I have to disagree with that statement. While WP:ONEEVENT redirects to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, there is a subsection titled "People notable only for one event" on WP:BIO. This section contains a "see also" reference to the WP:BLP page, but it also applies the principle to ALL biographies. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect As the original "prodder", I agree that a redirect is a better solution. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As per nom. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 18:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. There's always more, even in 9th century history. I added the very first item I found in Google Books, and there's a good deal more. People form a web, and anyone involved in one thing, will be involved in others. When they're ruling princes, they are not likely to be known for only one event. DGG (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a more suitable article. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 18:00, 25 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. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Vasserman[edit]

Disputed prod. Original prod reason (by User:Barkeep) was: Does not seem to satisfy notability guidelines per WP:CREATIVE. Article is merely a collection of information with no context and falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Article asserts winning of awards, but not indication of whether the awards are notable/some easy peasy thing anyone can get. Sources do not meet WP:RS standards. Overall article is just one major advertisement. DreamGuy (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unless something concrete in terms of reliable sources can be found. I looked, and couldn't find anything. The Estonian language version is basically the same article, just not as crufty as this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on the claims made in the article he is de facto notable per WP:CREATIVE. This is evidenced by the claims made in the article that the artist has won many awards, and that his art is displayed in many galleries and exhibitions. Wordssuch (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if it can it be verified that these works are "permanent collections" in any "notable" galleries, museums, or libraries? If so, proper references need to be used. As for awards which of these is notable and has been documented by a third party?
Delete per my original prod. Barkeep^{Chat | $} 13:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides links to document each of the awards claimed. Wordssuch (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the links and not found anything that meets our criteria. Most of those links to award claims are to the individual's own website, which is not a third party. I'm not seeing anything reliable or notable about the others. We would need some outside source showing notability of these awards, which has already been explained to you. Please provide concrete examples instead of just claiming it here. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The short bio at the University of Western Sydney Art Collection confirms some of the awards [17].--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Ethico, who has found an acceptable reference. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage to establish notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin – Wordssuch (talk · contribs), who has !voted above, has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Azviz (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's unreferenced and as ChildofMidnight said, there is insufficient coverage to establish notability.--Artypants, ^Babble 18:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-promotional and notability not clearly established — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I got rid of some of the most indiscriminate sections. If there's any information within it that goes to credit his notability than by all means it can be restored. I don't see a single thing in the article that establishes notability, and its also poorly referenced as the external links are neither reliable nor independant. Them From Space 05:43, 27 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) 03:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerbox recordings[edit]

No independent third party reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to demonstrate notability per Wikipedia standards. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Unsourced; non-notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:13, 25 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 Clearly a snowball case, last two afds in the past two months both resulted in keep. Nominator is an WP:SPA who is constantly edit-warring both this afd and the article, has made no edits outside this afd, and has just been blocked. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brenden Foster[edit]

Blatant WP:OneEvent, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL,Wikipedia:N#TEMP, Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS if there ever was one baby. Thanks. This page has got to go. -Learneggs12 (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've noticed that previous AFDs on this article were closed after two days of commenting or so. Please leave this up for at least 7 days (between the first real comments and the last real comments) If this article is truly noteworthy, it will stand the test of time. Please do not close this debate when it is just getting started --Learneggs12 (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenden Foster (3rd nomination), which was closed as a unanimous "Keep" and less than a month ago, was kept open for over 15 days.--Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't close this again as another SNOW, but hope that an admin will do so. This kind of repeat nomination until the nominator gets his/her own way (I suspect it is the same nominator each time, since these accounts have little other activity except in relation to this article) is surely disruptive. People should not be forced to keep repeating their comments time and time again in order to prevent someone claiming there is consensus to delete an article. --Kotniski (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't understand why this AFD keeps getting prematurely closed. I honestly do not think that AFDs are an unneccessary intrusion into the article. Firstly, I've reworked the article quite a bit since the last AFD. Secondly I understand that this requires many to make the same arguments the've made before. But since the last two AFDs were prematurely closed after a two day opening for comments for a page that only recieves ~20 page views per day, it's clear that there has been insufficient time for debate... That this is the fourth nomination reflects not on a persistence to delete this page, but on how poorly previous AFDs were handled.--Learneggs12 (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I've been reading policy and AFDs are supposed to last "at least five days (seven, in the case of articles and redirects)" No previous "Keep" AFDs have lasted that long... Last two lasted two days, I believe... --Learneggs12 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:SNOW and WP:IAR which are also policy. There's a tendency to think that an open AFD will use up editor's time, and if there's no chance it is going to finish with anything but a particular outcome, closing it early will save time. If you think the decision to close early is incorrect, you can list the article at WP:DRV to have that decision reviewed. JulesH (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As seen from the recent case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle, the broad consensus appears to be that articles for individuals such as Brenden Foster, who have received continuing coverage over a period of time, should be retained. This has held, despite frequent efforts to try to shoehorn individuals into a one-sided interpretation of WP:BLP1E. Much time and effort could be saved if we would modify BLP1E to better reflect consensus at multiple AfDs rather than fighting this battle one article at a time here at AfD. Alansohn (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable subject, prperly referenced, etc. I have to wonder the purpose of this returning AfD, the article's fourth. The nominator apparently being a single-purpose account seeking the deletion of the article certainly doesn't help. Dayewalker (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Besides easily passing WP:BIO, the last AfD was closed less than a month ago as a unanimous "Keep". I'm assuming this nom is a sock of last nom simply by the repeated strange mistake of placing a biography in the "Places and transportation" category.--Oakshade (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - If you think a deletion discussion was closed or handled improperly, or you don't agree with consensus, you should open a discussion on deletion review to see if the AfD process was carried out correctly or not. You should not open another AfD for that purpose. It doesn't help that the last three nominations were from single purpose accounts that nominated the article as one of their first edits.
Meritruge23 (talk · contribs) (1st nom)
Glorydays203 (talk · contribs) (2nd nom)
Goalsleft2342 (talk · contribs) (3rd nom)
Learneggs12 (talk · contribs) (4th nom)
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think any editor is ready to file an AfD until after several hundred edits. This AfD was created as the editor's second edit. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Candidly, I thought the earlier "Speedy Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN" closure was questionable, but the outcome isn't really in doubt; it would have been interesting to see it discussed at DRV. However, as now we're seemingly past that: The subject is notable as verifiable through multiple reliable sources, and I don't see one-event as applicable here. Townlake (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Send to DRV mainly a procedural !vote as I believe this belongs in DRV since the nom is essentially asking for a reopening because the proper procedure was not followed, but I tend to agree with to consensus of the previous AfDs that he is notable because of significant coverage over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of comments since the out-of-process reopening, doesn't it make sense at this point to just let this turn into snow? There's already a 3RR report on Learneggs at the noticeboards; adding a DRV to this seems like a waste of time. Townlake (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Notable over time, per other speedy keep comments Chzz ► 20:36, 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 speedy delete, G3 (obvious hoax). Author indefblocked as a vandalism-only account. Blueboy 96 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Nees[edit]

Seems to be a hoax, zero google hits for "Andy Nees" and "Bowie Baysox", 2008 MLB Draft also does not list him. Dayewalker (talk) 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. "projected numbers in the majors when he finishes his career: a .989 average, 3,455 homeruns, 567,890 stolen bases, and 99,999,999,999,999,999 hits". Radiant chains (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As Ten Pound Hammer tagged it. The page is a joke vanity page for the creator of the article User:Oriolesman. Mm40 (talk) 21:01, 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. Wizardman 15:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game builders academy[edit]

Written like an advertisement, only reference is a dead-link, Google only turns up first party sources - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; after googling etc, could not find any sources except the very briefest of mentions in what appears to be adverts (pay to read); searched on the ref site itself and found this list of programmes with v brief mention Chzz ► 20:30, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasra Hooshmand Engineering Co., P.J.S. (KDI)[edit]

An other editor's DB-CORP got removed but I also believe this Iranian company fails WP:CORP. So I'm bringing it here. The only ref in the article is a publication by the company itself and Google doesn't do much more than confirm the company exists. Can't find anything that makes it a notable corp. Yintaɳ 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Yintaɳ. Thank you for your comment. But I believe, you don't have any kind of knowledge about Iranian companies or any other Iranian related subjects. So please stop doing things which you don't have any knowledge about them! Shir-e-Iran (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Shir-e-Iran (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm following WP guidelines and policies. I suggest you start doing the same. You've removed the AfD notice from the article twice, you've messed with redirects, and you've even blanked this page twice. I think you're lucky you haven't been blocked. Don't have a go at me if you don't agree with the proposed deletion, just argue your case below. Thanks, Yintaɳ 19:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is an assertion of significance with the AIA membership. However, I don't think that's enough to keep the article around long-term, at least in the absence of independent sources. If independent sources turn up to establish general notability, I'll reconsider. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure I just checked the AIA application form[18]. As far as I can tell anybody can join that organisation, as long as you pay your annual fee (between $800 and $2500). I'm not sure that AIA membership establishes notability. They don't seem to have criteria themselves. Yintaɳ 20:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have to say that the people who commented about this Iranian company, don't have a slightest knowledge of Iranian economy and companies. Every technical person in Iran knows KDI, as the company is the only provider of machine vision solutions and one of the few designers of Cleanrooms in the country. Shir-e-Iran (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then demonstrate it. Provide independent reliable sources that show the company gets widespread coverage. Yintan attempted to and found no sources; it was only after he did that that he nominated the article for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe that, if an admin were to check, (note IDENTICAL user pages) they would find that the user (User:Shir-e-Iran) who declined the speedy was actually the same person as the initial author of the article (User:KDICO), with the Shir-e-Iran account being created only after the KDICO account was blocked for having a promotional username. (in other words, he gamed the system, taking advantage of his new username to remove a speedy from an article he created) In addition, I find little proof of notability. As for "lack of knowledge of Iran", I will use the "Time Bandits" defense, and substitute the word "Wikipedia" for the words "digital watches". Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that angle in reviewing the article. However, I felt that the AIA membership was a significant enough assertion of notability that I didn't speedy-delete it on the spot. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Provide a reliable source to establish notability, and I'll happily change my vote. Thank you. Chzz ► 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep I have checked this company out. It seems that, they have done a great job judging by the standards of middle eastern electronic and high-tech developing companies. They are certainly a top company in that region. And if you take a look at Companie of Iran, you will see that almost all of the companies listed in this category have less refrences and reliable sources than this company. So we should delete them all! Besides I couldn't find any other Iranian or middle eastern company which develops machine vision and digital image processing systems neither in google nor in Wikipedia. So lets keep this one and don't delete it. Computer Geek number1 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC) — Computer Geek number1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, a brand new account, and the VERY first edit, 12 minutes after account creation, is to vote KEEP here, with a comment that bears a very strong resemblance to a comment made by the creator of the article in question. Walks like a duck...... Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to prove that you are Sherlock Holmes or what? Grow up and stop acting like childs and only post your comment about the disputed page, not about other users! Thanks. Computer Geek number1 (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm not Sherlock, but, I do know when to call him in to help with an investigation. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd say back off and assume good faith, but this one seems pretty obvious... don't forget to add WP:SARCASM where appropriate... — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I can't find any evidence of notability for this company, and rather than take Computer Geek's word for it (and Geek, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia), I'm going to say delete until I see references from reliable sources (that is, not Google). Drmies (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless these people that pop up after 'checking the company' will tell us where they are finding their info. And if they object to any other company having an article, they can bring that article to Articles for Deletion themselves. Interesting that there isn't a Farsi article on the company - or doesn't seem to be. By the way, the more that new accounts call the more regular editors names and tell them how things should be done (without evidence), the less the notice that we pay to them. You want an article here - you follow the policies here. Simple, isn't it? Peridon (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to complete lack of sources. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

I filed the initial CSD on this article, it was deleted by Ged UK a few hours later, and then it was recreated by KDICO. If the consensus here is delete (as seems likely atm), I suggest that the closing admin consider salting it.
I added the ((spa)) tags above; while I doubt a closing admin won't recognize the !votes for what they are, I figure it can't hurt.
KDICO and Shir-e-Iran have created several redirects to the company. Again, assuming that the consensus is to delete, they need to go as well, so I've included them in the list above. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the AfD ends in a delete decision, the redirects will be speedy deletable under criterion G8. Standard procedure when closing with a delete result is to check for redirects and delete them. Since they are not separate articles, I've removed them from the listing at the top of the page. —C.Fred (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no outside sources to establish any sort of notability. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:11, 27 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. One (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings[edit]

This article has been created out of process. It is essentially a content fork of of Russian apartment bombings, and is available word-for-word in the main article. As it is forked content, it has been redirected back to Russian apartment bombings but the article creator has undone this. It also needs to be mentioned that Russian apartment bombings is NOT at any such length which yet requires legitimate forking of content. Russavia ^Dialogue 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These bombings were a notable series of terrorism acts. It is fine to have a number of articles on such subjects. For example, we have an entire Category:Moscow theater hostage crisis. We can also have something like that here. It is fine to have some degree of content overlap, but probably the best approach would be to briefly summarize the corresponding content in main article. Unfortunately, there is no consensus about this at talk page of main article, Russian apartment bombings. Once again, this is not a matter of deletion but discussion.Biophys (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, when an article is entitled Evidence of..., this is blatant POV-pushing. Additionally, every single word is available word-for-word in Russian apartment bombings, which makes this a POV and content fork. We are an encyclopaedia, not a venue to advocate and to present "evidence" to "convict" subjects in the eyes of readers. That is so blatant, blind Freddy would see this article for what it is. And as you yourself say, there was no consensus for this on the talk page, yet you proceeded to create it anyway outside of process. That in itself is reason to merge back (which isn't necessary) and delete it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. We have Evidence of evolution, for example. It is fine to provide a list of evidence (per sources) with regard to notable events or controversies. I believe "evidence" is a sufficiently neutral title because it focuses on facts rather than opinions.Biophys (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out must articles like “Critique by some persons on alleged FSB non-involvement in Russian apartment bombings due to lack of evidence” go in a normal encyclopedia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this kind of article is essentially POV. Drmies (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why necessarily POV? For example, one could include "the evidence" and "criticism of the evidence" to balance it.Biophys (talk) 23:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is usually used to criticize theories not vice versa. (Igny (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment POV? WP is full of POV farms that start with the titles "Alleged..." which is far less real than credible evidence which has been presented. Seems advocating deletion along party lines. PetersV TALK 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable split, the main article would easily exceed 100k in size if this was merged back into the article. Martintg (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Martin, no it wouldn't because it is still available word for word in the main article.

Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Changing_a_story_about_the_type_of_explosives is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#The_type_of_explosives_controversy.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#A_military_storage_with_RDX_disguised_as_.22sugar.22 is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#A_military_storage_with_RDX_disguised_as_.22sugar.22.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Incident_in_Russian_Parliament is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Incident_in_Russian_Parliament.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Alleged_GRU_involvement_in_Buynaksk_bombings is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Testimony_by_Alexey_Galkin.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Sealing_of_all_materials_by_Russian_Duma is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Sealing_of_all_materials_by_Russian_Duma.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Obstruction_of_Kovalev_commission is available almost word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Attempts_at_independent_investigation.
Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Arrest_of_independent_investigator_Trepashkin is available word for word at Russian_apartment_bombings#Arrest_of_independent_investigator_Trepashkin.

So I fail to see how this would increase article size anywhere close to 100k, when it is only at 57k now. At most it would increase article size by a couple of K. By all rights, if this article is kept, everything which is in the main article should be removed from that main article, in order to satisfy WP:CFORK guidelines, which in particular doesn't allow for duplicate identical content. And I doubt the conspiracy theorists amongst us would like to see that occur. Also, editors have been advised that cut-and-paste creation of articles is not within process, so I am somewhat stumped as to why an editor who was obviously aware of that discussion has acted out of process in relation to this article, in creating a POV content fork, and then demanding that it be debated when a merge/redirect is (rightly) done.

BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE. This content is also duplicated at Theories of the Russian apartment bombings. Just how many articles do we require? I am now counting three articles with duplicate content. Every single one of these articles has been created out of process. This has to stop! --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. So, that is why you reinserted these segments back? Actually, I removed some other parts of the text - about "List of suspects" and "Theories". However everything was reinserted back by others for whatever reasons. Currently, the struggle around this article simply does not allows constructive editing. In the long run, some of the duplicated content should be shortened/removed, but a certain degree of content overlap is fine.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone keeps deleting these paragraphs in the main article, too.[19] --ilgiz (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think splitting content into a daughter article is a good thing. Some of this can be deleted in the main article but a brief summary should be kept. I would rename the article to a more neutral term like Alleged evidence of FSB involvement in the Russian apartment bombings. Obviously the article should present both sides of the argument. Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least where the original alleged duplication is concerned it's regarding one section "Other related events" and some following versus "Explosives controversies" and some following. There is significant material, particularly the entire outset and exposition of the article, which is not a duplicate. There are better ways of handling duplication of more minor content than deletion of an entire article. It's not appropriate to paint the entire article as a complete fork/duplicate. PetersV TALK 04:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as no valid reason for deletion has been provided by the nominator. Article created out of process? The normal process for article creation is 1. Click creation link, 2. write content, 3. click save button. I fail to see how either step has been neglected by the editor in this case. As for the contention of fork, I believe the nominator is misinterpreting slight overlap in covered topics -- inevitable to give our dear reader a sense of context -- as content forking. Wikipedia is not a 3NR database; context is important here. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sure, rename, revamp, but don't get rid of the information altogether. It's decently sourced and provides important insight into the event. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Duplication of the content in several articles is confusing for the readers. Content should not be forked into multiple articles.DonaldDuck (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a clear POV fork. It simply duplicates material from Theories of the Russian apartment bombings and at the same time "conveniently" drops all counterarguments and opposite views. Offliner (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging and moving content around is the answer to that problem, not deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Right now all content forks indicated by Russavia above have been removed from main article by User:Offliner, and the article was protected. So, there is no question about content forks.Biophys (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect back into the main article. There is no need for POV forks (explicitly not permitted in Wikipedia). — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NPOV by assuming that there was FSB involvement in the event, and fails WP:SYNTH as combining sources to advance a novel theory. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 27 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. One (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths related to Russian apartment bombings[edit]

This article has been created out of process. It is essentially a content fork of List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings, which itself is a content fork of Russian apartment bombings. As it is forked content, it has been redirected back to Russian apartment bombings but the article creator has undone this. There is also WP:SYN/WP:OR issues here. It also needs to be mentioned that Russian apartment bombings is NOT at any such length which yet requires legitimate forking of content. Russavia ^Dialogue 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 18:44, 19 April 2(UTC)

Keep. These are obviously two different lists. Not all people allegedly involved in the bombings were killed, and vice versa. Of course the "list of possibly related deaths" could be included in main article, Russian apartment bombings, but there is an ungoing discussion at its talk page about creating sub-articles. Main article is indeed very big, so this is basically a WP:MOS issue. One should debate merging, rather than use AfD in this case. I asked everyone to debate the problems at this article talk page. But nominator refused. An AfD nomination is not the way to debate WP:MOS issues.Biophys (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not WP:OR because the death of every person in the list was related to the bombings in reliable sources. If anything was not, please tell this at article talk page, and the missing refs can be included.Biophys (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is. You yourself say that Litvinenko may have been killed because of his nutty view (that you endorse) that Putin is a paedophile. Why not an article List of people who were killed after calling Putin a paedophile? Other people's deaths are also tangently linked. It is WP:SYN, stating that Person A accused Person B of doing something, then Person A dies, so it must be because of the accusations that Person A made. And please don't cite "Death of a dissident", as a book written on an associate of Boris Berezovsky, by that associates wife and another associate of Boris Berezovsky, is not a reliable source of information in this context. Details of those killed are already in List of people allegedly involved in Russian apartment bombings and Russian apartment bombings. What's next? List of people with blue eyes who were killed and were only tangently related to Russian apartment bombings, which can then be split to List of people with blue eyes of which one is cock-eyed and were killed and were only tangently related to Russian apartment bombings? We are here to help build an encyclopaedia, not to advocate every tin-foil hat conspiracy theory out there. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inventing a List of ridiculous article names does not really proves your point.Biophys (talk) 21:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Out must articles like “Critique by some persons on alleged FSB non-involvement in Russian apartment bombings due to lack of evidence” go in a normal encyclopedia. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination appears to promote an extreme view of what is a fork. But Wikipedia is WP:NOT a database in the third normal form; it's intended to be read by humans. This means there is inevitably some slight overlap between topics of various articles. In the case at hand, there's a clear and definite difference between the topics of the supposedly "forked" articles; it would be rather unconstructive to interpret the minor overlap as a case of prohibited forking. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We now have 5 articles on these bombings, and content is being duplicated in ALL with nothing being added. That Digwuren is firmly against content forking guidelines. And even more so when the main article is a whopping 57k (of which almost a third is made up of references) - that is not a size that content needs to be split, and then resplit from the split, like this has been. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can have as many articles on a terrorism act as needed (see Category:Moscow theater hostage crisis for example) as long as these articles help a reader to find information he is looking for (that is what encyclopedia about). However, attacking other editors (as you just did with respect to Diwuren) hardly proves your point.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a reasonable split, the main article would easily exceed 100k in size if this was merged back in. Martintg (talk) 03:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have used the same argument at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings#Evidence_of_FSB_involvement_in_the_Russian_apartment_bombings - it would not push it past 100k, because content is already in the main article. This is another WP:CFORK done out of process. --Russavia ^Dialogue 03:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reasonable, discriminate, sourced record of an important phenomenon. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article shares (tragic) knowledge = that what's wikipedia is all about! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you give a valid reasoning for keeping this article? Secret ^account 13:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A completely unnecessary POV and content fork, which duplicates material from the main article. Offliner (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the parent article and Redirect this page to that one. There is no need to have multiple articles covering the same subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV fork. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like a clear WP:NPOV fork, and fails WP:V, sources doesn't associated that they died because of the Russian apartment bombings or a conspirsy plot, etc. Secret ^account 13:15, 28 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 Robert Hall Clothes. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hall Village[edit]

Non-notable defunct discounter. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There do seem to be some sources here. Given that it's been dead 30+ years, I can't imagine there being a great deal of information about it online. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ apparently out of business since 1976. There's a danger in deleting due to reverse recentism - not many people are writing about this topic now, but it gets a lot of web results nontheless for something that predates the internet age: [20], [21]. I suspect there are many, many more sources to someone who's willing to look in libraries, microfilm, etc. --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge makes more sense until better sources are found. See Rklear's comment. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is good to find information in Wikipedia of Stores that went out of business. Hopefully editors may expand this one. I don´t know if Wikipedia has a list of this gone stores,like Alexander´s and B´Altman. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed the issue of suitability for inclusion. How does this make this article notable? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Robert Hall Clothes, the far more notable parent company and originator of the brand name. Rklear (talk) 06:54, 20 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.

Suddenly at Midnight[edit]

The result was Keep. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely short, non notable article containing little or no context or content- opening sentence and very brief plot summary. HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've prodded a number of similar articles by the same author in the past, but I think there is genuine notability here. I'll do some work on it later tonight. PC78 (talk) 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Please note that this was the version of the article nominated for AfD. PC78 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to agree on the notability now. The article appeared to have been abandoned but it looks a lot better with PC78's improvements., it still lacks WP:RS though. HJ Mitchell (talk) 01:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's got one RS. ;) The Korean title seemed to get a decent amount of google hits, but you'll need someone who can read Korean to make any use of them. PC78 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notable film and frequently rerun on South Korean TVs. It was one of the popular horror films in the 80s according to critics. The actors and actresses were notable at that time as well. The movie is referred to as a classic of Korean horror film.[22][23]--Caspian blue 18:03, 20 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, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Tampa Bay Storm season[edit]

I don't think the arena football league is a big enough league to have individual team's have season articles.

So I am also nominating all the other arena football league team season articles.

BUC (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please let us know when you make those nominations. Mandsford (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At worst, it's a split of information we'd have in Tampa Bay Storm otherwise. Besides, the AFL is (or was, depending on if they come back next year) the highest level of arena football out there, so I'm not sure how much "bigger" you can get. I'm taking this as just an AfD for the one article, but such a mass nom would be a guaranteed trainwreck anyway I'd think... BryanG (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, but according to Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_seasons "Articles can be created on individual seasons of the top leagues as they are notable." The AFL qualifies as a top league. Thus the subject of the article is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AFL qualifies as a top league? BUC (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tampa Bay Storm, honestly this is just a list of incomplete stats which fails WP:NOT#STATS, SPORTS is a failed guideline (trust me I know as I was the one who created it, I want it recreated but this isn't the proper page). I just don't see much information for a seperate article. Secret ^account 12:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AFL does in fact qualify as a top league, making this an obvious keep.--Giants27 ^T/C 21:56, 26 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.

US government position on invasion of Iraq[edit]

The result was Delete. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:37, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is already described in Rationale for the Iraq War using reliable third-party publications. On the other hand, US government position on [the] invasion of Iraq is a poorly named soap-box for people to attack both the Bush administration and Democratic politicians who once believed Iraq retained extensive stockpiles of illicit weaponry. In addition, it cites self-published sources who claim Saddam Hussein trained the September 11 attackers. (e.g. HUSSEINANDTERROR.COM). I do not see the point in keeping this article when the other page describes the U.S. government position so much better. Dynablaster (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I knew this was a POV fork the second I saw the title. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV fork, at least partly made up of original research. We already have a much better article on this topic. Robofish (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - POV fork. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Hekerui (talk) 13:05, 22 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. TheAE talk/sign 23:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green's Logical Inclusion Theorem[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Green's Logical Inclusion Theorem

A thorough search turns up nothing but Wiki-mirrors. bd2412 T 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried a search on "Ryan Green" Religion. Nothing in Books or Scholar. Ditto Green "Logical Inclusion". Doesn't seem very notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rather too banal for a hoax, but no sources, no evidence of notability. Tevildo (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google must be broken, all it turns up are mirrors. Article creator has only worked on this article, How I Became The Bomb (AfD), and Velcro Stars. Suggests that article creator may be Andy Spore formerly of Velcro Stars, and Ryan Green may be a friend who wrote a college thesis (per first edit summary). JJB 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above - no sources and no evidence of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:20, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of active drive-in theaters[edit]

North America-centric list, used mainly as a linkfarm to link to nearly every drive-in's website. Minimal attempts have been made to source the article or remove the huge number of links. While there are plenty of theater directories online, most of them are based on user-submitted information and therefore not reliable, so I have no idea how a list of this sort could even be sourced. Furthermore, this list seems to be a big violation of WP:NOT#DIR and I don't see how it's any different from, say, a list of store locations (which is also not allowed per WP:NOT#DIR). I'll admit that I'm interested in drive-in theaters myself, but I'm not going to let WP:ILIKEIT stand in the way of a list that can't easily be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic and notable. Many reliable and independent sources can be found for drive in theaters in general as well as for each of the few surviving ones, if the nominator would check online and print sources. Is it claimed that any of them are not really drive in theaters? Edison (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is extremely notable because drive-in plays a distinctive role in U.S. popular culture. Sourcing would not be a problem, and the link farm element of the article can be cleaned up with editing. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like the link farm element either but the subject is notable, no question about it. A quick search shows that sourcing each entry should not be a problem, 1.--J^mundo 23:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:NOTDIR. Comments above seem to be confusing this with Drive-in theater, which is a seperate article and indeed a notable subject. But there is no inherant notability in a list of this kind, and it's basically just a linkfarm which violates WP:EL and most likely WP:LIST as well. PC78 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A directory of things. Arguing that drive-in theatres are notable is rather silly, as Drive-in theatre is not up for deletion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of the enyclopedic treatment on the topic drive-in theatres. Article needs a better lede though. Hiding T 13:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I started to fix the article getting rid of the "link farm" element and added a reliable source to each entry, please see List_of_active_drive-in_theaters#Florida. --J^mundo 15:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given keep and delete as the only options, I believe it has enough merit for the keep. I do agree it doesn't fit well in it's current format, but might be saved with heavy editing. Idea - is there another wiki that this article might be more at home at? I could see that linked from the Drive-In Theatres article, pretty much making everyone happy. --Reverend Loki (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep From the creation of the original incarnation in New Jersey to today, the drive-in saw a meteoric rise and a spectacular decline. Remaining locations are a notable topic. Any issues with content and links or possible US-centrism should be addressed in the article, not by deletion. The cleanup that has already started is a step in the right direction. Alansohn (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PC78. This is basically a directory and a linkfarm. A list (or category, or both) of notable drive-in theatres might be appropriate, but a list of links to drive-in theatres is most definitly not. I'd be willing to reconsider if this can be managed only through third-party sources and a degree of discrimination is involved in determining whats in the list. This is apparantly notability in that they are a dying pasttime, but I'm not convinced that a list is the best way to document this. Them From Space 03:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm working on the list eliminating the linkfarm element and searching for reliable sources to establish notability, see the reference section.--J^mundo 04:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep...Editor:Rev.Loki makes a good point. While respecting Wikipedia's status as an online encyclopedia, WP has become a source of information for millions of visitors. And some of WP's content is fringe information that is not easily available or found elsewhere. --Buster7 (talk) 10:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook violation of WP:NOT#DIR. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VERY STRONG KEEP: List is very informative but needs more sources and expansion. Drive-ins are part of American history but they're a dying breed. Historical subjects should NEVER be deleted. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is the Moonlight Outdoor Theatre more of a historical subject than the Mac's convenience store at the end of the street where I live? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Because convenience stores aren't part of Americana like drive-ins are. Do you know anyone who's lost their virginity in a convenience store? Or who rounds up there friends on a warm summer night to go to the 7-11? or who sits on their roof with a radio so they can look at the Slurpee machine? There's no comparison. They're just as historical as any old house or warfield. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any sources that indicate that any of these specific drive-ins are a significant part of Americana, or are you simply arguing that we shouldn't delete Drive-in theatre? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 14:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to merge: Well lets merge this article into that one then. It'd definitely improve that article. I'm AGAINST deletions but FOR mergers. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? An exhaustive directory of every existing drive-in theatre is no more useful there than here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the surviving drive-ins are notable, the list already includes specific sources for some entries and more sources are available [24]. --J^mundo 15:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you offer something more specific than a shotgun Google News search? Specifically, what sources would you use? What would this article look like if it used those sources? The topic of historical drive-ins has potential, but I don't see how this list is a start on it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check out List_of_active_drive-in_theaters#Florida, where each drive-in has a RS. I understand the main concern about WP:NOT#DIR but this can be fix by editing and sourcing each Drive-In. If some drive-ins are not notable (I doubt it) they can be removed from the list. I'm waiting for the result of this AfD to continue replacing the "link-farm" element with reliable sources. --J^mundo 15:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a directory of theatres, though. I'm not asking you to add inline sources; I'm asking how you'd use those inline sources. A directory of drive-ins isn't improved by adding a single news story that mentions that drive-in to each listing. How do you intend to write an article? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 15:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop arguing with people. You had your say now step back and let others have theirs. I know I'm NOT changing my vote again. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, okay. I was hoping you'd spend a bit of your time trying to bring me to your viewpoint. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minds are like parachutes, they work best when open. Why don't you try to look on the other side of the coin? I know US 23 Drive-In theater is pretty notable for me anyway. I saw Back to the Future and Ghostbusters there when i was 5 years old. I saw the Flintstones there when it was jammed packed on it 2nd night. I saw Wayne's World there every night for 2 weeks straight. All of these on the old screen that was burned down by arsonists. and back when the playground was still there. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer my question or address my assumptions, then. Currently, this is just a directory of every drive-in theatre that exists, and we don't do that here on Wikipedia. How do you intend to use this directory to write an article? What would this article look like? Not everything that is important to a person needs an article or even a list entry; everyone has significant memories attached to a childhood home, but we don't (and shouldn't!) have List of houses. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, unless a house is on the National Register of Historic Places, or a state or local historical listing. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this list the list of some sort of register of historical drive-ins, or just a list of every single existing example of a certain kind of business establishment? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its NOT just that though. Its MEMORIES. Its AMERICANA. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to whom? There are registers of historic homes, guides to noteworthy restaurants (and that includes diners, another bit of Americana), registers of historic places, etc. This, on the other hand, is a list of every single case of a certain sort of establishment, founded on the idea that all examples of that establishment are important...somehow. Are you proposing we turn this into a list of historic drive-ins; if so, based on what standard? If not, what standard does this list have other than being a directory of things that exist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 19:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't say change it to anything. What I said was merge into Drive-in theatre. I don't see how its passes the so called paradoxial rule not directory. it does say however "there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" Its notable because drive-ins are a dying breed. In fact they're on life support due to digital media's growing popularity. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list of things that exist, with no more information than where they are and what their website is (if any). That's not good. I'm wondering what content you would propose we add to the article to make it something other than a bare list of things. Whether these things are a dying breed (there are hundreds on this list alone) or particularly American (we have dozen plus lists of Australian and Canadian drive-ins) doesn't answer that question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and add every single one worldwide. I'm all for that. Turn the external links into inline citations though. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing we do that. It's not any more useful for being international. Do you have any sort of proposal on how this can be something other than a bare list of things that exist? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered that question twice already. Merge into Drive-in theatre, turn external links into in-line citations, and expand into prose so its NOT just a list, its a high quality, informative, educational article for anyone interested in vintage places. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of prose do you propose we add? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop moving my text over. I propose information about the life of the theater. For example, here's one:

US 23 Twin Drive-In (a.k.a. US 23 Highway Theater), located at #### Fenton Rd. in Mundy Township, Michigan, just outside of Flint, is currently the only active theater in Genesee County. It was opened in 1951 and has operated continuously ever since. It has been family run by the Worthington family for its entire existence but since Lou Worthington's death on February 18, 2009, it has been up for lease. It originally featured a large wooden screen with US 23 in large red letters, but was burned down in the mid 1990s (1996 I think) by arsonists who were never caught and replaced by a standard metal screen.

Everything there is sourced to a Flint Journal article , a major newspaper for the region that unaffiliated with the owners and an unaffiliated fan site. Is that encyclopedic enough for you? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would the criteria for inclusion in the list be, then? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:51, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of it don't you understand? Its exists and its well sourced. What's your criteria for deletion, in your own words, without pointing to a policy or cutting and pasting from it? TomCat4680 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to understand the topic of the list. If it's just a directory of establishments that exist and some basic directory data for each (ownership, address, date of founding, etc.), then I am opposed to having this list, as it's merely a directory of establishments that exist. I understand that there's an argument that these are historical or that this list illustrates something, and I'm trying to understand how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay it meets WP:NOTABILITY via guidelines a and b

gigantic copy-paste removed for readability

The Flint Journal article is a reliable source because it is a major regional newspaper. The information is verifiable. The fan site is independent and unaffiliated of the subject. Therefore WP:NOTDIRECTORY fails here.

Understand now? TomCat4680 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:NOTDIR says anything about verifiability? We could verify similar facts about every Pizza Hut in the United States, and Pizza Hut is certainly notable/a part of American culture/etc. I'm trying to understand why these are different, what makes this list not a directory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your question several times already. Stop asking it over and over and stop modifying my posts. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only modified them for readability, which is already strained here.

Let me lay out my argument, and see if you can point out a major flaw in it. Currently, this is a list of every single extant instance of a sort of establishment. Lists of establishments, regardless of whether the sort of establishment is notable or not, are generally inappropriate article subjects. Some ways to fix that are showing individual notability for each member of the list (by WP:GNG's standards, reliable, multiple, substantial, etc.), or showing some sort of topic and reasonable criteria that are not just "every extant business of such-and-such sort", or turning the list into a navigation tool. Hell, even a convincing IAR argument about this directory would work, but IAR arguments almost always need to be Really Good to keep people from just IAIARing.

Now, almost all of the keeps up top are "Keep, drive-in theatres are notable" which doesn't explain why we need a directory of drive-ins when we make a policy of not having directories of businesses. I'm asking you (or anyone else really) to address how this can be fixed or why we need this directory. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth time you've asked the same question. I've answered it all five times, so has everyone else that voted keep. Ask another one now. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing, but okay. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD has been open for 7 days. I propose a keep and close per WP:SNOW and WP:HEY. TomCat4680 (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Re: North America-centric list, used mainly as a linkfarm to link to nearly every drive-in's website. Minimal attempts have been made to source the article or remove the huge number of links. this is something which can be done by article improvement, we have no WP:Deadline. Ikip (talk) 20:47, 26 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 SNOW keep Questionable nom, plenty of sources found by everyone except the nom. Jclemens (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy (1998 film)[edit]

no source cited, none found by searches Oo7565 (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep (for now). It's a real film ( [25] ), ~~although it was released in 1997, not 1998~~, and we don't seem to have an article on it as it stands. ~~As a minimum, it needs renaming to Amy (1997 film)~~. Tevildo (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it _is_ 1998, after all. My apologies. Tevildo (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears notable, covered in reliable sources. See [26]. See also [27], a collection of references on the director, which seems to include several on this movie. It was reviewed by the New York Times, though inexplicably the review comes from 2001 (perhaps the American release?). [28]. In other words, it meets and exceeds notability standards.
- Looks good here. Upgrading my opinion accordingly - remember that the sources need to be in the article, too. Tevildo (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Appears to be notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep The film had a healthy theatrical release [29]. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural SPEEDY keep and WP:TROUT to the nom, who had been repeatedly warned about nomming notable subjects and not practicing even the slightest WP:BEFORE. This film had won numerous notable awards] that only need be sourced and added. The AfD is flawed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:16, 20 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Down by the Riverside (film)[edit]

Contested prod. New Zealand movie. No assertion of notability. ~~Delete.~~ Change to Keep per the rescue effort. Awaiting consensus before withdrawing altogether. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. Limited content and no evidence of notability. No reason given for deprodding. PC78 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lacks sources and does not notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (films). I have added info to the article which now is a decent stub article. I have also added links to for external reviews Terrorfeed.com: Review, The Big Idea: Review, Audience, Withoutabox: Review and Arovideo: Review which more than meets the criteria for notability. Wordssuch (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it fails every one of the listed criteria. Which of the criteria does it meet? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for more sourcing. Adding to User:Wordssuch's work, I have expanded and further sourced the article to give it the content it was missing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it has been expanded and sourced by Wordssuch and MichaelQSchmidt. I'm not convinced that the sources are wholly independent from the producers; eg Scoop is just publishing a press release, but the nomination for "Best Foreign Feature" at the B-Movie Film Festival in New York convinces me that it's notable.-gadfium 04:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now - good rescue effort. dramatic (talk) 09:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quistisffviii (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails every one of the criteria in WP:MOVIE. Fails general notability guideline. There is not a single review from a reliable source. One of the references was actually a press release, which I've now replaced. This just ain't notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin – Wordssuch (talk · contribs), who has !voted above, has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of Azviz (talk · contribs). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz/Archive. MuZemike 16:36, 26 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, bad faith nom. 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Alta Mira[edit]

Article fails WP:V, WP:N Oo7565 (talk) 17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've already issued a final warning to the nominator, who despite repeated warnings is continuing apparently going through Special:Allpages tagging articles for deletion for spurious reasons. – iride scent 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nonsensical nomination. No explanation as to why the nom thinks the article fails the guidelines cited, but the article topic is the in-depth subject of independent reliable sources, easily passing WP:N, not to mention WP:V (which isn't a notability guideline). --Oakshade (talk) 20:09, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:52, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Painful Maturity[edit]

Contested prod. Stub about a South Korean film with no references other than IMDB and no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both -- No notability established, only source is IMBD, which does not meet WP:RS standards. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both — No assertion of notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep - Meets criteria for WP:Creative. He is a very notable South Korean screen writer. I have added his filmography to the article which demonstrates that he has over two dozen credits as a screen writer. Most 3rd party references are in South Korean, so difficult to find English references to link to. Wordssuch (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources showing that these credits are to notable productions? Lots of indie screenwriters self produce small films. And IMDB filmographies are not reliable sources, as anyone can edit them. There have been many cases of peole editing their own listings to add things that do not exist. We would need independent sources. DreamGuy (talk) 14:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme keep and fuyrther source per per [30], [31], and [32]. And, in the interests of reducing anglo-centricism on wikipedia, it would be great to have a Korean-reading wikipedian take a look at 아픈 성숙 in Google News, Google books, and Google scholar. Not being sourced is a concernm but when such is easily available, it is no reason to delete. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes-- Park Chul-soo is a major Korean director, and I'm sure their is information out there about this film. I'm far from fluent, but can get by in Korean, and will add what I can later on. Dekkappai (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Film article: Keep; Kang Dae-ha: Neutral. About the film: This is a case of an article on a "notable" subject started prematurely. I believe there is sourcing to be found on the subject-- highly likely in print, in Korean-- but because of the nature of the subject, it is going to be very difficult to find. It is unfair to expect an equal level of available sourcing from the latest U.S. blockbuster and a 30-year-old early film from a major director in a country whose cinema was, basically, closed to the rest of the world at the time, and would remain so for another decade and a half. I've looked around online and can't find much, but have added some to the article. Still, Park Chul-soo is a very important South Korean film director. Though this is one of his earlier and lesser-known films, the entire output of major directors should have some coverage. Some indications of Park's stature in Korean cinema: His films were chosen as the best film of the year at the Grand Bell Awards (South Korea's nearest equivalent to the U.S. Academy Awards) two years in a row-- 1985 and 1986. Park's film 301, 302 was South Korea's submission to the US academy awards in 1995, and, according to this interview with the director, it was the first South Korean film to receive international release. In 1999 the Korea Film Directors' Society gave Park the Best Director prize for Kazoku Cinema at their Chunsa Film Art Awards. As a sign that he's been an important director for decades now-- Green Chair (2005) is a more recent significant film from Park, shown in international film festivals-- Sundance, Berlin Film Festival... I know some will scoff, thump the latest Wikipedia "notability" guidelines and quote them by verse and scripture, and damn this film as not meeting standards created by (mainly) U.S., English-speaking editors. But when sourcing for even the most minor and ephemeral of current U.S. films is so easy to find, and yet it is nearly impossible to find for even major Korean films from a few decades ago, I believe that applying such "notability" guidelines "equally" would result in an extremely biased coverage of world cinema. Dekkappai (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No notability standard requires English-language sources or full text available online. Do you have some sources for the Grand Bell Awards nominations/wins, to make the director's article a clear-cut case? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Koreanfilm.org (run since 1999 by Darcy Paquet, who was (is?) Variety's South Korean reporter, put together this Excel file note, under the Grand Bell Awards tag: "1985, 24th: The Mother (dir. Park Chul-soo), Hwang Ki-sung Productions" and "1986, 25th: Pillar of Mist (dir. Park Chul-soo), Hwang Ki-sung Productions"). Lee Young-il, Richard Lynn Greever, tr. (1988). The History of Korean Cinema. Seoul: Motion Picture Promotion Corporation. ISBN 89-88095-12-X.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) has a listing of major South Korean film awards at the back of the book (I don't have a copy of it in front of me, but I'm pretty sure it lists up to 1986 or '87). Though IMDb doesn't list the awards for those particular years, it does show that Park won an award at the Montréal World Film Festival. The KMDb listing for 어미 (1985) (Eomi - Mother) directed by Park Cheol-soo (감독 : 박철수) shows it won the award (제24회 대종상 영화제 (1985) )[33], and 안개기둥 (1986), directed by Park won 제25회 대종상 영화제 (1986). Their listing for Park also gives several other awards including several PaekSang Arts Awards (백상예술대상)

1980년
제16회 백상예술대상 : 영화부문 신인상 (밤이면 내리는 비)

1988년
제24회 백상예술대상 : 영화부문 감독상 (접시꽃 당신)

1994년
제18회 황금촬영상 시상식 : 감독상 (우리 시대의 사랑)

1996년
제32회 백상예술대상 : 영화부문 대상 (학생부군신위)

제32회 백상예술대상 : 영화부문 감독상 (학생부군신위)

etc... could probably track down more, later, but have to run now. Let's just pray Park doesn't turn out to have a performing twin. ;) Dekkappai (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've got my copy of The History of Korean Cinema here now. On Park Chol-su: Park's films winning the 1985 and 1986 Grand Bell is listed on page 278. Park and these two films are mentioned in the section "New Directors inthe 1980s" on p. 248. Also, in a profile of the director on page 330, it mentions that he won the New Director Award at the Hankuk Play and Film Arts Awards with his first feature (1979), and lists The Painful Maturity as one of his principal films. (Also, it might be worth mentioning that the KMDb cited above is not just the Korean equivalent of IMDb. It's an official national site maintained by the Korean Film Archive.) Dekkappai (talk) 17:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the film for now, as Dekkappai has turned up some decent sources to start writing a proper article. ~~I'm ambivalent about Kang Dae-ha; it's an unsourced BLP but it has possibility.~~ Keep the director's article as well. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing from Neutral on Kang Dae-ha to Keep. I didn't know the name, but apparently he's not "just" a screenwriter, he's directed several films, written 500 screenplays, and apparently was publishing works on literature in the '60s. I'm getting this from KMDb (again, an official site of the Korean Film Archive-- affiliated with the South Korean government). Korean cinema is still lacking articles on many major films and persons, and Kang is obviously not as "notable" (at least within film) as Park Cheol-su, but still seems worthy of an article, and since one is started there's no point in deleting it now... I'll do what work I can on it later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Kang Dae-ha and the film articles. I can find two news articles on Kang's career as a poet (he was a versatile artist) and among his prolific works (wrote about 50 screenplays), screenplays for hit-dramas in 80s are included. On the other hand, the starred actors and actresses Yu In-chon, Yoon Il-bong, Jeong Hye-seon are still notable figure in Korean film/drama industry. (Yu In-chon is the current minister of Culture, Sports and Tourism of South Korea[34], ah..I have to create an article of him too). I think the notability is confirmed so far. --Caspian blue 00:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I think, that the film is important because its director Park Chul-soo is very notable film director. --Snek01 (talk) 22:20, 23 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) 03:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of EMS Council Meetings[edit]

Delete per, I suppose, WP:NOONECARES. Really, the agendas of meetings at some not very prominent organisation are beyond our scope, and so is a directory of those meetings. Unreferenced, no coverage in third-party sources, not notable. European Medical Students' Association is a mess as is; we don't need these other two. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete both per nom. There seems to be no purpose to these articles--at best they're directory information. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both But a preemptive "keep" vote for any list of whoever manages these guys :). Dahn (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Smoke 'em while you got 'em, Dahn. Drmies (talk) 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, this information belongs on the organisation's websites, not in an encyclopædia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 22 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) 03:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Johnson (Alien)[edit]

Notability concerns; consists solely of in-universe fiction with excessive detail; will probably not be referenceable SynergyBlades (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Hey Synergy, I noticed you turned a whole bunch of that author's contributions into redirects. Why not do that here? (Question applies to the next AfD as well.) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Non-notable television character. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Search for reliable third-party sources at Google News/Books/Scholar didn not come up with significant real-world information. Unlikely search term. Main article already gives a due character summary. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:12, 24 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 15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by date of last occupation[edit]

Unmaintainable and, in many cases, the product of original research. I strongly doubt that His Majesty's Australian, Canadian and New Zealand subjects considered themselves "occupied" by the United Kingdom or even that the UK was a "foreign power" until their countries adopted the Statute of Westminster. I rather doubt that Croats think of the Second Yugoslavia as having been an "occupation" or "foreign" (if anything, Serbs were the disadvantaged group there) or that nostalgic Kyrgyz and Kazakhs think of the Soviet period as having constituted an "occupation". In any case, there's no documentation for any of these claims. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--nom is right; this list is OR, and a soapboxy fight waiting to happen. Drmies (talk) 17:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Drmies says, soapbox fight waiting to happen. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the nom's concern with regard to Australia, there are those who would say that Australia is still under occupation, from the Aborigines' point of view. As for Canada before 1931, those who would regard the rule of the UK as an "occupation" regime are few and far between. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. "Occupation" is far too wide a term, and this is a magnet for every editor who wants to rake over political issues regarding their country - see Macedonia, Ireland (state), Liancourt Rocks, etc etc ad nauseam. And the _UK_ has been under occupation since 1066? Surely _England_ has been? And some would argue that Scotland has been under occupation since 1688, and the UK since the Maastricht Treaty, and... I hope the point has been made. :) Tevildo (talk) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a list of countries now under occupation, it is a list of ALL sovereign states with their history of previous occupation (or external control). Scotland, Liancourt Rocks, etc. are not on the list because they are not sovereign states. I understand your point about UK vs. England, but the UK is the successor state to England, and most historians would agree that 1066 was the last time it suffered a foreign occupation. Some might argue that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a foreign occupation, but I think the mainstream view is that it was a civil war. Goustien (talk) 19:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename I admit that the terms I chose when creating this article have unfortunate connotations. As mentioned above, many of these circumstances should not be described as "occupation"; my intended meaning was something more like "government from outside the current country's borders." In some cases this relates to the birth of a country from a friendly "mother country" (as Australia from the UK), in others to the liberation of a country from a hostile foreign occupier (as Poland from Nazi Germany). However, despite the different circumstances, I think a sortable list such as this is useful for comparative purposes, to show which countries have a long, uninterrupted history of independence compared with others which are younger creations or which have re-emerged from outside dominance. Sorting by the third column allows one to group countries in ways which I don't think are available in other Wikipedia articles. Nor is this article the product of original research: most dates can be found in the infoboxes of the various country articles, or in the country history articles. If there are any controversial dates, these should be footnoted. I will edit the article to tone down the use of objectionable terms. Can anyone suggest a better overall name for this article, e.g., List of countries by date of last external government? Goustien (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "External" isn't very much better. Is Westminster "external" to Scotland or Northern Ireland? Much blood has been spilt over the question... Tevildo (talk) 18:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - What about List of countries by length of continuous independence or List of countries by duration of undisturbed sovereignty or List of countries by date of independence or liberation? Goustien (talk)
    - "Independence" is really redundant against the existing "formation date", and "liberation" has the same problems as "occupation"; when was the Slovak Republic last "liberated"? 1918? 1948? 1989? 1993? Insofar as this information is relevant, it would probably be better in List of countries by formation date instead of its own article. Tevildo (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the present state, the article is not much more than a list of countries without any dates, save the years. Besides, occupation is not well defined, as pointed above. --Tone 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside that this is just a place for stacking up POVs removed from elsewhere, it really abuses the notion of what a list is supposed to be providing. Dahn (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Contributors to this list should avoid POVs and merely compile dates established elsewhere in Wikipedia. The existing articles on "independence," "formation," and "achieving statehood" (see links in See also section) are inadequate for this purpose. Could I ask people to please suggest changes to make this article acceptable? Goustien (talk)

Contributors should NOT compile data from elsewhere in WP but from a reliable source! Otherwise it is OR. --Tone 20:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, theoretically all data in Wikipedia is supposed to be based on a reliable source; but one should not probably not copy information from other articles without at least making a reasonable attempt at verifying it. DHowell (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't this information be merged into the List of sovereign states by formation date somehow? DHowell (talk) 03:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I originally thought of adding this information as additional columns in that article, but could find no way to turn that list into a sortable table. Goustien (talk) 06:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research, and the fights over "occupation" would be awful.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 24 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 WP:CSD G3 - blatant vandalism. --Angelo (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Bank Liga[edit]

A Copy of Montenegrin First League, and changed the nation to Andolia and champion to FK Zakom Website, purely hoax or vandalism. (Use afd requested by User:Dank55). Matthew_hk t c 16:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I've left a note on the user's talk page about creating pages about fictitious countries. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - copy of existing article in which only the infobox has been changed, and that with blatantly fake info -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Giant Snowman 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for vandalism. Jogurney (talk) 15:04, 20 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. Wizardman 15:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Saints Pastoral centre[edit]

nn centre Oo7565 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep of a bad faith nom (one of dozens by this editor) and per easily discovered sources per WP:AFTER [35], [36], [37]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good sources found, but the sources need to be added first to the article, before the AfD closes. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did a bit of cleanup and sourcing. Best find is it being listed as historical in Treasures of Britain: the architectural, cultural, historical and natural heritage of Britain and A prospect of Westminster: the continuing development of this historic city. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems notable now. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 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 Speedy Delete (non-admin closure) - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CRISP Foundation[edit]

This group is clearly unnotable. Don't know why it wasn't speedily deleted. PROD was removed by article creator so here we are... Smartse (talk) 15:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7/ G11 - Group's mission seems honorable but that doesn't equal an assertion of notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 18:54, 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. Any user wishing to have this userfied can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, because consensus is quite clear on the content being unverifiable. The author did write that some source had been used, but without it being presented it cannot pass WP:V at this point. The sole keep vote does nothing to address this point. I am leaving the question of whether to redirect to Pukapukan language open (as Uncle G proposed). There are a few reasons I'm not doing so right now:

There is no discernable consensus here that a redirect should be made (although that option has not been fully discussed).
If the source Tshilo12 used does surface, it may be better to leave this title open.
Pukapuka and Puka-Puka have nothing to do with each other, and I am concerned that a redirect, especially one immediately following a deletion may cause some confusion.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puka-Pukan language[edit]

Procedural nom for IP editor. Reason for nom (per talk page): "The article should be deleted, as that language does not exist at all. The island was settled after WWII, so no specific language does exist there". I have no opinion on the deletion (or not) of the article. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion at the German Wikipedia for this very article makes for interesting reading. The German Wikipedians first pointed to us, then noticed that we cited no sources, then checked out sources for themselves (13th and 14th editions of Ethnologue), and discovered that there weren't any. I strongly suspect that 91.141.44.13 (talk · contribs) is one of those people, helpfully informing us that we have an unverifiable article.
And it appears that we have. Here's the language family as laid out on page 133 of ISBN 9780521471664:
- Polynesian
  - Nuclear Polynesian
    - Eastern Polynesian
      - Central Eastern
        Tahitic
        Tahitian language
        
        Tuamotuan language
        
        Rarotongan language
        
        Maori language
        
        Marquesic
        Marquesan language
        
        Mangarevan language
        
        Hawaiian language
      - Rapa Nui language
    - Samoic Outlier languages
      - Samoan language
      - Pukapukan language
      - Other Outlier languages
  - Tongan language
  - Niuean language
You'll find a similar family tree (whose differences are not relevant to the issue of this purported language) on page 118 of ISBN 9780824810191. There's another similar one (again whose differences are irrelevant here) on page 261 of ISBN 9780520080027.
A supporting source is Thomas Albert Sebeok (1976). Current Trends in Linguistics. Mouton. p. 485., which in prose form says the same thing: Nuclear Polynesian subdivides into Eastern Polynesian and a Samoic Outlier group. All of the languages east of Samoa fall into the former group except Pukapukan, which is in the latter group.
The Pukapukan language exists. Ironically, its (currently incomplete) infobox should contain, in the language family section, what this article's infobox does contain. But there's no evidence in sources that this language, as described, is recognized. The Pukapukan mentioned in the sources is the one of the Northern Cook Islands.
This is unverifiable. And the disambiguation at Pukapukan needs fixing. There's no ambiguity, and there aren't multiple subjects. This is in fact an alternative name for Pukapukan language, albeit one that is mainly used informally, with linguists tending to prefer "Pukapukan" from what I can find. Redirect. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: The people of Puka Puka in the Tuamotu archipelago do indeed seem to speak a South Marquesan dialect, maybe not really a distinct language. (Nothing to do with the Samoic Pukapukan language spoken in an island in the Cooks) But there are no references, not surprising for such a small place, and no information given on the language/dialect. This article adds nothing that is not included in the article on Puka-Puka. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm unsure right now what to do.~~ The article was originally created by TShilo12, who otherwise seems like a mostly reasonable and reliable editor (I've left a note on his talk page requesting sources and pointing him to this discussion). The other Polynesian language I can see that he's created is Rapan language--in this context, note that the Eastern Polynesian languages page (evidently equivalent to Marquesic languages) says: "The erstwhile Marquesic Puka-Pukan language, spoken in Puka-Puka and the Disappointment Islands in northeastern Tuamotu; the Tahitic Rakahanga-Manihiki language, spoken on Rakahanga and Manihiki in the northern Cook Islands; and the ungrouped Rapan language, spoken on Rapa Iti in the Austral Islands, were not included in the database [referring to this database; see here for their classification of East Polynesian]." Though Ethnologue isn't always a reliable source, it does include within East Polynesian the Rapan language (as "Rapa", code RAY) and Rakahanga-Manihiki (code RKH - note that TShilo12 did not create the Wikipedia article for this language, and that contrary to Wikipedia's claim, it is in fact represented in the above-mentioned database). But not a "Puka-Pukan" within Eastern Polynesian. Until some of this is clarified, I'm going to withhold judgment or a !vote --Miskwito (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete, per Angr below, since TShilo doesn't recall his source(s). If one is found in the future, the article can always be recreated, I suppose --Miskwito (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the article. Given the location of the island, it seems entirely plausible that the people speak a Marquesan dialect and the few sources I found on Google seem to confirm that. But without any references and without any further information, I can't see much value in the article. The one on the island seems enough. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of reason to doubt the accuracy of that article: There's not a single source that supports it and plenty that say no such thing. Why are you putting what is written in another unsourced Wikipedia article ahead of what you can find in published literature on this subject? If you want some published literature, look at some of the books above. Or look at appendix 2 of The lexicon of Proto-Oceanic (ISBN 9781921313189), pages 351–352: It's the same family tree as above. (It cites Marck's 2000 article as its source.) Just as with all the others, Eastern Polynesian is not the same as the Marquesic group, despite what an unsourced Wikipedia article says. Just as with all the others, Pukapukan is an outlier under Nuclear Polynesian. Just as with all the others, there's no mention of a Puka-Pukan language in the Marquesic group, despite what an unsourced Wikipedia article says. Why on Earth are you placing a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor ahead of published, accredited, identifiable, experts in the subject such as Jeff Marck of ANU and Russell Gray of the University of Auckland? Why are you basing your decisions on what "seems plausible" rather than on what is actually in the published literature? Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not trying to save the article - don't see any useful information in it. But there are two Puka Puka islands, one at 10°53′S 165°40′W / 10.883°S 165.667°W / -10.883; -165.667 in the Cooks and the other 1,000 miles away between the Marquesas and the main Tuamotu archipelago at 14°49′S 138°49′W / 14.817°S 138.817°W / -14.817; -138.817 - check the map. The islanders in the Cooks speak the documented Samoic Pukapukan language. It would be extraordinary to find that the islanders to the south of the Marquesas spoke the same language, forcing a fundamental reconsideration of all theories of Polynesian migration. I am inclined to believe that they speak a Marquesan dialect. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked whether I have a source for the article, and the answer is (1) I didn't make it up, but (2) I don't remember where I read about it. Maybe in the BPB Museum bulletin "Marquesan Legends", maybe in Fatu Hiva, perhaps any number of other sources, I simply don't remember. As I recall, from what I read the language was no longer spoken, in Puka Puka (nothing to do with Pukapuka in the Cooks), or elsewhere. When I wrote the stub, I was doing a brain dump of a lot of stuff having to do with the Marquesas, and my interest in the subject began to wane 15 years ago already... Tomer ^talk 02:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless TShilo12/Tomer remembers where he heard about it. ;-) —An gr 05:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, except that I didn't hear about it, I read about it. There is, I think, especially in this context, a significant difference... :-p I do reserve the right to recreate the article, should it be deleted, without prejudice, if I manage to dig up the source where I originally read about it, before my deteriorating brain forgets I have a wp acct. :-D Tomer ^talk 07:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and therefore unverifiable, and a good chance it's a hoax.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfect example of both deletionist paranoia & the need for Pure Wiki Deletion. Wikipedia is not World Book. Ventifax (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your user page I see you've written a slightly more substantial response to this AFD: "The deletionists (who sometimes seem to be the dominant culture lately) are actually contending that a) the language in existence can't exist because, "it's really just a dialect;" (Oh? I guess we should delete Cantonese language & Norwegian language then) & b) that the article could be a fraud, so we should delete it." It looks to me like you might misunderstand the problem (at least as far as the dialect thing is concerned). First of all, the objection is not at all that this is "just a dialect". It's that the only language called "Puka-Pukan" that anyone here can find in reliable published sources is not the same language described on this Wikipedia article. If it exists, whether it's a separate Marquesan language or a dialect of some other Marquesan language is beside the point. Secondly, while I don't agree with some of the people who think Tomer made the whole article up or something (I'd rather assume good faith), there's simply no sources for any of the information, and Tomer himself doesn't know where to find it. The article is therefore unverifiable, at least for the present time, and so (our argument goes) is inappropriate for this encyclopedia. No one would stop the recreation of the article if if sources were found. --Miskwito (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Puka-Puka article mentions that the language spoken on the island is Marquesan. This article says no more. I absolutely assume good faith: it seems highly likely that this article is entirely accurate. But I see no reason for a short stub with no sources that just repeats one sentence in the Puka-Puka article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC) (not remotely a deletionist)[reply]

Delete You can just copy it to your user space and work on it there. Until we have viable sources, this really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There is no prejudice associated with the deletion of the article. If you need assistance in saving this article, I highly recommend speaking with User:MichaelQSchmidt. He can help you with the intricacies of Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 27 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) 03:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Krome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is an orphan page that reads like a resume. None of the sources listed show notability or even mention the subject. Cleanup tags have been repeatedly removed by a couple SPAs. Edward321 (talk) 14:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF – e.g., zero hits on Google Scholar and Google Books. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either, with only two hits on Google News.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is little more than a laundry list of the subjects this individual has taught in an extension program, how he's a "professional communicator", and what local radio stations he's worked for – it doesn't really even make any strong claims of notability, so I guess it's not terribly surprising that none have been found. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. i found [38], and [39], but these are announcements that the paper prints from anybody submitting them so they are more in the way of a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence or likelihood of passing WP:PROF, and the notability-by-inheritence argument that he's designed websites for notable people doesn't fly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 23 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) 03:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enhilex Address Book Software[edit]

Delete. Non-notable software with no independent reliable third-party sources cited. Google brings up numerous results, all of which appear to be (self-added) trial download points. Author has been username blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:44z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial third party sources, Tucows doesn't count. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 19:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM and no reliable sources. Laurent (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure spam. Drawn Some (talk) 01:11, 25 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) 03:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Wen[edit]

Recreated article afte it got deleted as a prod. No notability established, no external references, a bordercase of WP:MADEUP. Tone 14:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per wp:v. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:48z
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:G4; it's the same (basically) as it was the last time it was deleted. Cheers. I'^mperator 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Jake Wartenberg 15:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of independent sources provided. Speedy delete does not apply; this article has never gone through AfD before. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as Recreation of deleted material. Cnilep (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G4 applies to article that were deleted in AfD discussion. This one was a PROD, so I am bringing it here now. --Tone 20:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake; I guess I wasn't paying attention. Make that Delete per nom. Cnilep (talk) 14:37, 20 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) 01:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley A. Klein[edit]

Fails wp:PROF -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t13:53z 13:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full Professor at a major University. Enough publications to pass WP:PROF. Salih (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What criteria in WP:PROF am I missing? -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t14:43z
  - Criterion 1; The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources. Scopus author profile returns this. Also, Googlebooks returns 62 hits. Salih (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Scopus link doesn't work for me. If his work "has made significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources", shouldn't there be RSes saying that? I missed wp:profs "When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average." which is a strange notability measurement because Berkeley had about 1900 professors 18 years ago[40]. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-20t08:23z
Keep. I agree with Salih. The subject meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact clearly indicates notability.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Shouldn't these be citations of Klein's work in trusted sources by others, not a list of articles he's published? ~~
Keep by our usual standards. I suspect most or all full professors at Berkeley will pass WP:PROF. One does not get this rank there without significant accomplishment and being known widely as an authority in the profession. I trust their ability to judge this more than our own. (OK, I admit I'm an alumnus). DGG (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Salih, Eric Yurken and DGG make valid points for keeping. Also he has passed muster of the Psychonomic Society which requires notability. Also being a senior member of SPIE. So outside of notability, what other criteria is valid for deletion? I see none. As to notability the Psychonomic Society. SPIE and Berkeley have made that distinction for us. Also Klein does in my evaluation meet Wikipedia:Notability (academics). As that states “ If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable.” So why are we waste our time on this? If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable.Jlrobertson (talk) 15:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added comment to Keep on criteria for inclusion:

- The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (Klein is)

- The person is or has been an editor-in-chief of a major well-established journal in their subject area (Klein is a topical editor of OSV – Not Chief but close).

- A tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average (DDG has it right).

- The citations in Goggle, Scopus and at the University of California at Berkeley establish verifiability of Klein’s work.Jlrobertson (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not seeing the argument for the other criteria of WP:PROF, but (picking out the vision-related papers from Google scholar) he seems to be co-author on six papers with over 100 citations each; that's enough to convince me that he passes criterion #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 23 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 15:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Akron Quakers[edit]

This article was originally tagged for AFD by User:Oo7565 but twinkle seems to have messed up the nom and it was never completed, so I'm just finishing the job. Anyway, this article is about a basketball team/franchise that never played a game and does not seem notable enough for it's own article. Google news only returns 3 news articles (one of which is actually about wikipedia), which does not satisfy the general notability guideline. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect This seems interesting to me, but it looks like there's never going to be more sourceable material for a paragraph or two...how about creating a single page for all these teams and redirect? Maybe start by merging to Akron Cougars; there are 5: [41] news sources that cropped up for them. I found only one source: [42] for Akron Energy. It seems though, that the teams collectively form a notable phenomenon that we would be able to write a fairly full article on. Cazort (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, team never even existed. If there's an appropriate merge target, then merging is OK too. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason my failed proposal to get rich jackalope ranching doesn't merit an encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:47, 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. Cirt (talk) 03:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Has Harbour Views (film)[edit]

Unsourced, prod rv seems to say there are no sources. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t13:18z 13:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Lacks sources and general assertion of notability. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return if/when it moves from "development" to filming. This article is way to premature. Fails WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:22, 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 Keep. I'm ending this one a bit early due to the snowy nature, and that nom. seems to concede the keep points. Good show, all. Wknight94 ^talk 19:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bright[edit]

Non-notable minor leaguer, good faith search brings up no coverage other than game recaps doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 ^T/C 12:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage other than results, hasn't played in a top pro league, or amateur competition, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, you're right, the WBC is the near the top level of the sport, so I am switching to keep. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 20:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a number of refs to the article. While the Baseball World Cup and the World Baseball Classic aren't the Olympics (which will no longer have baseball, FWIW), it seems to me that being selected by your country for those competitions means you are one of the best at that sport in your country. Those appearances, plus the all-star appearance, plus the added refs, are enough to push me into the keep column.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah I noticed the selection right after I finished the nomination, thanks for brining that here though.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm curious if you realized your link to the gnews search was only for the last month. Had you intended to link to all dates instead?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah my bad, fixed it.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He played in the World Baseball Classic--Yankees10 20:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played in the World Baseball Classic for Australia. If he's not notable for being a minor league baseball player, he is definitely notable for being competing in the WBC. Borgarde (talk) 06:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. (Thanks, Fabrictramp!) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above comments, player appears to meet requirements according to WP:ATHLETE due to his inclusion in the WBC. Mandermagic (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for WBC participation, possible WP:SNOW. matt91486 (talk) 14:57, 24 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 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chelladurai[edit]

Unsourced, and "known for its wealth and kindness" and a surname "very popular among Nadars"? Prod reverted without sourcing or fixing. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:39z 12:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources found in a quick google search for Chelladurai name. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it is easy to verify that Chelladurai is a valid last name, I didn't find any sources that discuss the origins, characteristics etc of the name, or of the particular community that may have it; as required by WP:N. I will be happy to take another look if such sources are found. Abecedare (talk) 23:13, 20 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gola H. Sebenar[edit]

Unsourced, prod removed without sourcing anything, fails wp:bio. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t11:52z 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and unsourced article. I couldn't find anything on a Google search. ^blurred _peace ☮ 12:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, which is either a Wikipedia mirror, or it means that the article is a copyvio. Other than that, I can't find anything to prove his notability. So I say either Speedy or Delete, based on whether that's a copyvio or not. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 13:15, 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 redirect to Stir crazy. Cirt (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stircrazy[edit]

Non-notable producer. Lacks any coverage of any sort. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources and ELs are non wp:RS websites including messageboard, other band's net radio site, youtube, own site, and myspace. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:06z
Redirect to the Stir crazy disambig page. Article's subject is NN and has no reliable sources to prove notability. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Doc Strange: Redirect to Stir crazy (which is what I was looking for in the first place when I typed this into the search bar). I can't see any sources that demonstrate notability here. Robofish (talk) 04:07, 22 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 a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Hurst[edit]

This article was created earlier this month and tagged straight away for conflict of interest and notability, mainly because it appears to be a relative of David Hurst who is writing an article. Since then, the same author has added further text which not only does nothing to address the matter of notability but goes even further away from neutral point of view, the worst offender being the sentence "Nevertheless, it was the child who shyly said that the Emperor had no clothes who turned out to have had the better view of the matter." I would re-write the article, but having had a look through Ghits, Gnews and Gbooks, I can't find anything to support notability - just purchase sites, wiki mirrors, one review on a possible self-published site, and a few trivial mentions. I'm happy for someone to step in and salvage this, but I can't find any reason to do so myself. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- subject may be notable but there is no evidence of it! If he is worthy of an encyclopedia article, the article needs to be re-written with a NPOV anyway. HJ Mitchell (talk) 10:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced. The book On Westernism is the only thing that has some hits, but not enough for wp:bio. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:15z
Delete. I did some poking around on google scholar for the first book "The London Dialogues" and it seems to not be referenced in anything. Also, I can't even find a single reliable source saying that the pen-name "Tiresias" used for that book is actually associated with this guy! If he actually did write that book it seems to not have gotten anyone's attention at all. Cazort (talk) 14:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The book is on an academic subject, but the author is not an academic, but a school teacher. The publisher is also a non-academic one. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Kid[edit]

The article shows no sign of notability. I've found no reliable sources to establish this notability yet. Just being trained by Shawn Michaels does not show notability to me.--WillC 09:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- just a basic google search for "UK Kid wrestling" throws up something- such as [43] or [44], though whether either of these count as WP:RS is another matter. HJ Mitchell (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I've never heard of either of them and as far as WP:PW's style guide says, they aren't. So I'm not sure either. All I got were blogs and no named sites. So I'm not sure.--WillC 13:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I think it goes some way to notability. What we really need is the author to dig something up, otherwise my "keep" argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. I disagree with large parts of WP:N but couldn't agree more strongly with WP:RS and this seems to fall foul of both. HJ Mitchell (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient reliable, third-party sources exist to establish notability. See [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. These, in addition to discussions on several promotions' websites, more than satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I am working on a couple of other articles right now, but I would be happy to expand and source this article in the future. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice work. I'd be surprised if any one of those, on its own, would satisfy WP:RS but the body of evidence makes a compelling case HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Sun and the Texas Wrestling Academy are fine IMO. The rest I'm unsure of.--WillC 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Numbers 3, 4, and 8 are from the websites of actual newspapers, which definitely qualify as reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:28, 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 Speedy Keep Good faith but mistaken nom. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okopipi (software tool)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notabiiity under question - 3rd AFD. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Verified, sourced, notable and historically interesting. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The AfD should never have been started if you believe it should be kept. You could have just removed the tag without starting a new AfD. Enigma^msg 15:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close (delete the nomination unless a reasoning is provided and discussion is raised) The nomination does not explain why the notability is questioned and why we shouldn't follow the outcome of the previous two AFDs. No valid reason to delete provided. No prejudice against a better reasoned nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last edit (which I reversed) was an abbreviation, and a prod thereby seeking to circumvent the previous afd outcomes. I therefore thought it best to rediscuss. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no such prod. Prod is proposed deletion. Enigma^msg 15:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[51] Kittybrewster ☎ 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See what I said. There was no prod. Enigma^msg 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 12:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I am finding many more sources than the ones currently listed, see: [52] For a relatively new piece of software, I think this very firmly establishes notability. Cazort (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I'm not sure why this article as nominated, it appears it was nominated because someone tagged the article with ((notablity)). There is a bunch of recent editing that is, at best, confusing. Wrs1864 (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and close Bad faith nomination. Enigma^msg 15:43, 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 SNOW delete Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Manic[edit]

This unsigned 15 year old DJ does not appear to meet any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. The article states that they are unsigned and their claim to fame is through social networking sites. No third-party reliable sources are provided and a general Google search ([53]) doesn't return anything other than the artist's own various websites while a search of Google Australia (the DJ's home country) ([54]) returns nothing. Note that the blue-linked items in the discography are to generic words, and not this DJ's releases. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have a recording contract (although this may be a less important indicator of notability in the future) and contains no independent reliable sources. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not evident as required by WP:MUSIC. WWGB (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty clearly fails WP:MUSIC, and I was not able to find any independent coverage of this person through Google, which one would expect if he were a currently active and notable electronic musician. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Unambiguously fails WP:MUSIC, Myspace.com is not a reliable source. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 19:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Last.fm is not a reliable source either, as it accepts user-contributed content. Radiant chains (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lacks substantial coverage. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:47, 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. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Joshua Tree (band)[edit]

Non-notable tribute band. See WP:MUSIC. Coverage is trivial and for some reason is mostly limited to Alaskan sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, mostly blogs, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per this. Trivial mentions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Non-notable band. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete The bar is high for tribute bands, not met here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep The bar is the same for tribute bands. Coverage in [55] (university publication might not reach wp:rs) and [56] goes beyond trivial. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:10, 24 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) 03:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queens Station[edit]

It was a proposed LRT station, but is currently not planned to be built. Canuck85 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the station isn't gonna be built, it's not notable enough for an article. I'd suggest merging to Evergreen Line (Vancouver) but there really isn't anything to merge. BryanG (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually kind to stations but as this one isn't historical nor even plans for its building, I don't see the value for this. I wouldn't even propose merging it to Evergreen Line (Vancouver). --Oakshade (talk) 20:21, 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 merge to Rotherham United F.C.. MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miller Bear[edit]

No claim to significance or notability. I nominated this for speedy, which was declined under the rationale that speedy is for people, not bears. In the future, let's bend the rules to include our ursine friends. JNW (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rotherham United F.C.. Can't see any reason for a mascot for a football club to have notability independent of the club, unless you're H'Angus the Monkey. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if it can be verified, otherwise redirect. Mascots should be covered in team articles unless they are more widely known (or unless splitting is needed) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article on the team could mention the bear. It looks like this article was partly written as a joke, since the bear as an info box as if he were a player on the team. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One has trouble seeing why mascots are significant enough, except for a handful of examples that have earned media coverage over many years, to merit mention at all, let alone meet encyclopedic standards for significance. This particular one is thus far unreferenced, and turns up no Google hits--what's to merge? Agreed that this was likely done as a lark. JNW (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result of this Google search [57] reveals very little, but does not dampen one's initial interpretation, that the bear is a dressed-up human. JNW (talk) 17:23, 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 keep. SNOW close Tone 13:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Frobel[edit]

Was prodded for notability, but it also describes the Green Belt Europe, which seems notable to me. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you want this article to be deleted or not? You give no reason to have this article deleted. Ikip (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd say he is notable enough per [58] [59] and many other German sources. The article needs to be rewritten though... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 05:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the sky tv reference already in the article. 22 google news entries. Author of at least two books.[60][61] and the central figure in a BBC documentary. Ikip (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per asserted and found notability. Was this brought to AfD only to seek improvement? Even the nom agrees he seems notable. Per WP:AFTER - In English: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], and in German: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], et al. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No reason for deletion is provided - the nominator created the article and seems content with it. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Bringing an article to AFD after contesting a PROD is not uncommon. It is to make sure consensus exists to keep it to counter further deletion nominations on the same grounds whatever those were. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable coverage in third party media is clearly referenced. Dream Focus 11:55, 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 per WP:SNOW. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian Sailors[edit]

This alleged basketball team appears to be a hoax. Grahame (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not so much a hoax as a non-notable social basketball team. The article includes the "Sailors" will be competeting in Division 14 which sums it up pretty clearly. Sounds like they have a good time but. :-) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced article, apparently unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP and WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 05:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete appears like a hoax. Ikip (talk) 06:52, 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 Speedy delete as vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viking blitz[edit]

Not really encyclopedic. Barry m (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete = As G3: Blatant misinformation. ("18 kids were nearly trampled in a Taco Bell parking lot"? No.) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Not encyclopedic, norefs, probable misinformation, and perhaps not WP:N also Dougofborg^(talk) 04:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heidelberg Middle School[edit]

Orphaned article, nothing notable about the school, very little info given in the article; WP:IINFO. The super red one (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— The super red one (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. First edit was putting this article up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has the wrong tag. Ikip (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep First of all WP:IINFO is probably the most misused guideline in AfD disccusions, WP:IINFO includes: Plot summaries. Lyrics databases. Statistics. News reports. In which this is none of the four. An orphaned article can be fixed, so can very little info in the article. WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE was not followed here. There are several references in the article, so it meets notablity guidelines. 22 google articles many of them centrally about the school. Ikip (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this discussion has been included on: Talk:List of schools in Germany, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. And I emailed the principal :) Ikip (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: Can't see any reason why this article should be deleted. Just because the article is orphaned or in its early stage doesn't mean it needs deleting. If that was the case, we would never get any articles, they all have to start somewhere! EA210269 (talk) 07:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The school won a significant national award the nominator didn't discuss and I would also disagree with the claim nothing is notable about the school itself. It's the first and only time, I heard of a school that directly caters to children of a particular part of government. Being orphaned is not a valid reason for deletion (it can be fixed. Little information can be countered with a expansion (but stubs are acceptable too) and WP:IINFO doesn't apply at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ikip. I find it very surprising that this should be a new editor's first contribution.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid reason for deletion given and sources are available to establish notability. --J^mundo 14:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unusual school with a significant award. TerriersFan (talk) 14:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps a speedy close. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep At this point, it appears that any additional positive input is strictly a pile-on. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. Its a pity that its an orphan, but that a reason to set up links in other article... or write additional articles.... certainly not a reason for deletion. [75], [76], [77]. And in IS strange that the ONLY thing a SPA does is nominate an article for deletion. What newcomers know how to do that? Fishy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most middle schools are not notable, but this article establishes notability with reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is under construction. Sub-Contractors (above supportive editors) have been notified. Demolition should cease ASAP.--Buster7 (talk) 10:49, 22 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, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fonts in Mac OS X[edit]

Unencyclopedic and of questionable notability; WP:IINFO. Cybercobra. (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cybercobra (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep The only policy reason for this to be deleted is: WP:IINFO is probably the most misused guideline in AfD disccusions, WP:IINFO includes: Plot summaries. Lyrics databases. Statistics. News reports. In which this is none of the four. Detailed list of all fonts, which, with a little work, can be referenced. Definetely encyclopedic. Ikip (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that those are merely examples of what falls under IINFO. The article is basically a glorified database dump. The proper place to direct users to for this material would be some Apple help page which certainly lists the fonts. It might very well be category-worthy though. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this discusion included at: Talk:Macintosh ‎ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Macintosh ‎ Talk:List of Microsoft Windows fonts Ikip (talk) 07:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless the nominator provides a reasoning, I'll have to agree with Ikip. I can see no particular good reason to call a list of fonts unencyclopedic and since the nominator didn't give us one, no valid reason for deletion exists. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful for finding fonts that are cross-compatible, for one thing. And per above.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Usefulness is not directly a criteron, otherwise lots of how-to material that's currently rejected would be acceptable. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is simply bizarre. Mlewan (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopaedia is a list of articles, and this is a list of fonts. You can't gain yourself notability and coverage if you are a computer font. [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? The font articles have more justification of notability than mere presence in a list article. Your comment seems like a non-sequitur. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep I don't really care for all the endless discussion about what WP is and what it is not. This is a very useful article that I have referred to several times and it is the kind of article that I expect to see on WP. Why isn't List of Microsoft Windows fonts up for deletion as well?Connectionfailure (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't know said article existed to be honest. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept (looks like it will, and I tend to agree), I think it should be moved to → List of Mac OS X fonts. Seems like a more encyclopedic title, and it would also match the Microsoft Windows article that was mentioned. Jamie^☆S93 23:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even stronger keep endorse move to List of Mac OSX fonts. This is a useful and encyclopaedic article. pablo_hablo. 11:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate collection of information. _R_ (talk) 16:59, 25 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) 00:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tupelo Honey Cafe[edit]

Declining db-spam deletion; taking to AfD. The taggers split on this one, and I'd like to get feedback on notability requirements for restaurants. A surprising number of ghits, but do restaurant reviews = notability? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:10, 19 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) 03:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a. the article is really, really not good (diplomatic enough?) b. there's plenty of coverage available on Google News, see here c. the food is fantastic--you should try that breakfast of theirs with bacon, eggs, and home fries. Dan, it's great, and you can eat outside. Oh! yes, I do believe in their notability, and I hope someone will clean this article up. (I can't right now, I'm making ice cream.) Drmies (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Drmies. MuffledThud (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. By the way, the nominator is a foodie? (I've seen him bring in food-related articles more than 3 times. :))-Caspian blue 03:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More confused than knowledgeable; food and restaurants have lots of hits in the popular press. So does today's weather, but hits != notability for commonplace things; how commonplace are good restaurants? I can go either way; I do like the simplicity of "Google news stories focused on the subject = notability". - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quality of the hits and the significance of the mention matter, of course. This place has gotten a lot of coverage because it "stands" for something, some Asheville thing, one of those things easier to point to in a newspaper than to write up. BTW, Dan, if you are a foodie, I got some freshly made frozen peach yogurt for you. Linguist, that's a disgusting thought: no ice cream for you. Drmies (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably - Here are some reliable sources that mention the restaurant. [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83] In my opinion, any given one of them isn't what I would call significant coverage, but I'd say they probably add up to notability, along with being mentioned on a TV show. "Tu pelo" means "your hair" in Spanish, by the way. Hope they don't have any in the food. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very tasty article that passes WP:RS. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent reviews[84] of a restaurant act toward notability just as such do for a film or a book. By way of comparison, we grant notability to fast food establishments based upon the press they generate in their wide-spread marketing, though they rarely get great reviews for quality of product. If a smaller one-of establishment makes enough of an impression[85] to be reviewed and rated, that speaks toward its notability, as in my opinion, places like that rarely get in-depth news coverage unless they are otherwise historical or the site of some tragedy. So for them, a good review by established and respected restaurant critics such as Frommers[86], picked up by the New York Times[87], definitely works to show note. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- MQS, thank you for saying that so nicely and usefully. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It's a stub, but notability has been fairly-well established. I'm not sure how much more information really is needed on it. Without becoming a spam-laden article full of self-promotional material, I think that the basic facts have been presented. Include some snippets of useful information culled from the mentioned sources, and leave it a brief, but well-sourced article. At least until someone cares to invest a lot of effort into it. --Willscrlt (→“¡¿Talk?!”) 18:05, 25 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 Detroit Public Schools#Zoned PreK-8 schools. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D. Bethune Duffield Elementary School (Detroit)[edit]

This doesn't appear to be a notable school. A redirect to Detroit Public Schools should replace this article. I will be happy to retract this AFD if evidence of notability is found. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close You don't need an AFD to redirect an article. Unfortunately, such a merge would probably receive resistence from people who consider all schools notable. Discussing a merge to the locality or school district at WP:MRFD is a better idea considering there are a few independent sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did the AFD route because another user reverted my merge, and because I wanted to demonstrate to the user why the article shouldn't remain. Also Keep in mind that another user pointed out that this is an "implausible search term." WhisperToMe (talk) 02:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely you can gain the same consensus to merge on a page created for the purpose of discussing mergers? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We don't take pages to AfD to make points to users; we politely explain the situation on their talk pages. MGM is correct, this is not the forum to propose redirection. TerriersFan (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Detroit Public Schools#Zoned PreK-8 schools per usual practice. Not a Blue Ribbon school and I can't find enough sources to support its own page. TerriersFan (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redirecting would be nonsensical as it would be an implausible search term. Tavix | Talk 01:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not only is redirecting not nonsensical but it is essential. There is a small amount of sourced content that can be merged so the redirect is needed; not as a search term but for GFDL reasons. I have now carried out the merge. TerriersFan (talk) 17:18, 20 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 Honda Indy Toronto#History. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Avrin[edit]

WP:ONEEVENT. Shankopotamus (talk) 02:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge if desired to Honda Indy Toronto#History. JJL (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JJL. One (talk) 18:26, 25 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 Not-delete. Discussions on whether or not to merge the article can be taken up on its talk page. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamastan[edit]

"Hamastan" is a WP:NEOLOGISM absent from all reliable dictionaries and encyclopedias. The term has been used, always incidentally and in passing, by many commentators and in a large number of media reports. However, I am unaware of a single reliable source that is actually about the word "hamastan," as opposed to simply using or mentioning it. Certainly, no such source has ever been mentioned in the article. In fact, the article has systematically over-stated the influence and relevance of the term "hamastan." For instance, a single off-hand comment by a senior Hamas politician has become the sole basis of a section called "Hamas response," and the crucial phrase, "Since 2007, the term has been used to refer to its 2007 victory in Gaza over Fatah in the inter-Palestinian conflict," is sourced to a brief AP wire story recounting comments by an Israeli politician who incidentally used the term "Hamastan." The article definitively fails Wikipedia's basic notability standard, in that it cites no sources about the term "Hamastan." WP:NEOLOGISM, which explicates this basic standard, could have been written with "Hamastan" specifically in mind:

Created terms that add common prefixes or suffixes (such as non– or –ism) to existing words can add clarity, and this may be acceptable in some cases. If not done carefully, however, this practice can result in new terms that are misleading, ambiguous, offensive, or that lend undue weight to a particular point of view. (For instance, adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them.
[...]
Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use.

The salvageable content of this article (ie, the material that does not misrepresent its sources in order to puff up the term "Hamastan") should be merged to Hamas, Governance of the Gaza Strip, and whichever other articles could stand it. The article itself should be deleted as a pointless violation of numerous WP policies. <eleland/talkedits> 01:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AGREE/CONCUR/SUPPORT If it was in a dictionary, then I would have to (grudgingly) accept it; but it isn't, so I don't.
--NBahn (talk) 02:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heyo Nathan,
  There's actually a good number of articles for terms that don't appear in dictionaries (Sample: [88]) and this is a very new term as well. I think you need to review the policies as there's no mention that a term must be in dictionaries before its allowed to write an article about it. I've just come to the belief that the article should probably stay, give my reasoning (a bit lower) a look.
  Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Condense and merge to Hamas. I couldn't find any sources with in-depth coverage talking about the term "Hamastan" as opposed to using the term, although I didn't look through all 2300+ Gnews hits. If someone can come up with significant coverage of the term itself, I'll change to a keep. But for now, this needs to be condensed to a paragraph and merged. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Another target for merger might be Palestinian territories. Apparently, "Hamastan" is an alternative, pejorative term used by Israeli and other media to refer to the Palestinian territories (Gaza strip and West bank) (See page 7 of this). Just because there are two or more commonly used names for the same geographical location doesn't mean we should have more than one article. Wikipedia covers topics and mentions all alternative names in one article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hamastan is mostly used with the intention of having a useful shorthand term for "Hamas controlled Islamic state in Gaza". It's common usage (and subsequent notability) is based on just that as the ease of use has found its way to all types of sources. The term has numerous favorable or benign context appearances and it has become quite common with it's original "place of" (-stan) context.
Sample: [89] - Hamas's takeover of Gaza, which yesterday seemed closer than ever, is destined to split the territories into two entities that are politically and even culturally separate: Hamastan (the Gaza Strip) and Fatahstan (the West Bank).
-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- This is a handy term for referring to a current (partially-realized) or possible future Palestinian Islamic state which has been use for about four years now, and has appeared in a number of articles in "mainstream" media. Note that this word is not a synonym for Gaza (as both some who want to delete the article and some who want to keep it appear to believe); it was coined in response to the results of the Palestinian_municipal_elections,_2005 and then Palestinian legislative election, 2006, when Gaza and the West bank were not divided as they are now, and it can be used to refer to various scenarios of a possible future Palestinian Islamic state (not necessarily confined to Gaza). AnonMoos (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - AnonMoos is correct that the term, which applies to any territory controlled by Hamas or a Hamas equivalent (Islamist organization), could indeed refer to more than just the Gaza strip and many concerns have been raised that Hamas would try a military coup over the West Bank as well as it did in Gaza. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Both of you have said that the term has appeared in a number of articles. Given that I have already stated this fact, and that the quoted policies clearly state that just having appeared in a number of sources is not sufficient for an article, why do you keep bringing up this point? How about instead you cite even one source that actually covers the term nontrivially, rather than just using or mentioning it? <eleland/talkedits> 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My first thought is that it refers to a country which is all about Ham. Edison (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HA! :-)
--NBahn (talk) 23:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The AfD was opened shortly after an RfC was started for resolving on whether the term should be described first and foremost as a 'pejorative'. Current article version is not a consensus one (see: Talk:Hamastan#RfC_-_Pejorative_terminology). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per nomination, merge to Hamas. pedrito - talk - 21.04.2009 09:17
Comment - shouldn't it be Occupied Hamastan ?...just kidding. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I wasn't sure so I took some time and thought it over and came to the following conclusion: besides how common the term has become in mainstream media, there is no way that it could be explained, along with the two/three possible uses (pejorative and standard), within the context of the Hamas article without becoming undue. I can also see it mentioned on numerous articles that relate to the Gaza strip as it's become the most common terminology for the "Hamas Islamist state in Gaza". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hamas. MeteorMaker (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Condense and Merge per LinguistatLarge, splitting material between Hamas, Gaza Strip and/or Palestinian Authority where appropriate. Hamastan is just a word with pejorative connotations for the Gaza Strip under Hamas control. Tiamut^talk 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or (in the least) Merge Topic has become mainstream and recognized by a high-level Hamas official and major media. I certainly would not endorse a delete with that kind of support, but a merge seems like a "reasonable", though unnecessary compromise. However, I cannot picture implementing a merge into Hamas without consequently removing much of the source material other than the quote(s) and basic background. I can't say I'm comfortable with that. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—notable neologism. Neologisms can have articles. The nominator's argument doesn't stand because Hamastan is well-sourced and used by many notable figures. It is not something that we invented on Wikipedia, or something that was used by a fringe blogger. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - examples of people using the word isnt enough to have an article on the word, its enough to use it in other articles. Nableezy (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wiktionary. As a somewhat notable neologism, it would be useful to have a definition, but that belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple sources discussing the term indicates that the term is notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- One will find another 702,000 hits [90] if one spells it "Hamas-stan" instead. Tundrabuggy (talk) 05:47, 27 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 00:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo Central Railway[edit]

Only non-trivial source I found is a brief snippet in a 2007 Globe and Mail. Doesn't confer enough notability to overcome the high COI (author is WCR09 (talk · contribs)). Blueboy 96 01:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (and merge if appropriate) to Waterloo-St._Jacobs_Railway#Waterloo_Central_Railway; inadequately notable on its own. JJL (talk) 02:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What a nice article. The Wurdalak (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stub article with potential for growth Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [91], and [92] are bout this railway. At the very least, it's a merge as noted above. Ther's no good reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:02, 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 Speedy delete by Ged UK, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 17:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar Entertainment[edit]

Nothing to support notability. JNW (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or even claim of notability; unsourced. Please list AfD on article page (only has the CSD notice now). JJL (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete see WP:ADVERTISING. It is quite noticably written by an employee, or even the employer. [[Andrew RACK]] (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:38, 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 keep. This article was nominated for deletion in good faith. However, besides a non applicable argument for deletion under CSD A7, nobody besides the nominator is arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland[edit]

AfDs for this article:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Looking at the references, I see two youtube videos, the game developers web site, two decent pages, and a thread on the Blockland Forum. Doesn't look notable to me. gordonrox24 (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – after looking at Google News, it appears there has been enough coverage of the game to assert notability. TheAE talk/sign 20:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A google search only turns up 622,000 hit. A relativly small amount for a notable topic considering WP has 279,000,000, and competing game RuneScape reaches 17,700,000 hits. I see little evidence of notablility.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Woah. That is the biggest case of WP:GHITS I've ever seen. TheAE talk/sign 21:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that not true, as it is an online game, and you would expect to be able to find lots of info via google for a notable online topic.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a search on Google news gives us results on unrelated topics named Blockland.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply looking for a Google search result number isn't a good way to decide if something is notable. Try searching Google News Archives instead, and look at the articles given. I'm not saying it is 100%-no-doubt-about-it notable, but simply given "622,000 Ghits" (which is actually a lot) shouldn't be your only reason to delete. TheAE talk/sign 22:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC

Google hits aren't my reason to delete and I only took a look at the hits when you started talking about google. My reason to delete is lack of references and questionable notability.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, I agree. I still see a weak keep here, though. TheAE talk/sign 22:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to list - I'm not sure what American Eagle was looking at. Google News has no hits for this game. The Edge and ShackNews coverage is perhaps just enough to establish notability. Can they support a whole article? Marasmusine (talk) 09:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now thats a good question.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to above – You searched Google News (which is current news), you need to search Google News Archives, which lists (though less than I thought at first) a few related articles to Blockland. For example, this article (Finnish text translated), this article, as well as others which seem more trivial. There are some, so weak keep for me. TheAE talk/sign 22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment rushing out, but there do appear to be a few gnews hits that might be notable. Doing a search is a pain. [93]. Hobit [User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 12:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment': I am going to go through the article, and remove all the un-cited material and all the stuff with no references and see where we stand.--gordonrox24 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would like to point out the coinicdental timing of this nomination for deletion compared to a recent action by a community-declared "rival" game, Roblox, in an attempt to gain more users, encouraged its members to spam websites, including Blockland, with referral links. This caused Hartman to filter "roblox.com" on the page to automatically ban the spammers. Due to the inmaturity of both communities, such a nomination for deletion is probably related. --ladios15:58, 23 April 2009
Comment: Ladios, we need to assume good faith. ROBLOX has not told anybody to spam anything, and I have actually been removing links from roblox off of Wikipedia. This has nothing to do with the nomination. The only thing I am going off of is lack of notability and references.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The references cited are shacknews.com, G4TV and Edge magazine - for a computer game I don't know how you could possibly get more authoritative. Blockland has been on television. It has been in a half dozen magazines. This whole thing is just the latest salvo in some retarded on-going fan-boy war from competing games. Grow up. --71.237.169.146 (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)— 71.237.169.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: Considering I have an account on Blockland, I fail to see how that is a reasonable thing to say.--gordonrox24 (talk) 03:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:A7, non-notable web content. Tagged as such. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 says "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance". The article says "It was spotlighted on The Screen Savers...drastically increasing the user base overnight. Blockland has also been featured on Shack News." Doesn't that count as a credible claim of significance or importance? If not, then we have a very different opinion of what A7 means. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 doesn't apply to software. I've removed the speedy. --Ged UK 22:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A7 is not for software.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Non trivial coverage by g4 (majority owned by Comcast) and Shacknews (owned by GameFly) is enough to satisfy WP:ORG. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since I opened this AFD, The article has been expanded greatly, but in that expansion no new references have been added. All information without source or reference can and will be challenged and or removed.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sentiment I agree with. Fixing up an article to withstand an AFD is great. However, adding a bunch of unsourced material is not what that means. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for fixing articles, but if references cannot be found, it is a subtle hint that the topic is not notable.--gordonrox24 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added another reference. There are clearly enough references to prove that this is notable. Ephialtes42 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)— Ephialtes42 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: An A7 CSD tag was placed on the article by User:Stifle. User:Ged UK declined saying that the article is about software. When asked, he said people would probably disagree with his decision, but he is sticking to it. The question is are we dealing with blockland as a piece of software, or as a website. Web sites are eligible for A7, but Software is not.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Blockland is a non-competitive multiplayer computer game built on the Torque Game Engine" Defiantly a piece of software. -- Tommeh6 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)— Tommeh6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then the article proceeds to talk about the forums on the website. I don't know. I think it is a piece of software.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blockland is a piece of software. Were not talking about an article for Blockland.us. --Tommeh6 (talk) 22:33, 25 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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firestar Records[edit]

Nothing to support significance or notability. JNW (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 10:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Lacks proper coverage. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete: No reliable, third-party, sources only a main site. Cheers Kyle1278 01:32, 22 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 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of clubs in Bahrain[edit]

The list is perfect for a Bahrain telephone directory, but its presence here is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comment. I am not the first one to create such groups, and there is no reason that this article should be deleted. There are articles like this for List of clubs in Egypt and List of clubs in India. If the latter two are perfectly fine with Wikipedia policy, then this article should have no problem. You claim that this is suitable for telephone directories, but there are many list of these kinds in wikipedia such as list of airlines, shopping malls and movie theaters. Canadian (talk) 01:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WAX. Just because other, similar articles exist, does not mean that this one cannot be deleted. The deletion of this article might even set a new precedent for deleting similar articles via AfD. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I have nominated List of clubs in Egypt for deletion; the List of clubs in India is a redirect to List of football clubs in India--also on shaky ground, perhaps. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry if the nomination of this article created ill will; that was clearly not my intention. However, I need to point out that your argument for its inclusion runs afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the clubs named are not in a directory fashion at all. The clubs named are some of the most important clubs in Bahrain. Sorry, if you are not well acquainted with Bahrain, but the country of 650, 000 has well over 500 clubs, but these clubs are the ones that have the most clout and are commonly seen in newspapers. Take these examples, out of the aforementioned population of 650, 000 there are 100, 000 Indians, and another 100, 000 people from Bangladesh and Pakistan. There are some 50, 0000 Westerners. The clubs chosen are balanced and play a pivotal role in the social affairs of Bahrain. Case in the point that I have not written night clubs or bars. These organizations stated play a very important role in the everyday life of these expat communities. Hope this makes you change your mind. The article, albeit being short being labeled as with deletion is wholly a misunderstanding on the basis of the wikipedia community to know about other counties. Based on this, it would be most proper to remove the "delete tag." Canadian (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The template announcing this AfD will be removed at the conclusion of the discussion. And I would ask that you please do not remove it while the AfD is currently underway; I already reverted an attempt to remove the template. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have state above. This list does not blatantly name clubs that sprung up, but discriminates for the clubs in Bahrain that have contributed the most socially and are attended by a wide populace. Canadian (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on consensus, if everyone else who views this AfD !votes to keep it, then the consensus is keep, and it will be kept. However, in its current state, it probably won't survive this AfD. So instead of bickering over Wikipedia's systematic bias, go forth and find some reliable sources which clearly show why the clubs are notable in the context of Bahrain. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I don't see how this is notable, anything else than a directory. This explanation here actually makes it worse, since it begs the question of verifiability. The Lions Club has contributed to the social life in Manama (BTW, you might want to add that those are cities)--oh? how do you prove that? Drmies (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I guess I added why these clubs are important in playing a role that helps expats live in a foreign country. So I guess, the entry has been somewhat fixed. Canadian (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst a certain degree of notability is asserted, it is totally unverified, and potentially unverifiable. Fails even as a directory, as the article consist of nothing more than a list of redlinked clubs, with no indication of why any of them have any notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Explanations have been added to why a certain club in important.Canadian (talk) 00:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has been modified to suit the needs of a Wikipedia user. This includes adding explanations for why a certain clubs plays an important role. Canadian (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sources do not prove the topic's notability in the context of Bahrain. Most of the sources, if they even mention the clubs listed, only mention them briefly, and in passing. Much of the text is still original reasearch, and is poorly sourced, failing WP:RS and WP:V. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable nor verifiable. There are other similar articles created at the same time, List of beaches in Bahrain, List of restaurant chains in Bahrain, List of parks and gardens in Bahrain, List of movie theatres in Bahrain, List of hotels in Bahrain, and my favorite List of supermarket chains in Bahrain. Some of these were tagged as not notable, but the originator reverted that. Should these be deleted as well? Jmcnamera (talk) 13:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if one knows the social situation in Bahrain, a country with a population of 640, 000 where half of the populations is make out of expats, then this article would be very notable. Canadian (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_{Indented !vote because user has already !voted. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep and improve Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:02, 25 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 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Aldrich[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Spamy article for an author with questionable notability. BJ^Talk 19:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel there could be some notability there, but... I've had a quick look for reliable references - but only a quick look. Haven't found any yet. Article is a bit spammy, though. Peridon (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I now read Aldrich's blog on a regular basis and find it very useful and interesting, I would agree that he does not meet the notability criterias, at least not yet. For this reason I support the deletion. -- manu3d (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improve, not delete. While I agree that the article is spammy, Aldrich has about 200 hits in Google Scholar. His book Simulations and the future of e-learning is cited by over 100 other sources. That seems like a significant contribution to the field, and it fits the guideline of "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." This should have gotten an advert tag rather than prod. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clark Aldrich is a well known and published author in the field of e-learning. Please refrain from deleting this article. - Stephen Downes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Downes (talk • contribs) 20:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has two books in worldCat [94], and the principle one just mentioned has over 900 library holdings in worldCat. The other has over 200, With the citations, that's enough to show notability as an author. DGG (talk) 02:45, 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 redirect to The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). Tone 18:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Veltman[edit]

Non-notable contestant in The Apprentice 5 and he didn't won the show. Fails person has only one event. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 16:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think just being a contestant on a TV show, necessarily qualifies one for being notable. This is not the rules of notability on Wikipedia, and it does not matter if you win or loose in that game. So I would suggest deletion of this page. Parvazbato59 (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). Just being a contestant isn't enough for a stand-alone article per WP:ONEEVENT, and he doesn't appear to be notable for anything else, but as suggested there a redirect is perfectly acceptable and helps get readers to the relevant season article. BryanG (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 14 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, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per BryanG. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect BryanG said it all. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 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 redirect to The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). Tone 18:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Buckman[edit]

Non-notable finalist in The Apprentice 5 that he did not won the competition. He possibly in ONEEVENT. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 05:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Tevildo (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:23, 13 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, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Completely un-notable. South Bay (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Apprentice (U.S. season 5). Since he's only done one thing and fails inclusion guidelines, he cannot be covered in a separate article, but his name is a suitable redirect for people who want to know what he did on the program. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 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 Unsourced bio. None of the sources in the article tie this person to the specific activities and appearances alleged. This is G10 material, as there's nothing "possibly negative" about alleging porn appearances when the subject has filed an OTRS ticket to request deletion. Jclemens (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Boët[edit]

Subject requests deletion (otrs:2009032810011861).

Personal thoughts: Unsouced possibly negative BLP ("pornographic model") with no real claim to notability. BJ^Talk 08:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unsourced for two years, problematic article, borderline notability. Enigma^msg 08:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Relatively notable, has articles on both the German and French versions of Wikipedia. --dicttrshp (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 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, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The French version (here) cites a source by ISBN number, which I could not actually read, but is a book by her, not a book about her. The German version (here) is effectively unsourced (which isn't unusual on the German wikipedia, by the way; they have a very different attitude to BLP than we do). The ISBN numbers in the German version are also of books by her, not books about her.
I think there are insufficient reliable sources about her to justify keeping this article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep modest notability per movies, books. JJL (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found two articles about her and a book that discusses her: [95]. That;'s enough to meet WP:BIO. DGG (talk) 00:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Weak claim of notability, and unsourced, fails WP:BLP and WP:PORNBIO. --J^mundo 03:05, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All American Guys[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Makes several wild claims that are not backed up by sources. Enigma^msg 08:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Alexius08 (talk) 13:10, 12 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) 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete — Not notable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per above and per WP:WEB. Enigma^msg 03:13, 24 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 10:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landscape heraldry[edit]

This article fails the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. There is almost no literature on this relatively obscure phrase. Within the broader spectrum of heraldry, landscape heraldry is essentially a 19th century fad that can be summed up in about one paragraph, as evidenced by this page, which consists of a few sentences and a massive picture gallery that includes every example of landscape heraldry that could be found on WM Commons. This article does not represent a potential that is helpful to Wikipedia readers or the Heraldry Project, due to its lack of notability. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term 'landscape heraldry' has been used in at least one book on heraldry, (though it's only been given a passing mention). Though I'm sorely tempted to !vote for a delete, I see multiple references in Google of this term leading me to believe that this is indeed a notable form of heraldry. (NOTE: Maybe the reason why this term isn't very popular is because it's a technical term(?) ) Anti venin 13:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redir to Heraldry - not notable in its own right. It seems to be a simple dicdef according to this site. Note also CopyVio. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 16:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a copyright violation. If you read that site carefully, it says: The source of this article is Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The text of this article is licensed under the GFDL. The topic seems notable enough to have been mentioned in numerous sites. Anti venin 16:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok my whoops on the copyvio ... but its still seems a dicdef to me. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:00, 12 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) 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The material in that book for GBooks (A Complete Guide to Heraldry By Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, Graham Johnston) is a discussion,not just a mention. Based on it, the article could be easily expanded. DGG (talk) 00:44, 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 merge to Gilgit#Education. MBisanz ^talk 10:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KG School,Hospital Road[edit]

I cannot find any reliable, third party sources documenting this school; thus, fails our criteria for verifiability and notability. tempodivalse [☎] 15:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS. All high schools are notable. The school's existence can be confirmed by this Google Books search. Cunard (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gilgit#Education. If it can be verified that this is a secondary school I will change to keep. However, though the article states that it has been converted to a secondary school, I can't verify this. The best source that I can find, here, shows that the school was upgraded from a primary to middle school in 1973 but I can't trace a source that demonstrates if/when it became a high school. TerriersFan (talk) 19:54, 13 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) 00:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article is in poor (unsourced) shape, but high schools are almost always notable. JJL (talk) 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete, needs more than a passing mention to establish it exists. tedder (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Normally we would keep, but in this case I think it better to make an exception, and merge the material into the article on the city--an article which could use considerable improvement with respect to the recent history after 1950. i The source saying it was just a middle school was back in 1973, so it isn't contradictory to it being a high school, but there does not seem to be any available evidence of that. However, it is proof that the school did in fact exist. I carefully checked to see if I could find something Terriers Fan had missed, , but I did not get much further. When someone does, the article can be split. The fact than we can have a separate article does not mean we must have a separate article, or even that we should. DGG (talk) 02:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the school district or town article. Only its existence can be verified, so only it's existence should be covered, which doesn't require a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:22, 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.