< 22 April	24 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razakel[edit]

The article is made up, I'm guessing for someone's MMORPG profile or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.thomson (talk • contribs) 23:52, 23 April 2009

Comment Fixed nomination. Please use ((afd2)) when creating the nomination page. cab (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending sources. I'm not sure this article is made up, but I haven't had any luck finding anything to validate it. Sure has been around a long time. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Pending sources? Nothing on Google News, nothing on Google Books, poorly written and unreferenced: this is a hoax. Drmies (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The first ten Google pages come up with fictional demons with little in-universe importance[1], and a nonnotable(?) musician by this name.[2] Seems to be a popular profile name for various entertainment purposes, but I could not verify the content of the current article. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely stuff made up for an RPG one day. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass inclusion guidelines, wholly unsourced. MLauba (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete lack of sources. CanadianNine 23:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and above. Probably could have been speedily deleted.--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:07, 29 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. There doesn't appear to be a consensus to merge the material into the high school's article, and as it is a generic list of the courses offered in most UK high schools I don't see any need to do so under WP:PRESERVE.. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of school subjects at Perth High[edit]

WP:NOT a course catalog. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivia. Ladyof Shalott 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's about school but not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Hekerui (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where's this school located, that they're too cheap to have their own webpage? Wikipedia is not intended to be a webhost. Mandsford (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Perth High School Article Trevor Marron (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Perth High School Article per Trevor Marron. Perfectly appropriate if it is kept to a short section. Bearian (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 03:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't appear there is anything notable on that page. tedder (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT indiscriminate gathering of information. 90% of schools around the world teach the same basic subjects with minor variances. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:55, 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 Speedily deleted because obvious hoaxes are vandalism. And more's the pity: this one was damnably clever, an article about introducing advertising into dreams. But J. Robert Oppenheimer died in 1967 and as such could not have been moved to awe at the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, among other obvious impossibilities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oneirological Advertising[edit]

Parts of the article read like a hoax ("nanobots were implanted inside subjects’ brains at the pons"), and the rest is just wrong ("The atomic destruction on Three-Mile Island in 1947 inspired awe in Robert Oppenheimer"). KurtRaschke (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that everyone notices the date on the source cited, and the names in its purported quotations. April Fool's jokes aren't reliable sources. This is an obvious hoax. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever it is, it isn't a valid article. Looie496 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lost me at under development. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Leela: Didn't you have ads in the 20th century? Fry: Well, sure, but not in our dreams. Only on TV and radio. And in magazines and movies and at ball games and on buses and milk cartons and T-shirts and written in the sky. But not in dreams. No, sir-ee. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many problems, I will sum it up by saying, yes, it's a hoax, and someone spent way too much time developing the information on this article. Angryapathy (talk) 12:53, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Companies of Vietnam[edit]

Listcruft; not wikified, and so fails to build the web. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is just a list, nothing more, it is of no value to Wikipedia.Trevor Marron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

How exactly is that a reason. We have a policy on lists because they're allowed and common.- Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the actual contents here appears to be "Companies listed on the Ho Chi Minh Stock Exchange", annotated by symbol. You can see the official list on their website [3]. We can also add the companies from the Hanoi Securities Trading Center [4] if not the same, and a separate section for other notable private companies. The list on this article simply needs to be updated and formatted. No one here has yet presented a policy-based deletion rationale. AfD is not cleanup. cab (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An article about Vietnamese corporations would be encyclopedic, but this one has a long way to go to be encyclopedic, and violates all sorts of different policies-- the main ones being "unsourced", and "indiscriminate list". Can't vote to keep as it stands now, but maybe someone will fix it. However, I agree that an unsourced list is of no value. Mandsford (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list is now sourced and quite discriminate. In addition to this list, it would be nice to have an article about the actual different forms of companies under Vietnamese law, but obviously that's a harder topic. cab (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Seems sort of okay I think. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Companies listed at a stock exchange are considered notable per CORP, so having a list of such companies by country is nothing remotely indiscriminate. Could probably use a rename. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This works now. I'd add that most of the companies have descriptive names (An Jiang Coffee, ButSon Cement, etc.); some conglomerates might require some explanation, but I expect that this will improve in time. Mandsford (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous "Companies of X" articles, where X is a recognized country. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreamers (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vera (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When You're In[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/When You're In

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains significant content about differences between live and studio versions, see also Obscured by Clouds (song) which is in the same situation. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:51, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wizard (Uriah Heep song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worn Down Piano[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability (minus an unsourced claim about a Dutch radio poll) for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:21, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wot's... Uh the Deal?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wot's... Uh the Deal?

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this song is known under a variation of the title from a later live version by Gilmour as a solo artist, it makes sense to have the article to explain it. Otherwise, we are going to have people trying to "correct" the name frequently in one album article or the other, which is going to be a pain for those of us who monitor the Pink Floyd pages. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:54, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You're Gonna Make Me Lonesome When You Go

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Every recorded Bob Dylan song should be considered notable enough to have an article. Looie496 (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, but if you still unsure about the notability of a Bob Dylan's song, you can always check the sources 1. --J^mundo 04:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay If sources are added to the article, I will withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're a Big Girl Now[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/You're a Big Girl Now

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:25, 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) 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SimApp[edit]

Non-notable software package - Ghits are nearly all download and/or directory sites. Fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have done several searches for reliable sources and have been unable to find anything to confirm the software's notability. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No third party RS non notable. 16x9 (talk) 22:14, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soldier (Neil Young song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:27, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Bombs[edit]

No substantial content, several sources with no clear relevance or assertion of notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No assertion of notability? "Spanish Bombs" is probably London Calling's best and most ambitious song." The Rolling Stone. Check Google Books search for more reliable sources. Note: The Clash tribute concerts series is also call Spanish Bombs. --J^mundo 04:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay If sources are added to the article, I will withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 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 keep . Nominator requested merge/redirect, not deletion (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elmo's Fire (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Elmo's Fire (song)

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is for a 1975 song by Brian Eno, not a 1985 Song by John Parr. (Note--I am Neutral) Eauhomme (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Two words: Rick Hansen. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This appears to be about a different song. The one for Hansen is St. Elmo's Fire (Man in Motion) Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, didn't realize there was more than one song by that title. Consider me neutral in this discussion. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - still played on lite rock stations, was a huuuge hit in the 1980s. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, wrong song The huge hit of the 80's was St. Elmo's Fire (Man in Motion), which is not the song in the AfD. Eauhomme (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Nominator should stop the mass nomination of songs articles with a generic rationale. I recommend a speedy keep per WP:POINT. --J^mundo 04:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Great song. This song is covered several times by Stereolab/Ui. +mt 07:36, 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 keep. Nominator is proposing a merge. Deletion discussion is not necessary, see WP:MERGE. (NAC)--J^mundo 20:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay (Pink Floyd song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article contains detailed analysis of the music. Is it being challenged because of lack of citation? Is citation really needed for something like this? Or is the appropriateness of this kind of section, what is being challenged? It's kind of hard to tell when a large group of articles are being afd'd with a generic reason given for each. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should each pop song have an entry? Even if it is Pink Floyd. Do't think so. There are 100.000's of popsongs. This will water down the Wikpedia. Same applies for Who is Who entries. What does an entry about a sportsman tell the public about his contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.87.123.162 (talk)

Yes, citations are needed. Unless the analysis of the music is covered in reliable sources, providing such an analysis is original research. I still Oppose this deletion because the nominator failed to show that they put any effort in researching the article prior to nomination and merging doesn't require deletion at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is indeed substantial content, and it should not be at all hard to find sources considering the prominence of the band. Zazaban (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Stay" is covered in the songbook Anthology, which I have laying somewhere around. While the chords look pretty fine for me, others may find out if the conclusions (chord progressions etc.) are WP:OR. Mabbett reflects the lyrics in his book, that could be worked into the article. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 13:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - AfD is not the place for merges/redirects. BTW: no substantial content - what? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 22:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about this, and I now this think may fall under WP:SNOW Zazaban (talk) 22:34, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE. Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination. Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop (Pink Floyd song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:28, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stranger in the Crowd[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:28, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer '68[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Summer '68

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article could use some rewording to bring it up to standard. Is that what this afd is about? It would be nice if it was explained instead of just pasting the same generic reason on a large group of articles. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:48, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Nominator did not show they researched the article prior to nomination Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summer and Lightning[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:32, 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrapin (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, and only assertion of notability is unsourced claim of having been covered. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the songs that stands out from Syd Barrett's first solo album, see the sources. --J^mundo 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay If sources are added to the article, I will withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added sources to the article. --J^mundo 13:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator gave no indication they followed WP:BEFORE and confirmed no sources existed before nominating. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per nominator. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 22:28, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Year's Girl (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/This Year's Girl (song)

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:31, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tightrope (Electric Light Orchestra song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:31, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the Morning[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:31, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poets Problem[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:31, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock 'n' Roll Doctor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rock 'n' Roll Doctor

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:30, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway (Status Quo song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:03, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Tropez (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article does contain substantial content. Maybe the user who is making all these afd's could explain why he doesn't think it's substantial, or how much content is needed before it becomes regarded as substantial. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:43, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Set Me Free (Sweet song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sick City (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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) 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: My Last Year[edit]

Declining speedy deletion requested as: "The Article is on an Unconfirmed (as in Titles and Plots) Book". This sounds like a good reason to delete, but I don't know of a speedy deletion rationale for that. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides stating the obvious, the article is pure speculation. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unconfirmed speculation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball...--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:20, 29 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. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty Years On[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Show Must Go On (Pink Floyd song)[edit]

No substantial content, reliance on one source, no notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No valid reason for deletion given (this is a generic nomination). Sources are available to establish notability for this classic rock song, [5]. --J^mundo 05:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay If sources are added to the article, I will withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Mummy's Dead[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My Mummy's Dead

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Father's Gun[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/My Father's Gun

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Radio (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Fool Me[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:34, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milky Way (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicali Blues (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Me in the Morning[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mamaloi[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:11, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Sunset[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability establish by reliable sources, see Google Book Search. --J^mundo 04:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay If sources are added to the article, I will withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:32, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Come (song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 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) 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Moskow[edit]

Subject fails Wikipedia:Notability (music). I can't find any nontrivial coverage apart from an Allmusic article with two albums that never charted (only one released on a label, but I can't find it sold on the net). One album not mentioned on Allmusic is digitally on Amazon, a collaboration with someone not notable. The claims she won ASCAP awards and had international tours are not sourced/not reliably sourced. She had one CD collaboration with a notable musician, Robert Rich, on an album that didn't chart, Yearning, and contributed to two album tracks on two other albums by him, that's it. Hekerui (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found mentions here, and here but they are by themselves not sufficient to establish notability. The claim of two ASCAP awards is not specific. They may be referring to this in which case they aren't really awards, but rather are grants especially in light of teh restriction as stated: "The ASCAPLUS Awards Program is available to those writers who earn less than $25,000 in annual domestic performance royalties." -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. لenna vecia 16:09, 29 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. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If (Pink Floyd song)[edit]

No substantial content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see some content worth keeping (instrumentation), and it's too much of a detial to include in the main article. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:33, 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 keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion to occur. See WP:MERGE Mgm|^(talk) 08:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Caravan[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:01, 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 speedy keep. Merge suggestions don't require deletion. Mgm|^(talk) 08:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus (song)[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:27, 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 keep. Nominator started off by suggesting a merge/redirect to the album article. That is what WP:MRFD is for. For what they want Deletion is not needed. Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Control (Eagles song)[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. Merge/redirect to album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BlueSquadronRaven 23:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I recall it got some radio play. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:26, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obscured by Clouds (song)[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is some important information about differences between live versions and the original studio version, which may not be common knowledge due to there being no official release of a live version. At present, all Pink Floyd songs have articles, and most of them have enough content to justify their existence. The few that don't, should be improved instead of being deleted. Apparently there is a desire to mass delete, which I feel is unnecessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Obscured by Clouds. I don't think it is ever likely to grow beyond a stub. But the useful information should definitely be merged. --JD554 (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having articles for every song by an artist except one is really strange. There seems to be enough content. Zazaban (talk) 19:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- No content? Plenty there! No sources? One can add quotes from Schaffner's and Mabbett's books, maybe Mason's as well. No notability? I'd say Floyd's first song with a synthesizer IS notable only because of this fact. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 22:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HexaChord and the fact that the album was number 6 in the U.K charts in 1972, [6]. --J^mundo 04:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Does not warrant its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why this song and not other, less notable ones by the same artist? This song was played live a fair bit and marked at least some firsts for the band (I don't know if it was their first use of synthesizers but it was certainly their first use of drum machines, which I wouldn't have known existed that long ago if not for this song). That's more than can be said for, say, "Stay" or "Burning Bridges" from the same album, yet those articles are not up for deletion. AFDing this one in particular seems arbitrary and capricious. 70.243.45.104 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Agreed. The first PF song to include a synthesizer and the title track for a very notable album is notable. --Oakshade (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The keep arguments seem to boil down to 1) it is the first Pink Floyd song to use a synthesizer (or maybe a drum machine), 2) it is from an album which reached number 6 in the charts, and 3) it would be odd for there to be articles for all other Pink Floyd songs but not this one. Point 3 is easily countered by WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, point 2 clearly doesn't make the song notable and point 1 will only make the song notable if multiple reliable sources discuss this point and the song in detail, this is clearly mentioned in WP:NSONGS. Do these sources exist? --JD554 (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The books by Schaffner and Mabbett clearly have sections about the song, I didn't check Mason's book or others. Also I don't have access to contemporary magazines and newspapers. Given the fact that's it's also the soundtrack of a movie by a notable director, there certainly should be sources - but how to find snippets from 1972? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 11:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from 1972? A subscription to Rock's Backpages helps ;-) But I couldn't find anything useful there[7] :-( That said, I'll assume good faith that the books you mention have enough noteworthy material that could be added to the article to expand it beyond a stub and change my !vote to keep. --JD554 (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I will think about a subscription. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 12:10, 29 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. Excelent rescue by MQS. (NAC)--Unionhawk ^Talk 23:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solstice (film)[edit]

Fails WP:MOVIE. This film exists (one can rent it from Netflix) but it went straight to DVD in the US and had only a limited foreign release; I can find no reviews of it in rottentomatoes. I prodded it but the prod was removed in favor of a redirect to Daniel Myrick (its notable co-writer and director) by DGG. As for whether it should remain a redirect or be deleted altogether, I don't especially care, though I lean towards deletion, but I think we should discuss it as a deletion because either way the content of the article should be gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. This article has been on Wikipedia with regular edits since it's release, why now the sudden need from two individuals to delete it? The claim of a "redirect" from a previous user was a full and complete deletion after two years of existence, and a redirect to a page having little to do with the film and nothing of note on the source article being redirected. Leave the film.
Oppose Delete, oppose inadequate redirect to unrelated page.
A side note; despite the claim, the film was NOT direct to video, the film had limited theatrical release in the United States.Lostinlodos (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To answer your question "why now?": my attention was drawn to it because someone with the same name as one of its writers has been misbehaving in the complexity theory articles here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Musatov and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Martin.musatov. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Mr. Eppstein, you are a female. Good day. --Martin Musatov —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.3.4.112 (talk) 09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question dilemma: Does someone want to make the case that it isnt suitable for even a redirect? In that case it belongs at WP:RFD, with the other questioned redirects. Or is the question whether to have a redirect or an article? That doesn't belong here either--it's an editing question. Here is a microcosm is the question of how we handle things like this: what we have in our procedures simply does not make sense. The only thing that actually belongs here is things that if they weren't suitable for an article would be suitable for nothing. Perhaps the idea to make this article for discussion, and consider all issues together, wasn't a bad one after all--we would then merge RfD and requested merges into this, and be able to consider all the options openly. I'm at a loss otherwise how to make sense of this except to continue to call this AfDeletion, but treat it as the place for all major questions involving article suitability. Is that what we actually want to do? DGG (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly WP:RFD is the wrong choice: Lostinlodos insists on it being a full article. I think the full article he wants to have here should be deleted. Once it is deleted, I don't care whether the name "Solstice (film)" remains unused or is redirected, but I think the content is below threshold for keeping. Since it's about keeping or not keeping a whole article's worth of content, I think AfD is the right place for the discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wouldn't worry, we're not a bureaucracy. Doesn't really matter where the consensus is developed, just that a consensus is developed. I mean, the fact that the talk page of the article is devoid of posts is worrying, but we are here now, so here we all are. Incoming links probably merit a redirect rather than deletion. Deletion based on WP:V doesn't seem beyond the realms of policy though. Hiding T 12:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment::I'm not stuck on the full article, I'm taking shots at a redirect that points to nothing to do with the film. I'm all for a redirect if you want you vengeance against the op; I take issue, and post accordingly, with people who delete articles and redirect to pages that don't cover the article. When I look up Solstice (film), and get redirected to another page that doesn't cover Solstice (film), then it's not a useful redirect, nay a disservice to the user. We delete, or we don't. I still oppose deletion, but would encourage any redirect to COVER THE ITEM BEING REDIRECTED.Lostinlodos (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The claim "This film exists (one can rent it from Netflix) but it went straight to DVD in the US and had only a limited foreign release;" is a form of systemic bias. A film is no less important if it received theatrical release outside the US and it also doesn't matter whether it went to theatres or straight to DVD. If the article says "However, it received a theatrical release in Russia, the Philippines, Mexico and other countries." then the correct course of action is to seek coverage in those languages (or inform the people with the right language skills). - Mgm|^(talk) 08:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I might find that argument more cogent if the film came from one of those other countries, but it is American. —David Eppstein (talk) 13:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Keep for goodness sake. That it existed without being properly sourced is a shame... but absolutely no reason to delete if it can easily be addressed by WP:CLEANUP. Reviews by experts in their field, qualified to voice an opinion: Bloody Disgusting, Best Horror Movies, Dread Central, E SPlatter, Shock Till You Drop, et al. And no, these reviewes are not from the New York Times (which does not review every film ever made), but still from respected experts in the horror genre... themselves reliable sources with editorial oversite. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this even brought here? Per WP:AFTER the rescue was quite easy. It had/has in-depth press coverage in reliable sources. It has in-depth reviews by genre experts. It has world-wide release. I just gave it some tweaks and am frankly quite baffled as to why this was even nominated. The briefest look at Google News alone shows dozens of articles about the film. What gives? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sufficient sources have been added, but I tend to agree with MichaelQSchmidt above - it was easy to source, (a quick search on Google news proved this, but given the director it was always going to get sufficient coverage), and I'm not sure why there was a debate in the first place. - Bilby (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good rescue by MQS. I should have looked, not redirected. David E should have looked, before trying to delete Neither of us did it right. MQS did it right. DGG (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I did look. All I found were unreliable-looking website reviews (many of which have now been linked as sources in the article) and two articles in Variety and the Washington Post long before the movie was made saying that it was Myrick's next project. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I accept you looked. Fair enough. However, the sources that you felt were "unreliable-looking" have been discussed at length in other AfDs (of which you could not have been aware), and were determined to be reasonably reliable sources for the context offered, not being SPS and having editorial oversite. They are no more SPS than are New York Times or Rotten Tomatoes... they just happen to be genre specific, which is acceptable, as long as there is oversite and they are accepted by their genre as being expert in their genre. They were dozens more sources found and specifically NOT used... appearing to be blogs or forums. The ones offered were not so. And sidenote: the Washington Post and Variety sources will better serve the article when moved to a section on background and planning of this film. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Keep as per rationale of MichaelQSchmidt. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. After so much enthusiasm from the !votes above, I took a look at this supposed rescue. One article in the Washington Post has a trivial mention of this film as Myrick's next project. One article (now removed) in a small paper wasn't even about this film at all — it was about a different Myrick film in the Solstice Film Festival. The rest appear to violate WP:SPS. I still see no real reliable sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See above. Wiki does not expect Rotten Tomatoes or Wall Street Journal to look or act the same... all that is required is a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversite. And, as experts in their genre, they qualify. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep sources added since the AfD are RS by wiki's own definitions. Ikip (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein: I have a question for you as a concerned Wikipedian the people of Wikipedia ought know that by merely circumstantial evidence it appears more than likely you have a vendetta perhaps or vested interest in deleting this article in some context with your Computer Science work and how this entry plays into your coding. I have noticed there is a strong tie between the back and forth and you have banned at least one user related to P=NP who is associated with this film. There is plenty of room on the Internet for data and knowledge. Mr. Eppstein, how does the inclusion of this article violate the vested and shared interest of Wikipedia and the public?76.168.74.57 (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear sockpuppet: please assume good faith. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Granite thump (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to rescue effort per WP:V. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep Following improvements noteability seems very well established. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:17, 29 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) 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughism[edit]

Declining A7, taking to AfD. See Google news archives, Google books; all of these hits are about an "ism", not about this organization. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedy tagger. Non-notable religion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable religion. Does not belong in the encyclopedia. ^blurred _peace ☮ 22:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - something someone just made up one day. Ladyof Shalott 22:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no citation or assertion of notability. Wikipedia's presumption has to be that this topic does not even exist, much less have an article. -Markeer 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Religion? Their having a laugh! Trevor Marron (talk)
Delete should be speedy delete, absolute nonsense. Drawn Some (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still not deleted? This is patent nonsense. Drawn Some (talk) 01:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Likely Made up, and look at the article's creator. X clamation point 01:51, 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 merge to Stranded (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psalm (song)[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Stranded (album). Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 10:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect agree with above. What is said could be done on an album page.--Sabrebd (talk) 20:16, 29 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) 07:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vin1980[edit]

Delete as a neologism/hoax. The article stated that "Its usage is common in younger crowds" but a Google search turned up nothing. A G3 tag has been declined. Tavix | Talk 21:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No reliable sources confirm the existence of "vin1980". — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it's a hoax; I take Kevin456 at his word that the term is used within the "Central Florida fetish community," but that doesn't establish notability. Call it a neologism. Cnilep (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V, WP:N, WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- pick one of the reasons from above and that's my reason. Yourname (talk) 03:07, 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 merge to Roxy Music (album). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Pleasure (song)[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Roxy Music (album). Useful information could be lost if simply deleted. Anyone who is aware of Wikipedia's WP:DAB or WP:MUSTARD#Disambiguation guidelines may use this is a search term. --JD554 (talk) 10:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect: agree with JD554.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 19:18, 29 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 Objectivist movement . MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Objectivism[edit]

The article doesn't establish that "neo-Objectivism" is a distinct philosophy, social movement, or worldview. Indeed, the article explicitly acknowledges this: "There is no self-identified Neo-Objectivist movement." Rather, it appears to be a term of abuse used by some Objectivists (the more "orthodox" ones) to deride others who stray from their interpretation of Ayn Rand's philosophy. This makes the article original research at best. It also has no references that contain the terms "neo-Objectivist" or "neo-Objectivism." And what content it does have is mostly vague generalizations that aren't likely to be verifiable. Binarybits (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Possibly a candidate for redirect to Neue Sachlichkeit. There is heavy abuse of the fact tag on this page; those should be replaced by ((refimprove)) if this page is kept. –RJH (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Neue Sachlichkeit is an old art movement and nothing "Neo". Hekerui (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there is content worth keeping here, it should probably simply be integrated into the Objectivism page. 'Neo objectivism' seems to be a term which is just being applied to Objectivists who don't agree with Ayn Rand about apple pie being better than cherry pie.Steven Hallis (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why is this at Articles for Deletion? This is an obvious merge case. Put the content in Objectivism (Ayn Rand) or Objectivist movement and end this waste of time. WP:BEFORE. Skomorokh 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's little if any useful content here, but I'm certainly open to a merge if others disagree. Binarybits (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think there's not, as well. It might be a slightly different story if anything on the page was sourced, but any merge with the objectivism page is likely to result in a mess. If anything, merge it with Objectivism's discussion page, and if anyone is in love with the 'content', they can find actual sources.Steven Hallis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete or Merge --Snowded (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as noted above. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 30 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 Roxy Music (album). Cirt (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Meeting[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Roxy Music (album). feydey (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. There is not need to create AfD for pages which can simply be redirected by bold editors. --JD554 (talk) 10:11, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Caves of Altamira[edit]

No content, sources, or notability for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay for What You Get[edit]

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Sweet World[edit]

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minarets (song)[edit]

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the first album it appears on, Remember Two Things. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreaming Tree (song)[edit]

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Nancies[edit]

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:00, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corn Bread (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Corn Bread (song)

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to name of band. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Kat Jam[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kit Kat Jam

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Eyed Fish[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Big Eyed Fish

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Song That Jane Likes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Song That Jane Likes

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seek Up[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Seek Up

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyme & Reason (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Rhyme & Reason (song)

Very little content, non-notable song, unsourced. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 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 Withdrawn by nominator; no one recommended "delete" WP:SK. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 03:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of What's Around[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Best of What's Around

Stub, no content or a prospect of content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to appropriate album article. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Redirected. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Kent[edit]

Ambiguous search results; no sourcing to support claims of notability. Closer reading suggests attempt at claiming notability by association. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability, no references. Dlabtot (talk) 00:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would have speedied it myself, but the tossing around of names gave me pause; I felt this was a good way to finalize a deletion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article attempts to assert notability, but fails WP:BIO. Being a probable autobiography does not help its cause! -- MightyWarrior (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear claim of notability. No sources provided and none were found in searching. The article itelf is an autobiography, as evident from both the user name and it being paraphrased from the bio submitted to All About Jazz. -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 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) 07:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline seagull[edit]

non-notable company. The target of a BBC program, good, but that isn't sufficient; if the program is notable it should have an article. The program wasn't about the importance/screen value of the company itself but more about the circumstances in which it found itself. Ironholds (talk) 20:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. The only quoted source just mentions the firm among other failed coach operators, I don't think it counts as _~~substantial~~ significant_ coverage. Tevildo (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Possibly of minor interest to the locality in which it traded - maybe some text could be included as a short section in Great Yarmouth? -- 09:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete - not notable as a company within local area - no local press coverage that I can find with a WP:SET - Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:38, 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 a1, no meaningful content. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposite Day paradox[edit]

Not notable proto-neologism vs utter nonsense. Google has 16 relevent hits. Dlohcierekim 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy or redirect to opposite day - no reason to clutter AFD with obvious cases. Friday (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete:nonsense. ike9898 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as complete nonsense and original "research". SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsense. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So tagged. Dlohcierekim 21:46, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Axios (organization)[edit]

Nominating for deletion because the article has no sources independent of the organization itself, and I have been unable to locate any. This puts it in clear violation of guidelines for notability of groups and organizations. (Please note that the criterion is not whether the group sounds interesting or important to Wikipedia editors; the point is whether independent reliable sources have found the organization to be notable enough to write about.) I have only been able to find a few websites about the organization:

The first two have not been updated in many years; the last appears not to have been updated in at least a year. All appear to be self-promotion by the group itself. None provides enough information to verify any important facts about the group (like how many members does it have, who are its leaders...). I have not found any articles about the group from independent sources. Consequently there is no way to independently verify that the group is notable, that any of the facts stated about it in the article are true, or that it even exists. Mrhsj (talk) 20:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —- ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfectly well-known the the LGBT community, large group meets at least monthly in NYC, easy to verify. Bearian (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I found at least one reliable source - the Washington Post - here [8] in about 45 seconds of a GS. Please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 01:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Cite is "At the Foot of the Capitol, Capital Pride," By Michelle Boorstein, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, June 16, 2008; Page B02.) Bearian (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Washington Post source already pointed out, this Google Books source for the book Homosexuality and religion: an encyclopedia by Jeffrey S. Siker, this Google Books source for the book Christian Science: Its Encounter with Lesbian/Gay America by Bruce Stores, this Google Books source for the book Sexual orientation and gender expression in social work practice: working with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people by Deana F. Morrow and Lori Messinger, Greenbelt Interfaith News and this 2008 New York Q News article mentioning Axios and their 25th anniversary. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Google Books, here's a general search that shows many books that include/reference/cite this organization. - ℅ ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 02:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per notability asserted and easily found. Passing WP:ORG is a slam dunk. Any concerns with aricle's style can be addressed through WP:CLEANUP, not WP:AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Well known organization, and easy to verify. Zazaban (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independent sources that discuss this topic? No encyclopedia article. It's an article entirely sourced to the org's website.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the article needs more sources is a matter for cleanup, specially since the sources have been amply demonstrated to exist. Opinioning a delete when in-depth independent sources have been shown to exist for an easily fixable article is contrary to WP:AFD and WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with above that the organization is well-known in LGBT community, especially in major cities in the US. Passes WP:ORG and perhaps needs clean-up, but not deletion. Would also note that they've participated (via amicus briefs) in notable civil rights lawsuits - [9] Varnent (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In agreement and because no one seemed to be on it, I performed some minor copyedit and added a little sourcing... I note with raised eyebrows the large number of hits at Google Scholar and Google Books and wonder what the nom's own search parameters were. Point being it's in the news, it's in in books, and it's being cited by others. It's notable, and a slam-dunk pass of WP:ORG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep following Schmidt's improvements. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:48, 30 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) 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rabiah khouildi[edit]

Page was deleted through Prod, but was recreated, so here we are. Football player of just seventeen years who seems to be talented, but who currently fails WP:ATHLETE clearly. He is no pro player yet, has not played for the senior national team (only at junion level), and has not received significant attention in reliable sources otherwise. 14 distinct Google hits[10], no Google News hits[11], this looks to be a clear case of not yet notable. Fram (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Juniors can be notable, but based on the sources I can find there is too little verifiable, reliable and non-trivial information available to build an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not yet notable per WP:ATHLETE. لenna vecia 16:08, 29 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) 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Aztlán[edit]

Contested PROD, prod tag was removed by creator of the article without explanation. From the original prod - Soapboxing, neologism, OR, no sources, created as POV-fork from Aztlán,no notability as per neologism, non-encyclopedic in style and content. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be deleted because it is: a POV-fork from Aztlán where the articles creator was told that this material was not suited for inclusion because it contained very emphatically pronounced POV (read: soapboxing), was un-sourced, described what is a probable neologism and was completely out of style for a neutral and fact centered encyclopedia.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The writer of the article wrote the following on the articles talk page: "This is a page dedicated to the modern nation many Aztlanistas are attempting to create. My knowledge of this subject comes from multiple sources, official and unofficial, from both academics and laypeople." Dawn Bard (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page dedicated to the modern nation many Aztlanistas are attempting to create, and many Anglo Americans are trying to prevent. This is a subject of much debate, and thus deserves a description. It is not a neologism, it is regarded as a proper term by many. Just because some editors are unaware of current political movements does not mean that those movements do not exist in strength.

My knowledge of this subject comes from multiple sources, official and unofficial, from both academics and laypeople.

None of this is my opinion, thus it is not soapboxing, rather it is simply the result of my research.

[12] Check out this story which is on many sites and written by the associated press. It speaks of a UNM professor who predicts that this nation will come to pass. This is just one source. There are so many others. Perhaps if I list them all, this article would be acceptable.

This is a real issue, a real subject that wikipedia should address. This article is neutral and fact-centered. This article should not be deleted. Thepiner (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources, COI issues too as the article creator seems to be involved with the situation and is trying to use Wikipedia to advertise themselves. TJ Spyke 21:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can people wait until I get some more sources? What do you mean by "article creator seems to be involved with the situation?"

What is that supposed to mean? How am I involved? It is a subject of interest and I have undertaken research, but I am in no way involved in the issue of the Republic of Aztlan, other than trying to bring it to attention to the general public.

"and is trying to use Wikipedia to advertise themselves"

Okay, now I know you are just trying to be malicious. NO WHERE do I state my name or any institution I am affiliated with. NO WHERE do I advertise my research or make reference to myself or my opinions in relation to this subject. NO WHERE is there even a hint of my own opinions on the matter. I'm just stating the facts.

I'm starting to think the people who want to delete this page just want to delete it because the realities of the above mentioned movent is unknown to them and thus perhaps frightening.

Let me be clear: I want to educate people, but I don't give a shit as to their opinions, which should tell you that I don't care if people share MY opinions.

Let me get some other sources up before you people start chopping off my head for bringing up a controversial topic.

Thank you, Thepiner (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Userify until properly sourced, then subjet to deletion review before recreation, per no original research and due to lack of reliable sources. MLauba (talk) 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and not notable. There's a mention here, but that's all I could find. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - there are plenty of sources. These (below) were just a few sources from a little google search: clearly a lot of people talk about this issue, so clearly its not a neologism -

http://www.illegalaliens.us/aztlan.htm

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2233

http://aztlan.net/zocalo.htm

http://billstclair.com/ferran/aztlan.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080717195844AAlQ4BX

http://www.politicalgroove.com/social-issues/12989-immigration-nation-aztlan.html

There is no reason for this page to be deleted. Cleaned up a little maybe, but not deleted. 68.35.111.190 (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- We are looking for coverage in reliable sources with an emphasis on reliable. -- Whpq (talk) 19:30, 29 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 03:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Hill[edit]

~~The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 07:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

RelistedI have reversed my decision in order to relist in light of the changes made by Paul Erik in order to allow people to weigh in on them. Information on the reasoning can be found at the bottom of my talk page Valley2city^‽ 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable from a non-notable "record company", possibly autobiographical. Bothpath (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a lot of the content appears to have been simply cut-and-paste off the http://www.emmahillmusic.com/pages/bio.html website. Not sure there is enough to warrant a G12 speedy. JamesBurns (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no sources, no notability established... DreamGuy (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable independent sources, possible self-promotion. JamesBurns (talk) 03:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for sock puppetry and vote-stacking at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I was only able to find 1 mention in a reliable source [13] and it only consists of an announcement about an upcoming performance. No significant 3rd party coverage. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- still not convinced that minor coverage, based on press releases, in local papers is "significant coverage". -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source does not notability make, as they say Vartanza (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more sources just now. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With two articles about her in the Anchorage Daily News, and one in the Vacaville Reporter that I just added, I'd suggest a keep per WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no link for the Anchorage article, but the Vacaville Reporter (so minor of a paper that it doesn't have its own Wiipedia article, just a page with a list of small papers owned by a parent company) looks to be nothing more than a republished press release, thus failing the independent and nontrivial clauses of notability guidelines. Local papers don't go very far in establishing notability for an encyclopedia anyway. Notable entertainers would have picked up more coverage than that. In fact I have relatives who do local gigs and self-produce albums who clearly do not meet notability standards who have better local news coverage than that. DreamGuy (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading your comment and looking again, I must agree with you about the Reporter article sounding like a press release, so I have removed that one. In the meantime, I found one other article in the Daily News. With the two fairly lengthy articles and one brief article about her, I was able to add some more verifiable content, and there is more from them that still could be added. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, we have to vote Double Dog Dare You Delete for the delete we already voted on to actually go through? If the person ever becomes actually notable then recreate the article, there's no need to drag this out. DreamGuy (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I had added sources fairly close to the end of the discussion cycle. I thought it was enough to meet criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO; you disagreed. That's fine, but I do not see the harm in asking others to weigh in with their own opinions about this disagreement. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That relisting was entirely warranted. Everyone who called for deletion before said the article had no reliable sources when what really matters if such sources exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Also found this, so at least she has received coverage in two sources.--Michig (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are more than four references on the web to my mum and that does not make her notable. Trevor Marron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Sweet, have you made a wiki article for your momma then???? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but here we're talking newspaper references. Also, you didn't mention where those references to your mom came from. I'm mentioned around the web dozens of times, but I'm not notable because non of the references are reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actully all references to my mum are to mainstream UK newspaper articles. It is still not enough to make her worthy of a Wikipedia page. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above.--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:35, 30 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) 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic in the Realm of the Elderlings[edit]

Original research essay, no real world perspective, hasn't progressed since 2006. Contested prod. Renata (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Surely this level of (unsourced) detail is what the activity known as 'reading the book' is for. And I note that The Realm of the Elderlings does not itself have an entry--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are also articles on the Characters in the Realm of the Elderlings and Places in the Realm of the Elderlings. One solution is trimming&merging them together into The Realm of the Elderlings as a series article. The other option is to delete them alltogether. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Characters list mentions the author Robin Hobb and all the series that play in this world. I doubt we need an article on the world the novels are set in (the Realm) when we can have articles on the separate novels instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The magic of the world doesn't appear to be covered by the outside world and using the books themselves to draw conclusions would be original research (in contrast to giving biographical details about characters or information of places)- Mgm|^(talk) 08:30, 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) 07:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Kim[edit]

Per the prod, which was removed without reason:

This seems to be a hoax, or else so badly confused as to be useless. The KNBC reference just goes to their front page while the Korean one seems to be about somebody else entirely. If you babelfish it, the DOB is different and nothing else matches (e.g album titles). The article even seems confused about the difference between North and South Korea! Fails verifiability. No proof of notability. Lacks coherent, encyclopaedic information. (this reason is from User:DanielRigal) tedder (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as Prodder). The North/South Korea bit has been fixed but the rest is still as bad as ever. Even allowing for the babelfish making a pigs ear of the translation, there is no way the referenced biog matches the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP issues. Simply being accused of murder is not notable and as a rapper, he fails WP:MUSIC. I'm willing to change my vote if someone finds adequate sources, but my search yielded nothing. Tavix | Talk 21:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOTE. Dlabtot (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The named rapper who underwent the false charge of murder, exists and has some notability in South Korea and a member of Uptown (group). However, the contents about him are largely incorrect. So well in the name of Blp, I'd say Merge to Uptown (group). --Caspian blue 11:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see that the Uptown article is being messed around with too. I think there is a real semi-notable Steve Kim (in Uptown) and another non-notable Steve Kim which somebody is trying to sneak in. If you have time you might like to check that the Uptown article has the correct details. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a musician he's nonnotable. As an event, lets wait for time to tell. Wikipedia isn't the news and we should see the historical impact of the murder trial. As this is a living person, we don't want to spread rumors around. This must be documented better. Them From Space 05:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Uptown (group). Not really notable on his own, especially considering that Uptown had relatively limited popularity. Beyond that, it's all about the WP:BLP. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Well...maybe not. I finally found a source for the whole murder thing here. So I'll keep my vote neutral for now while I work on the page. SKS2K6 (talk) 21:32, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Prescience[edit]

The page and subject do not appear to satisfy the policies on verifiability, original research, or neutral point of view. Based on notability guidelines, it does not seem possible to develop an article which meets the policies. The page is apparently an essay describing a original futurology thesis encompassed by the coined term, "global prescience". The term seems to be a neologism, and does not look to have any traction outside Pennsylvania State University. Although it was suggested that it may be possible to merge content into the futurology article, I am unsure of what, if anything, would be suitable for a merge. Despite the numerous citations included in the "Global Prescience" page, they seem to be used in synthesis; none of them could be found to cover "global prescience" directly. Dancter (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or stubbify with reference to the Penn State group. The article as written is pure OR. Google Scholar shows no academic publications using this term. Looie496 (talk) 18:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is Original research. The many references are merely peripheral support for why the theory might conceivably be a good idea, not evidence for anything. DGG (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an essay full of original research that contains large swatches of codswallop: Through socio-cognitive factors, global prescience is linked to semiotics, the science of how meaning is constructed and understood. The design of a clue detection engine needs to take into account the role of semiotics. The application of semiotics to global prescience underscores the reinforcement of connotative meanings such that sensemaking networks will detect information along a certain calculus. The study of language and audition recognizes the importance of semiotics, alongside its complexity and philosophical basis. The general tenor of the article seems to be about some kind of magical technology that will keep you abreast of emerging trends, apparently for financial gain, suggesting ulterior motives. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:41, 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 merge to MIDI. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midification[edit]

[14] and [15] doesn't reveal much notability for this WP:NEOLOGISM with respect to the meaning given. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I think this topic (adding MIDI capabilities to a device) is proper for Wikipedia, but the article as currently written has minimal useful content. Some of it is talk page material, in fact. I would have preferred to give the author, who has been around on Wikipedia for a while, a chance to improve the article before taking it to AfD. Looie496 (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From: original author of this page. Happy to take direction on improving this article, which is certainly short on content so far. I am well aware that I am not expert in the technology, and am planning via other forums to seek further input from those who are. Forgive me if it is considered inappropriate to gather such information by starting an admittedly incomplete page. (Aren't most of them?!) I think some parts of the music community would consider the term midification is both a useful and instantly understandable neologism. I would be pleased to learn what Looie496 considers "talk page material". NickSharp (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There may well be a need for a disambiguation page for the word, as there appear to be other uses" is definitely talk page material, and other things in the "Introduction" as well. Looie496 (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Nick, also, I'd refrain from including the number of google hits the term receives in the article, as it's generally not considered encyclopedic. It really depends on what and who is using it, and in what context. To respond to your comment above Looie, AfD is a perfect venue to discuss the merits of a potential deletion candidate since I didn't nominate it for its lack of content, tone, style or worthiness. That would have been a misuse of the process. Rather, it was a good faith nomination on the basis of the neologism/protologism's pervasiveness and significance. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge~~Delete~~ I couldn't find much about this use of the word. There is apparently another use of it though. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Daniel Christensen's and Hexachord's comments, I think redirecting and merging to the midi article would be best. There's not enough independent notability for a stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It certainly does not merit an article; maybe a section or mention in another MIDI-related article or MIDI itself. Daniel Christensen (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be salvaged and redirect to MIDI, which would cover both potential meanings of the word. — Gwalla | Talk 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - midification is no neologism. It is used since MIDI is around. Professionally manufactured "midification kits" for pre-MIDI synthesizers like the Roland Jupiter 8 ([16]) were available soon after the first MIDI synthesizers came out in the mid-1980s. The word is also used as "MIDIfikation" in German language: Google.de search. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge From original author: I thank Hexachord for support, but I actually now feel that this term does not warrant an article all to itself. It is interesting to know that the term is nearly as old as MIDI itself. I feel quite confident the term should have a place in Wikipedia, perhaps with "to midify" and "midifying"?. I am less sure there is a need for disambiguation, since all of the first few Google search results that had nothing to do with MIDI were simply spelling mistakes, as 'i' is next to 'o' on a QWERTYUIOP keyboard. Does ChildofMidnight have input on that? In any case, if the term is merged to the MIDI article, I guess it no longer needs a disambiguation page.

I thank wisdom89 for his notes. My feathers are smoother now! They were a little ruffled by a deletion nomination 3 minutes after the first 'Save page'!

I will take no action at this time myself, to let this discussion continue for a while.NickSharp (talk) 21:51, 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) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McGrory[edit]

Footballer who is not notable because he has not played in a fully professional match. He was with Barnsley F.C. until 2008, but did not play in a match per soccerbase. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 18:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional tournament or league. --Jimbo^[online] 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. لenna vecia 16:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played in a fully professional league per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:22, 30 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) 07:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Prosenik[edit]

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails and it's poorly written, it is also unsourced Spiderone (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Athlete. There are two references given, both about the one event: being signed by Chelsea, which fails WP:BLP1E. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:57, 29 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 20:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zsuzsanna Budapest[edit]

Nominated for deletion by myself on behalf of MarkChase. He gives the following rationale:

“

I find it promotional and the sources are unreliable. No third party sources except websites maintained by the author. Even though it seems to be a real person, it is promotion and is not notable enough to be encyclopedic.

”

Please note I have no opinion on the article. GARDEN 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm the request for deletion. The person referred in the site has by no means accomplished anything worthy of encyclopedic reference to earn a full article about her. No third party publications and no work with peer-reviews from reliable sources. MarkChase (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is restrained, and the subject has written a whole bunch of books, some with very minor publishers but some by major houses such as HarperCollins. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notably is not temporary. Z. Budapest is considered an important figure in woman's spirituality and her works are cited by her peers. POV issues within an article are no grounds for deletion.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources. No indication of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Z Budapest is a major figure in the Women's Spirituality and Neo-Pagan movements. She has written several books published by respected presses, and has a long career as a public speaker and an advocate for feminist issues and religious rights. The article can use some improvement, but should NOT be deleted. JuliusAaron (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, strongly. A major neo-pagan figure who meets the "heard of her before seeing the Wikipedia article" test, for I had read of her in fairly well known books like Margot Adler's Drawing Down the Moon and elsewhere. Suggest early close. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is appropriate, I would like to note the person who initiated this delete, MarkChase, is a sock puppet [17] who, IMO, appears to have a vendetta against a person who was referenced for one of the entry's citations. It seems to me that this delete is not about improving the quality articles on wiki, but simply about removing that reference.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Zsuzsanna has at least a large para dedicated to her work in Hutton's scholarly "The Triumph Of The Moon" which, as a book, has a massive scope, and describes only major people/activities. Page just needs improvement. Rainonwood (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list of references listed on the article as well being honored at CIIS I think indicate that Z. Budapest fulfills the widely cited by their peers criteria for creative professionals.--SiIIyLiIIyPiIIy (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is now a list of over twenty-five books making reference to and/or quoting or including an interview of Z. Budapest in this article. I assure you, there are more available. Feel free to search both as Zsuzsanna Budapest and Z. Budapest. She is one of the most prominent figures in Goddess-Worship, Dianic Wicca, and feminism in America. This nomination is absurd. Rosencomet (talk) 16:22, 30 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) 07:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Doherty[edit]

Declined speedy/contested endorsed prod. Reasoning is that there are no reliable sources to support the article, and even if there were the two roles mentioned seem to have been very minor, her character in her one movie appearance is credited simply as "nurse". Fails notability guideline and is unverified. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:ENTERTAINER/WP:GNG and for being a poorly sourced BLP. Some sources about her participating in Pop Idol show, but no detailed biographical coverage. -PirateSmackK (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one non-named role in a movie this year is not a reason for inclusion. Agree with all Beeble has to say. -- moe.RON ^{Let's talk | done} 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note It may also be worth mentioning that previous nearly identical versions of this article were speedy deleted four separate times by four different admins. This should be salted if the outcome is to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the fact that the entire filmography section consists of precisely one role, "a nurse" in a red-linked movie, is telling. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:20, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian revolving door policy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Palestinian revolving door policy

The phrase "Palestinian revolving door policy" is an WP:OR hodgepodge that utterly fails WP:N. It receives zero scholarly references and was not an official policy of the Palestinian Authority, but rather an accusation levelled against them by the Israeli government under Netanyahu. The title is misleading, the subject non-notable. Merging of a couple of lines of the content into articles related to Benjamin Netanyahu or the Palestinian Authority might be possible, but as a standalone article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs)

Notice: Article has been restructured and re-edited with some content adding at 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) [18]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the restructuring and significant expansion and additions of scholarly sources discussing the allegations of a 'revolving door' policy, I have reconsidered my position regarding the article's notability. I believe it does meet WP:N and managed to avoid WP:OR via a name change to Revolving door (Israeli politics). I changed it to this name from Brewcrewer's earlier name change to Revolving door policy. The reason this change is necessary is so as not to imply it is a policy in the title, when it is only alleged to be a policy. Scare quotes might have taken care of that but I believe they are frowned upon in the MoS. In any case, I hope the new title alleviates the concerns of OR and NPOV among others as it has for me. However, I'm a bit of a die-hard inclusionist so others might not take the same approach. Thanks to all for your efforts in bringing the article quality up and for everyone's comments. Tiamut^talk 14:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No offense, but the "PA revolving door" is referred by Israel and others towards the Palestinian Authority so your renaming to "Israeli politics" was not a great idea. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response:' No offense, but given that it's an allegation made by Israeli politicians against the PA, I'd say that "Israeli politics" is a good delimiter to have in the brackets. I used Revolving door (politics) as my disambig style guide in this decision. I'm currently leaning more towards Revolving door (Mideast politics) given the sources Nickhh brought forward on Palestinian allegations against Israel that it is the one with a revolving door policy in its habit of re-arresting people its just released. But this naming and article scope discussion belongs on the article talk page and not here. No offense. Tiamut^talk 21:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I'd like to chime in here. The allegations were made by the American and British governments as well, so "Israeli politics" is misleading. Also, these allegations originated from the intelligence and security apparatuses of the Israeli government, not their politicians. Finally, it's a national security issue, not a "political" issue. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None taken, but as I said, the place for this discussion is the article talk page. Tiamut^talk 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Term appears to be used by FOX news [19], Haaretz[20] & the israeli government [21]. I think it's possible to have a neutral article here. --neon white talk 20:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is an allegation against the PNA by one government. Maybe in the Netanyahu article we could have passage or possibly a subsection discussing this as his view. I don't think it belongs in the PNA article though and it certainly does not need its own article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that it has been restructured and is on its way to be NPOV, I think we should keep the article. However, I think the Usage section should be expanded to include exactly when and why the British and US governments used the term. This won't get it deleted though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an "allegation" only rather than based on pure fact. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reason for deletion. We are not here to decide whether the allegations are correct but whether the subject is notable. --neon white talk 18:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable term, there is no significant coverage from reliable sources to warrant an article. --J^mundo 20:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Change to Keep per the sources. --J^mundo 13:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a separate article, this has serious POV issues, and its existence isn't justified by the limited sources that have been provided. This could be covered in less detail as a subsection of a related article, but it doesn't deserve its own one. Robofish (talk) 04:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's sources and the sources provided above by User:Neon white indicates that the concept and term are notable. The fact that it is an allegation is irrelevant. God is also an allegation. According to WP policy, notability is decided by substantial coverage in reliable sources. Same with allegations. Allegations are notable when the allegations have received significant coverage in reliable sources. If there are POV problems with the article, the solution is never deletion, it's editing. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage? The sources only mention the term. Can you offer specific examples of significant and independent coverage?--J^mundo 17:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Highly notable. It only took me 20 minutes to find a dozen references in the scholarly books, and reports. Here are just a few of them:
- Defending the Holy Land: a Critical analysis of Israel's security & foreign policy By Zeev Maoz University of Michigan press pg 471. ISBN 978-0472115402 [22] " 'revolving door policy'wherein they captured terrorists only to release them ..."
- Human Rights Watch Reports-- here: [23] "'revolving door policy' of arresting alleged members..." here, [24], and here [25]
- The other side of despair: Jews and Arabs in the promised land - Page 37 by Daniel Gavron -Rowan & Littlefield 2003 - ISBN0742517527, ISBN 9780742517523 "Israel justifiably complained about the 'revolving door' policy of arresting terrorists and releasing them after a few weeks or even days. ...
- Building a successful Palestinian state RAND Palestinian State Study Team Jerrold D. Green & others 2005 - "Are individuals being jailed or is there a revolving-door policy?" [26] pg 59
- Plenty more where that came from. Highly notable. Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—was going to say delete, but then read Tundrabuggy's post above. Basically the reason I was going to say delete was because of lack of personal knowledge here, and it appears now that the term is used in a lot of places, by notable persons, and therefore appears notable enough for its own article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tundrabuggy. I can understand why pro-Palestinians claim POV and would object to this term in that they might not see anything wrong with the policy at all. They (and the P.A.) specifically reject being Israel's enforcer of Israeli Jewish law and do not see anything wrong with releasing 'militants' who have carried out missions 'against the occupation'. So for them 'revolving door' is really NN, but in otherwise 'international' law, releasing suspects of violent crimes is not acceptable. --Shuki (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just thought I'd add a few more since I had made note of them.
- The Oslo Accords: international law and the Israeli-Palestinian peace agreements - Page 225 by Geoffrey R. Watson - 2000 -[27] "Israel has charged that the PA has adopted a 'revolving door' policy of detaining and then releasing known terrorists. "
- Israel's foreign relations: selected documents, 1947-1974 by Meron Medzini, 1976 Pg 262 - "The US has also committed to Israel that there will be special arrangements to prevent a 'revolving door' policy in relation to these prisoners..."
- [28] pg 7 Testimony for Congress The Roadmap to Middle East Peace: Can it be Restarted?" Boaz Ganor, Ex Dir International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism. "Sometimes they would put up a show arrest apprehending the terrorists and let them go free after a short while through the infamous 'revolving door' policy."

I think readers who come across this term might want to know what it means and look to Wikipedia for an answer. And lo! we have one. ;) Perhaps these extra refs will help to expand and improve the article. Tundrabuggy (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Tiamut's filing. pedrito - talk - 27.04.2009 06:35

Notice: Article has been restructured and re-edited with some content adding at 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC) [29]. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I know this term was highly common in use about a decade ago but I wasn't sure if it deserved its own article as I falsely figured it to be more of an Israel-only terminology. A review upon relevant English news sources though, gave out the appearance that it caught foreign media attention to a degree where I believe an article would benefit the project. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Article does need a couple of Palestinian/Arab official responses/perspectives though, for neutrality's sake. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tundrabuggy. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The phrase "revolving door policy" is of course a very common and standard - but nonetheless informal and colloquial - phrase, frequently applied to all sorts of situations. The sources cited appear to show that the PA policy on prisoner releases has occasionally been described, in passing, as an example of a "revolving door policy". Are we suggesting here that every time we can find a few instances of the use of the phrase by a politician/government or in a piece of commentary, in respect of situation or actor xxx, that we should then create an entire WP page with the formal title "xxx revolving door policy"? Unless there is actually serious evidence in serious sources that this is a commonly used, notable and formal phrase in its entirety, readily understood to refer specifically to this policy, this is pretty obvious POV forking and WP:SYNTHing. What next, "yyy hare-brained scheme", "zzz cunning plan"? --Nickhh (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ps: call me thick, but I have only just noticed that this article has been renamed - since this AfD was opened - by User:Brewcrewer from "Palestinian revolving door policy" to simply "Revolving door policy". Forgive me, but this is doubly problematic - 1) is this kind of thing actually appropriate in the middle of an AfD?; 2) as I have noted, the more general phrase "Revolving door policy" is used to refer to many other things besides this supposed example of Palestinian duplicity, such that the general wrongness of this article is even more exposed now. --Nickhh (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a good point. But as outlined at Talk:Revolving door policy#Article name, the previous name was vague and derogatory. Maybe a better name would be Palestinian Authority revolving door policy or Revolving door policy (Palestinian Authority).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that might cover the renaming point, but not the fundamental AfD debate. In respect of both issues, I was just about to add the following - A few more quickly sourced online examples, to prove the point that not everything and every phrase has to be viewed through the I-P prism, and defined on every WP page as if that were all that counted. Release of prisoners in Northern Ireland, here; rotation of a football first team, here; senior staff moving from the public to private sector in the UK (again) here etc etc. Or maybe we should view it through the I-P prism after all, and note that the accusation seems to cut both ways! Now then, is anyone seriously going to defend the existence of this page, especially under its latest title? To repeat: is there something genuinely unique, and identified as the "Palestinian/PA/whatever revolving door policy", or are we talking about something that is an alleged policy, which has sometimes been described by way of general description, as a "revolving door policy". That does make a difference as to whether it deserves a whole WP page under that name. --Nickhh (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is irrelevant for afd purposes. That can always be renamed, now or later. It's the content that's the issue. To that end, the "deleters" have focused on the wrong aspect of the content of the article. The article is not about the term, its origin, and its historic usage. That can be added as a small part of the article. The main focus of the article should be the actual (alleged) policy in which the PA arrested people and then just released them. This policy is a notable policy (as evidenced by the substantial coverage in reliable sources) and there's ample converge concerning the reasons for this type of policy, when it started, when it ended, why it started, why it ended, etc. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well whatever it ends up being called, I'm still not sure that this needs a whole WP page to itself. "Look! The PA (allegedly) releases terrorist prisoners!" Smacks more of a glorified blog post to me than an encyclopedia article. --Nickhh (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might agree with your sentiments, but it's WP:N and WP:RS that rule the day. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, per Nick. Not a good idea to build an article around each and every allegation and counter-allegation in the I/P conflict; and it's especially odd to upgrade the allegation to a "policy." For what it's worth, I'll vote to delete Israeli land-grab policy, Israeli shoot-first-ask-questions-later policy, and Israeli policy of deliberately destroying civilian infrastructure, should some Palestinian Amoruso venture to create these or the like.--G-Dett (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the allegations satisfy WP:N? brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the allegations to satisfy WP:N, we need sources discussing the allegations themselves – that is, qua allegations. Examples might include an Amnesty International investigation into the truth of the allegations, a series of

, etc. Allegations of Israeli apartheid is a classic example of when an allegation itself becomes notable. There are academic conferences, op-eds, TV segments, and entire books (both popular and scholarly) devoted to debating its merits; this is what makes it notable. Generally speaking, the notability of "allegations" type articles has nothing to do with whether the allegation's probable, or thought to be probable by an authority; it has simply to do with whether the allegation qua allegation has become interesting to lots of secondary sources.

I'm not saying there aren't any such sources in this case. But no, I don't think they've reached anywhere near a critical mass; and if we go down this path – Haaretz said it! Fox said it! We need an article on it! – we'll end up with a gigantic clusterfuck of lame articles like this one, written by partisans on both sides. Do you really want to see Israeli land-grab policy? Do you imagine, for one half a second, that it would have fewer sources than this one?--G-Dett (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly conferences is not prerequisite to notability, per WP:N. I don't think there was any scholarly conferences about Stoney Woodson. All that's required is substantial coverage in reliable sources, which this policy clearly meets. Oh, and Israeli land-grab policy, it already exists. See Judaization of Jerusalem, which just survived an afd. Too bad you couldn't chime in there.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned conferences as an example, not a sine qua non; don't get fixated on that for heaven's sake. Not having been previously aware of Judaization of Jerusalem, I'd have to reflect on it before saying what I think. It doesn't seem to me equivalent to Israeli land-grab policy.

Whenever you have a war or conflict, you have officials from one side making claims about what the other side's supposed "policies" consist of. I do not think that every one of these claims merits a separate Wikipedia article, simply because said claim was reported by several sources.--G-Dett (talk) 22:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoney Woodson doesn't meet any of your other suggested standards; no books about him either. The revolving door policy did not originate from a war. To the exact contrary. It was a policy that took place in the non-war years following the Oslo Accords. And the fact that this policy was practiced during post-Oslo process is probably what caused all the coverage about this policy. You see, it was this policy that the opponents to the peace process used as proof that there cannot be peace. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep fixating on non-essential elements of my posts, as if my arguments turned on them. Anyway. But Brewcrewer, when you say that "it was this policy that the opponents to the peace process used as proof that there cannot be peace," is that your own analysis, or one that's been mooted, disputed, etc. out there in the public sphere? If the latter, then that's exactly the kind of thing that could be relevant to notability.--G-Dett (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor were there any "high-profile debates" about Stoney Woodson :) As for the "analysis", it's not my own, but something that I recall hearing. Obviously this analysis can't go into the article until it is supported by reliable sources. I'm looking around for stuff on The Google (my favorite mode of research), but these things take time. Why don't you help me out?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:09, 29 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) 07:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCSJOHNHUXLEY[edit]

Declining db-copyvio (because article was rewritten quickly after being tagged as copyvio), and declining db-corp because this is a hard call. A Google news search gives 30 hits even after subtracting a lot of "press release" keywords[30], but I didn't find any single hit that established notability, the question is whether the sheer number of hits plus the size of the company is good enough for notability. The tone is currently promotional, but in fairness, that happened after we threatened to delete for lack of notability ... that happens sometimes. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity, advertising, i'd have gone with speedy A7. --neon white talk 21:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, a non-consumer business serving a small clientele: gaming industry's leading supplier of casino equipment. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:59, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Romania relations[edit]

I hope no one minds my bundling these three pages on "relations" between Romania and three South American countries; they share a lack of notability. Here we find some friendly words spoken by the Romanian President, but one visiting parliamentary delegation is hardly enough to constitute a notable relationship. Besides that, I could find nothing on any of these, in Romanian, Spanish or English. The pairings are random, and the one salient fact - the presence of embassies - is noted at Diplomatic missions of Romania, of Colombia, and so on. And by the way, tellingly, the respective embassies' pages have zero to say about bilateral relations: if not even those pages will cover the topic, why should we? Biruitorul ^Talk 16:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Comment Note to self - tried to find something worse on Wikipedia then deletionists (except the random trolls, hypocrites etc), guess I found something that tops it - anti-national deletionists. Don't mind me, had to get that off my chest, carry on. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 16:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is applying WP:N "anti-national"? If you're of the "Wikipedia should have as much as possible about Romania, whether notable or not" school, well, then I don't share that mindset. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's more like if something was written about Romania, in which someone put some time and effort into creating, for another Romanian to AfD it is not the most moral action, WP:N or not. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - a) You may not have known this, but these were mass-produced by a banned user who likely spent no more than a few moments on each one. b) Again, I don't buy that we should set aside encyclopedia policies out of patriotism. Just as these fail the notability test, so do Toma George Maiorescu, Victor Marius Beliciu, Bogdan Bacanu, George Draga, Andras Chiriliuc, Doru Popovici and many others -- and I will surely put them through AfD soon enough, no matter how many hours good Romanians spent writing them, because they're not notable, verifiable, or based on reliable sources. And I say that as a patriotic Romanian who sees no conflict between duty to his country and duty to uphold the policies of this encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree, I find it funny that 'country x' vs. 'country y' articles can be non-notable however an article about a 30 second television ad by Microsoft is notable? (Mojave Experiment). I think that just the Spanish/Cuban wiki community did some months ago I think the time is right to form a splinter off Caribbean-wiki elsewhere. Clear across the board standards need to be decided for the foreign relations articles. CaribDigita (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - a) That's the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument; b) funny or not, numerous discussions have established that bilateral relations are not inherently notable, and that articles on them must still satisfy the normal requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, and so on. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Trivial. Dahn (talk) 01:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them, no independent reliable sources establish notablity for any of these.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete couldn't find anything meaningful from Google news search. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 30 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) 07:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hdtv installation[edit]

Contested prod, while this is useful information, Wikipedia is not the place for it. RadioFan (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree... to some this has value and will have more as people ad to it... give it some time to build... you requested I remove the DIY section I did that. But I think your assumption that the start of this article provides no value is incorrect and is only based on your point of view not the demand for information about this topic by Wikipedia and internet users in general. There is not section specific to HDTV installation while there is for HDTV's, plasma and LCD televisions, how do they provide any better information then this section? Those all started with the same baseline of information their first day and grew, give this topic a chance before you judge it.Mylesshady (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE.
Delete per nom and above. The information on different types of mounts could probably be included somewhere, if there is not already coverage. — Jake Wartenberg 18:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is not a DIY guide book. Anything useful can be merged to HDTV. It's as unencyclopedic as having a Buttering toast article explaining that buttering toast is the act of putting butter on toast. That's before mentioning the directory of links in the middle. --neon white talk 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NOTHOWTO. --KurtRaschke (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and WP:NOTHOWTO. feydey (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. While I agree with the author that the article has useful information, it belongs on a site like eHow, not Wikipedia. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 15:49, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Malta relations[edit]

Contested prod. No sources exist indicating this is a notable relationship. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uh, both of these Mediterranean countries are near-neighbors, only separated by Italy -- as the crow flies, that is -- but directly reachable by water. I'd like to see a lot more research that they don't have a relationship before I'd consent to this article's deletion. -- llywrch (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made the case that sources aren't forthcoming; the burden of proof is now on the other side to adduce those sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Random pairing, trivial if "expanded" the "usual way". Dahn (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:05, 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 redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia. MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Estonia relations[edit]

No sources found to indicate that this is anything more than a random pairing. Notability not established. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia. Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion [31]. Given that where some bilateral agreement exists, there is scope for future development of this relationship, even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time. Re-directs are cheap. The Estonian MFA indicates such a bilateral agreement exists or is in the precess of being drafted, hence there is scope for future expansion. Note that there may well be undiscovered foreign languages sources supporting notability, therefore this article should be at least merged and a re-direct retained. Martintg (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless notability is somehow established by independent reliable references and whatnot. Spiesr (talk) 22:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:N. Note that they don't even bother to have actual embassies in each other's countries. Florent Çeliku is simultaneously ambassador to Ukraine, but resides in Warsaw. He might deserve an article. Resurr Section (talk) 09:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please can we hold fire on deleting entries on bilateral relations pending the outcome of the central discussion on this class of article? There is growing support for these articles and for a specific guideline to define what makes a bilateral relationship notable - analogous to say WP:music which allows us to rank as notable any musician who’s had a hit in a national chart, even if she hasn’t been the subject of multiple non trivial journalistic or academic studies. Until we have the new guideline editors can spend hours finding sources on these relationships only to see the article deleted by opponents who zealously appeal to a strict interpretation of existing guidelines, which while worthy aren’t specifically tailed to address bilateral relations. Once a specific guideline is in place these articles can be improved accordingly or deleted if they dont meet the agreed criteria – and much less time will be wasted editing in vain and on these ADF discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to assess the notability of the article itself, and not vote based on a discussion that might reach no conclusion, for all we know. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non resident embassies. only 1 minor agreement [32] LibStar (talk) 14:41, 30 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 03:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–Cyprus relations[edit]

Contested prod. No sources exist indicating this is a notable relationship. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability could probably be established in the usual way: [33] TheWilyFox (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. But seriously: a) a few agreements and meetings and the like are part of the normal course of international relations, and the stuff of news, not an encyclopedic article; b) those articles do not deal with the relationship as such, which is not documented anywhere. For us to decide that they constitute notable features of the relationship would be in breach of WP:SYNTH. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, this pair may have more than trivia, especially if both Cypruses are considered. They are, after all, one night's ride away in a smuggler's dinghy. NVO (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd expect so too--but we do have to find something.DGG (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first story in that link I gave says "The two Foreign Ministers held talks during which they discussed ways of enhancing bilateral relations and cooperation between Cyprus and Albania and signed a Protocol of Cooperation between the two Ministries." TheWilyFox (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, a ministerial meeting was held, pleasantries were exchanged, and...? That doesn't quite take us into "notable relationship" territory. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See (b) above. TheWilyFox (talk) 01:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To quote Biruitorul, "a few agreements and meetings and the like are part of the normal course of international relations," and the normal course of international affairs between two nations is notable. Many normal things are notable. They don't have to be exceptional, just important. DGG (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree that the normal course of anything is inherently notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources discuss this relationship in any non-trivial detail, such that we could justify having an encyclopedia article. The relationship is of such little importance that neither state keeps an embassy in the other. I would imagine if one were to call up the desk officers nominally responsible for this relationship at their respective embassies in Athens and ask how much time a week they spent on this, it's likely the answer would be "no time at all." Nor whould we spend any more of ours on this.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruftish juxtaposition, which translates into "these countries have once waved to each other". Dahn (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:12, 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 speedy delete. by User:Dank55 with support of creator. Mgm|^(talk) 08:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZiL Begemot[edit]

This article is based on a newspaper article that is confirmed to be an April Fool's hoax. AVand ^talk _contribs 15:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The article is about the April Fool's joke itself and declares that several times. It has three news stories covering it. I would prefer to see more in line citations. The article may need help, but I don't see a reason to delete. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but does it really pass the WP:N criteria? AVand ^talk _contribs 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the reason you nominated the article. However, I believe being covered by multiple newspapers (who thought it was a real story) does qualify as notible. Turlo Lomon (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Turlo. Ikip (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is the hoax itself notable? Of the "three news articles" covering it, two are pre-hoax (talking about the car itself), and only one discusses the hoax. If all we have to go on is one news article, this would fall under WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, although Turlo points out that this article admits the hoax, actually only the lead paragraph does; the entire "Description" section describes the car as if it were real. That is an easily surmountable problem, of course, but in any case that amount of description is not really necessary since this was a hoax, and doesn't contribute to any claims of notability. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creator: Go ahead, Strong Delete. When I first wrote this article, it was because I read an article from Xinhua, which linked to the article from Moscow Times, and as it looked genuine, I actually believed it. After five days from writing the article, I discovered that it was a hoax (and subsequently edited it, see talk page). I personally believe that now it is non-notable and non-encyclopedic, and should be deleted. Sorry for any trouble caused, it was a mistake of mine. Regards, -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:59, 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) 07:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEEDS Project[edit]

This is a page for a project at the University of Toronto. This article has several issues, but the reason for deletion is that it is clearly non-notable. After extensive searching, no third-party sources about the project could be found. Many universities have database/preservation projects, there is no clear reason why this one stands out to such an extent to warrant an article. Also, there is a clear conflict of interest - this article has been created by the user DEEDS.Education, a single-purpose account which violates WP:SPAMNAME. This is not a reason for deletion in itself, but it speaks to the fact that this project is not notable in the wider academic world, at least no more so than any of the hundreds of other similar projects in universities around the world. Since this is an academic project and not a business, I'm not sure if it would be considered spam, but it's close. Otebig (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. COI is not a cause for deletion, but it should be noted that DEEDS.Education, according to their post on the article's talk page, is an ex-employee of the Project. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete No hits on gNews, but some academic papers stemming from it. Given lack of coverage in popular press as well as low citation count in scholarly works, I'm inclined to believe it is not notable. An alternative would be to merge it to something like Research at the University of Toronto or Academics at the University of Toronto. Madcoverboy (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it in actual practice does not seem to be a single project, just an umbrella. DGG (talk) 03:55, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Egypt relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of articles on miscellaneous juxtapositions of countries, nor a directory of which do or do not exchange diplomats. Fails notability as well. Edison (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source-based evidence of notability for this implausible relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 17:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another one of those. Dahn (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doubt anything will come out from here.--Aldux (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:17, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Paraguay relations[edit]

another random and laughable combination by the obsessive stub creator. LibStar (talk) 13:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - their mutual representation is in Switzerland. No notable relations to speak of here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 11:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paraguay-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Please can we hold fire on deleting entries on bilateral relations pending the outcome of the central discussion on this class of article? There is growing support for these articles and for a specific guideline to define what makes a bilateral relationship notable - analogous to say WP:music which allows us to rank as notable any musician who’s had a hit in a national chart, even if she hasn’t been the subject of multiple non trivial journalistic or academic studies. Until we have the new guideline editors can spend hours finding sources on these relationships only to see the article deleted by opponents who zealously appeal to a strict interpretation of existing guidelines, which while worthy aren’t specifically tailed to address bilateral relations. Once a specific guideline is in place these articles can be improved accordingly or deleted if they dont meet the agreed criteria – and much less time will be wasted editing in vain and on these ADF discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the above cannot be considered strong keep as it does not assess the notability of the subject. another editor has said Centralized discussions are not arbitration, or even mediation. There is no definite outcome of a centralized discussion, and even if there was, the underlying issue is and will always be one of notability LibStar (talk) 13:30, 30 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 03:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Zambia relations[edit]

Another one of those X-Y country relations articles that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:N. tempodivalse [☎] 13:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no embassies, few cultural ties, random pairing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please can we hold fire on deleting entries on bilateral relations pending the outcome of the central discussion on this class of article? There is growing support for these articles and for a specific guideline to define what makes a bilateral relationship notable - analogous to say WP:music which allows us to rank as notable any musician who’s had a hit in a national chart, even if she hasn’t been the subject of multiple non trivial journalistic or academic studies. Until we have the new guideline editors can spend hours finding sources on these relationships only to see the article deleted by opponents who zealously appeal to a strict interpretation of existing guidelines, which while worthy aren’t specifically tailed to address bilateral relations. Once a specific guideline is in place these articles can be improved accordingly or deleted if they dont meet the agreed criteria – and much less time will be wasted editing in vain and on these ADF discussions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to assess the notability of the article itself, and not vote based on a discussion that might reach no conclusion, for all we know. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia ^Dialogue 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the Greek govt says bilateral relations are low level. [34] LibStar (talk) 14:42, 30 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Alexander[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nomination for deletion of previously deleted article about a non-notable actor - no referencing of any sort, article may have been written by someone with a conflict of interest Jezhotwells (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged ((db-repost)). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is substantially different to previous versions so I'm declining the speedy - not sure whether his career has progressed to the point of being notable but can I ask that people reassess on the basis of the current article? Ϣere SpielChequers 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also after a few minutes googling I've found some references - and some of his work is dated 2008 and 2009 which in itself is a reason to assess this article afresh as the last AFD was in 2007. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the fence - If we had significant coverge in reliable sources, I'd be a weak keep on this -- the iCarly role is significant, I don't know about the Pet Detective Jr. role. Without sources (and IMDb is not a reliable source), we really have next to nothing to say about him. I'll check back in a few days to see where this stands. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was nominated for a Young Artist Award which I have now referenced to the organization itself rather than IMDB. It's a well-respected award in the industry and the Dutch media called them Children's Oscars. I believe such a nomination means he meets the WP:CREATIVE criterion "The person's work [...] has won significant critical attention". Referencing definitely needs work but seeing how his career is entirely in the internet age, providing reliable sources for cleanup is possible. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination for deletion, when I first spotted this (after someone had vandalized it, I could only find one possible WP:RS on a very quick Google. I am please dthat other editors have cleaned it up and referenced it. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notable found, improvements made, and withdrawn nomination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources discuss the subject of a BLP in any nontrvial depth (the current state of this blp) and none findable by me? Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:26, 29 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deandre Brunston[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BIO, ~~so unnewsworthy that the L.A Times didn't even bother covering the story,~~ few google hits, mainly mirrors, the youtube video, and biased sources which called cops as "pigs" Delete Secret ^account 13:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am finding reliable sources that cover this person in detail: [35]. Also, the L.A. times *did* cover this story, it is not public access but the article cite is: Jose Cardenas, "Patt Morrison; Parolee, Police Dog Killed; The first sheriff's canine to die in the line of duty is accidentally shot as deputies confront man.", LA Times, Aug 26, 2003, page B.3., non-public-access version here: [36] The occurrence also attracted some attention from activists across the nation, as is evidenced by mention this article in a Spanish-language publication in Atlanta: [37]. Cazort (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok so the L.A Times covered it, surpriced it didn't show up on Google News when I searched. But I don't see more help with reliable coverage, and the L.A Times covered it as a local news story, which local newspapers usually cover local police-involved shootings. Still qualifies under WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 17:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Likewise. Would anyone with full access to that like to confirm that the full (and small) article isn't mainly about the police dog, like the segment shown? As this article is really just about the Shooting of Deandre Brunston, why don't we have a Shooting of Marco article? Nevard (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 7 google news hits, including the LA Times. Ikip (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seven google news hits doesn't mean nothing, all seven of those hits are from forums and not reliable sources. Can you provide any that aren't the local news story from the L.A Times. Secret ^account 17:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I examined all sources and only one is a forum. People's Weekly World (pww.org) is not a forum, it is a reliable news source, and the three hits on that site are all full articles (and not even opinion pieces): although it is openly written from a socialist perspective, I think it drives home the point I made earlier that this person's death has been picked up by activists. rwor.org is the official publication of the American Communist party, and The Militant is an international weekly socialist newspaper. All but the L.A. times article is non-local, and although it is in the local section, the L.A. Times is a very widely read paper. Cazort (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry I don't consider sources from obviously biased news sources as reliable, there is a WP:NPOV issue with those sources. Secret ^account 12:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no substantial non-local coverage in reliable sources. DGG (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify...are you basing the comment on the erroneous comment that "all seven of those hits are from forums", or do you take issue with the reliability of the sources given? The sources other than the L.A. times all have a very clear socialist perspective; however, I don't see that as terribly relevant to this notability debate--this fact simply clarifies "who" is interested in this topic. Cazort (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also want to note the dates of the relevant articles, which demonstrates sustained interest in this topic, more than just local police news coverage. [38] was written nearly two years after the original L.A. times article, demonstrating that people remembered this case and were passionate enough about it to write an extensive article about Deandre Brunston's death. [39] mentions Deandre Brunston about a full year after that. Cazort (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per continued coverage in reliable sources 2003-2007[40]. Anything else is a matter for WP:Cleanup, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Hiding T 12:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify this as I asked above? Thanks. Cazort (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consider that for local events, the test for significance is coverage in major sources outside their immediate surroundings. Police mishandling of domestic violence is so common as to be generally a matter that will not get such wider coverage. DGG (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DGG. There doesn't seem to be the coverage right this minute to create a balanced article. The most recent report is 18 months ago, so the level of reportage that has been generated doesn't seem to me to indicate the event is one to have impact on society. I don't want to get into the rights and wrongs of that, but for me this incident, while a tragic one, hasn't generated a level of interest which would for me indicate it meets the relevant guidance and policies. Hiding T 19:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe we will just have to respectfully disagree. For me, this article: [41] is what swings it for me. It is NOT a local paper, and it covers information not in the original L.A. times article--including the wrongful death suit, and discussion of how this one death fits into a broader framework of problems and activism. Cazort (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails bio, one event, etc... Sorry he was killed, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain how WP:BIO isn't passed? One event is certainly debatable, but I don't see any issue with BIO as the sources are significant in coverage, multiple and reliable. Hobit (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added some material to the page, utilizing some of the sources I mentioned, and found another source although it is not particularly good for arguing notability. I will add more later. I think this article is salvageable, however--I haven't even begun using the original L.A. times article. Cazort (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep/move I hate these. Clearly passes WP:N and WP:BIO (neither of which say anything about local sources btw). NOT#NEWS is the obvious issue here. It was picked up by a number of specialized organizations that generate news coverage. So I'd say follow the advice we get for notnews and cover the event and not the person. It's just past NEWS in my opinion and has wide enough coverage that someone might come here looking to learn about the event. Hobit (talk) 23:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the capitalist and overtly conservative news sources like the Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Fox News (or pretty much anything Murdoch-owned); the Washington Times, and World Net Daily are reliable, then so are the news sources from the equally hard opposite end of the political spectrum. If we disallow leftist/socialist websites, then conservative rags like the WSJ and Washington Times are also no longer valid to use. It would be a mockery of NPOV otherwise. I've never believed that sourcing should be non-regional. That said, there's enough sourcing to keep. rootology (C)(T) 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is arguing anything about capitalism and other aspects of the political spectrum. The argument is actually turning on whether this person's death, no matter how tragic, is something we should note in Wikipedia. Yes, that sentence sounds heartless, but it is working out how to balance these things up. If we want to talk about boases, I'm wondering how we judge that this persons death is of more value than any other persons death. That's the crucial turning point. Is it just that the death is covered in a small number of sources, because if that is the case, what are the implications? Hiding T 09:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about the politics was in response to Secret's saying we should not us "biased sources which called cops as 'pigs'" which would fly in the face of NPOV. He's basically, in this nomination, elevating his own political views above WP:N and WP:NPOV, which is inappropriate. rootology (C)(T) 14:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally did not pick up on that. My apologies. Hiding T 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be very hard to argue that Brunston's death should not be noted/included in wikipedia. The question is just...how/where? This discussion is about whether Brunston should have a page. Hobit (and I would tend to agree with this somewhat) suggested that it might be better to cover the event, not the person--the lack of any sort of biographical information in reliable sources seems to back this up. Cazort (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding it that hard to argue the point. Are you suggesting we record every instance of wrongful death at the hands of the police? I'm not sure of the implications of that.Once you extend that across the globe, to avoid systemic bias... Hiding T 21:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... even if it was only those deaths questioned by major national newspapers in their main sections, which would of course exclude this, I think that would be pretty questionable. Nevard (talk) 02:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia should include every instance of wrongful death at the hands of police that has had an extensive article written in an international socialist newspaper about the instance, several years after the death, in addition to whatever coverage it had in the local paper at the time of the occurrence. These papers do not indiscriminately cover all people wrongly killed by police...if they did they'd have no room for their other content! Deandre Brunston may not be anywhere near as big a symbol as Rodney King, but he is still a symbol. These two articles alone, in my opinion, make the event meet WP:N even if the person is not notable enough to justify a bio. If you want to delete this page, I can respect that decision even though I'd personally prefer to keep it. But excluding the whole event from mention anywhere on wikipedia...I want to ask...why would you even want to do that? What would be gained? That's an extreme measure that I do not think other editors would support. Cazort (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E and NOTNEWS. لenna vecia 14:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First name has been mispelled in some sources - I'm seeing both Deondre and Deandre. -- Banjeboi 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2003 is still in the transition years of online sourcing but I'm finding materials just fine. I've added a few and done some clean-up work as well as sourcing leads. -- Banjeboi 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for locating these new sources. I noticed that one of them used the spelling "Deondre Brunston". This turned up more detailed coverage: [42], [43], [44], [45], and [46], and a mention in [47]. None of these sources overlap with the ones I had initially found, and I think these sources should be considered in the deletion discussion. Cazort (talk) 02:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I also just found a second article about this event in The Militant, which offers more detailed coverage than the one I had originally found: [48]. Here is another source, again, a left-wing activist source but still a source: [49] Cazort (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? We just added several sources and found 4- more, that would seem to contradict your take on this. -- Banjeboi 10:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. There are reasons to consider deletion of this article. Sourcing isn't one of them. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 30 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. A7 Cirt (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galahad Lager[edit]

unreferenced 4 sentence article, about a discount beer brand with an alleged cult following Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very short article, no sources cited, no notability established. ShakingSpirit ^talk 13:24, 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) 07:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sporkman[edit]

Non notable comic. Sporkman gets quite a few of GHits, but when you start looking in a more focused manner, it turns out that e.g. one of the two available comics gets only 9 Google hits[50], or that Sprokman plus the name of one of the artists gives 83 Google distinct hits[51] and no relevant Google News hits[52]. The comic has not received significant attention in reliable independent sources, no mainstream publication, no major awards, ... Fram (talk) 12:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be a couple of comics published through print-on-demand services which have no notability. (Emperor (talk) 15:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gilham[edit]

Person notable for one event. Also violates Wikipedia is not a newspaper. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Media coverage only due to his crime. WP:NOTNEWS. PirateSmackK (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is sufficient coverage for verifiability. WP:BLP states"If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events [...] fit into this category." This is certainly well documented; look at all the sources. This is a well written article and I see no reason to delete it. — Jake Wartenberg 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The key portion of your WP:BLP extract is "if the event is significant". Mr. Gilham is accused of mudering his parents. While this story may be tragic, and such tragedies often inspire a great deal of press at the time, it is hardly significant on a global scale (or should we start adding articles about ALL patricides?). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not, if there is sufficient press coverage? You may have ignored the last bit there, "Individuals notable for well-documented events [...] fit into this category." — Jake Wartenberg 23:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook case of WP:BLP1E. While this event was undoubtedly significant to the victims' family and friends, it's not significant enough in the grand scheme of things to justify a separate article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Move and re-work into an article such as Gilham family murders, consistent with current practice to reflect the event and not the individual. WWGB (talk) 06:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move per WWGB. Good idea. Lonelygirl16 (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and NOT#NEWS. Jake misunderstands the section of BLP he's quoted. An example of a significant event is a presidential assassination. A kid killing his parents is not what is meant there. لenna vecia 03:36, 1 May 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) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Midday Milers[edit]

Non notable group of runners. They have gotten some attention in one article in the Age[53] as an example of runners on a specific location, and that's it. They won an Ocfam charity race[54], but that has not received any attention in independent sources. Only 35 distinct Google hits, and the one given Google News hit[55]. Fails WP:N. Fram (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This social running club doesn't meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GROUP. WWGB (talk) 04:03, 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft in the Honorverse[edit]

Huge, unsourced, infodump of trivia about fictional spaceships. Tagged for issues over a year ago [56] and issues unaddressed. Has grown by about 8kb, but mostly it's just deck chairs [57]. There are pretty much no sources anywhere in this franchise so there is little reason to expect sources to emerge. Appears to be primarily a synthesis from the primary sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 10:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: went to Wikia; [58][59]. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Describes an important concept and important characters in a particularly notable series of books. It would be impossible to gain an adequate understanding of the series without this content existing. Highly useful. Article has tremendous potential. Wikipedia is a meta-fansite with unlimited space. WP:PRESERVE. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you meant to say "keep", no? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
see: sarcasm Jack Merridew 13:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Debresser (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Trivial, unreferenced - vulnerable to OR. Ryan4314 (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreferenced trivia, plot summary and OR. Generally, the nuances between ship classes/sizes aren't important to understanding these books; it's sufficient to know they're big ships, and sometimes the protagonist overcomes tough odds to beat a bigger ship. These details are superfluous -- and unreferenced, some of it synthesis, on top of that. --EEMIV (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since it can be sourced to the original fiction, it isn't OR. It's not about the plot, though it shows up as background, as it should. The individual ships are not notable, so a combination article on them is appropriate. Personally, I couldn't care less about this series, which I have never read and never intend to read, but I see this as an attack on all articles on elements of fiction. It may succeed, because typically only those who care about the particular fiction pay much attention to the AfDs, while the reason for opposing is general. I'm not alleging bad faith--the motives of the nom is explicit in multiple comments: he wants decreased coverage of fiction in Wikipedia. An honest opinion, no matter how bad it would be for Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 18:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all-for appropriate levels of coverage of all types of fiction. However, this sort of stuff is plot-regurgitation motivated by mere fan enthusiasm. There do not appear to be sources establishing the notability of the books themselves! Just because something is important to someone does not make it important. Genuine notability — of the significant depth of coverage in multiple independent reliable sources kind — is our approximation of a test for 'Importance'. I believe that this project should focus on the important stuff, and that weeding-out the junk is essential to the core goals of this project. I'm all for coverage of fiction in depth if serious people have stood up and taken serious note. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, how on earth can you know what motivates it? Fan enthusiasm has made a lot of good Wikipedia articles, on every from sports to pornography. DGG (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can't truly know the motivation of others. It does seem to me that many are prattling on about whatever franchise has ensnared them as a means to vicariously participate in the story. This sort of effort is more appropriate for fansite than an encyclopædia. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fictional spacecraft that are important elements in these various sci fi novels are already mentioned in the plot summaries in the articles on the books themselves. No independent, reliable sources discuss this alleged topic at all, not only making this original research, but failing verifiability and our sourcing policies. It is only a matter of fan trivia interest that "Runabouts are small civilian pleasure ships which are the Honorverse equivalent of today's sailing yachts and sport ships". Please, let's not help wikipedia continue its descent into being a fansite, lets strongly apply the rather low inclusion threshold, and let's remember we must write from and for the perspective of our world, not honor harringtons (or whatever the fictional last name is.)Bali ultimate (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a perfectly valid list, about a topic of importance within a fictional series. Dream Focus 11:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per DGG. Ikip (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- I understand these novels are modeled after the Horatio Hornblower novels. We have articles on some of the individual fictional ships Horatio Hornblower served on. Perhaps those advocating deletion of this article can explain why the fictional ships in this series of novels are less worthy of coverage here than the fictional ships Horatio Hornblower served on? Geo Swan (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few of those are real ships with appropriate coverage. Most of the ships do not have any such article. Three of them are entirely fictional, and appears to be a case of WP:OTHERSTUFF; I've redirected them to the single works in which they appear. --EEMIV (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You apparently redirected them without merging the information they had. It was reverted, but I would not oppose a proper merge for some individual ship articles there or here into either the specific novel, when possible, or into articles like this. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is significant content, I will revert, and we continue the discussion on the talk pages of the articles concerned. As it conveniently happens, there are good secondary sources about that universe also--probably better ones, as its quite popular among academics. Geo, it's risky to raise something like this at an afd, because it tends to produce this sort of response: let's get rid of any thing else that might happen to help the other side of the argument. The OTHER STUFF people allege in these discussions is often good stuff--the article nominated for deletion is quite reasonably likely to be the weakest of the lot, and then the whole thing may be lost in senseless deletion. DGG (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at HMS Lydia and it seems to have an independent source. This seems reasonable given that Forester's not Weber. And I agree with DGG that more and better sources are likely to exist for the Lydia. This is, in fact, an excellent example of the difference; only one fictional realm is genuinely notable and warrants more than basic coverage. Weber may have looted prior art for grist, but that didn't net him any notability. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with DGG's reasoning.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems like if this was a notable subject, there would be some coverage in secondary sources. AniMate^talk 22:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The arguments for delete, above, seem to be variations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People do write serious works on material like this. Geo Swan (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty much per nom. The subject fails WP:N, just because its an article in a fictional universe doesn't mean it gets a free bypass from our notability guidelines. It also fails WP:WAF as its from an entirely in-universe perspective. This has been tagged for help for over a year and especially with the close scruitny that AfD gives, if this article hasn't gotten help now than its either impossible to help or nobodys willing to fix it. There are still no reliable sources for verification, let alone an assertion of notability. I don't see any arguments of the form IDONTLIKEIT here. Nobody is saying they don't like the material; its that it shouldn't be presented without reasonable sources in an encyclopedia that has discriminate inclusion guidelines and a policy of verifiability. Them From Space 04:38, 30 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) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mateo Arias[edit]

Fails WP:CREATIVE. Only had small roles according to IMDB and I found no press coverage to establish notability per WP:GNG. All I found where brief mentions that he was Moises Arias's brother. Delete - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To add to the above, all mention within Wiki is in regards to his brother. If this article has enough source backing, simply merge it into his brothers article. IMO Meph Yazata (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't meet our notability requirements. لenna vecia 15:54, 29 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) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kinga Herrmann[edit]

PROD went for standard 5 days, but I have discovered it has been PRODd and deleted before (quite recently), so listing at AfD instead. PROD contents: Not quite CSD, but seems to fail WP:BIO - unremarkable person ~fl 09:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete No indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity piece. Not notable. لenna vecia 16:25, 29 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) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arda Vandella Collins[edit]

Was prodded with the reason "Unable to ascertain notability for the book re WP:BK, and thereby rendering the authors claim for notability invalid per WP:CREATIVE". One editor's inability to determine notability is not sufficient reason for a prod. PRODding of articles should only happen in cases where a deletion would be uncontroversial. When you fail to determine something yourself, the best course of action is to ask for help. "When in doubt, don't delete". I'm moving it here for wider community consensus and remain neutral until I've looked at it in detail myself. Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep respected author and educator[60][61] and recipient of the "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" award. Based upon the available sources toward notability, I'll accept in good faith that she is in that book. The article and wiki will benefir from expansion and further sourcing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears that this author has not been given any editorial coverage. See Google news archive search (all dates), Google search, and what appears to be her most well-received work at amazon.com. The last is particularly telling, as amazon will put just about anything approaching a reliable source in its Editorial Reviews section. Citation in virtually any sort of "Who's Who" in the past 30 years is not evidence of anything—the inclusion criteria include requesting inclusion, generally. Bongo matic 22:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Strangely, Google is not the ONLY search engine available to Wikipedians. And just to clarify, more than simply being "listed", she is the recipient of an award from "Who's Who Among America's Teachers". Not just a listing, but an award and recognition in her special field of endeavour. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MQS, you wrote:

Strangely, Google is not the ONLY search engine available to Wikipedians.

Your sarcasm is not appreciated. While Google is not the only search engine, it is generally regarded as the single most comprehensive (free) one. Doing all-dates news archive search plus a web search indicates sufficient good faith so as not to be the target of snide remarks.

You continued:

[M]ore than simply being "listed", she is the recipient of an award from "Who's Who Among America's Teachers". Not just a listing, but an award.

The source of this—a promotional blurb—is hardly reliable. And if actually read the text in the source, it appears that it is no more than a listing (people do not receive a notable "award" multiple years in a row, and it refers to "appear"ing as the consequence of the award):

In 2003-2004, Mrs. Collins was the recipient of the "Who's Who Among America's Teachers" award and appears in the 8th edition. She was again nominated for this award and will appear in the 9th edition as well.

If you have a source (even a non-reliable one) that leads to a different inference, please share it. Bongo matic 00:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? No need to continue a debate you've already won. I struck my keep at 23:27 (see below) and 1 hour and 24 minutes later at 0:51 you cut apart my coment to reply piece-mill. I have re-stiched the pieces, as what I said and how I said it is something that does not itself require editing simply to accomodate your responses. And no sarcasm was intended, just a reminder inre your earlier sourcing remark to say I understand that Wikipedia recognizes that Google has limitations and is not the only search engine available. Wiki lists a few of the many online engines, and gladly accepts hardcopy sources such as public libraries (where that Who's Who Among America's Teachers can be found and her award verified). I should have said just that and not allowed for any misinterpretation. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no matter how much good faith I can muster, there is no way to interpret a "Strangely" before a blindingly obvious statement as other than sarcastic. Bongo matic 02:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it's not because Who's Who Among America's Teachers is not online that I question the likelihood of the subject's being granted an "award", it's because the claim itself (which is in a promotional context) and the nature of the book (which can be established here, for example) lead to the presumption of a directory entry. If a Wikipedia editor claimed to have read the book and identified that the "award" was bona fide it would be a different matter. Nobody is (or at least I am not) suggesting that print sources that are not online are inadmissible. Bongo matic 02:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice and allow return when this great-grandmother gets her obit in New York Times. Striking my keep above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving discussion per Irony, Sportsmanship, Eristic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once more with feeling kids... if no reliable sources independent of the subject discuss the subject in any non-trivial depth, then no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bali ultimate words it well. لenna vecia 15:51, 29 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) 07:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toxic Baby[edit]

Article lacks neutrality and appears to be an essay written with the aim of blaming "chemicals" for rising instances of diseases. It also promotes a film. The links provided are only tangentally related to the article as they discuss the perceived phenomenon and not the film. This should be deleted because it's not encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete The article comes across as highly unencyclopedic to me, since it doesn't begin by introducing what "Toxic Baby" is. And I agree with all the criticisms of the nominee. The subject matter, issues of chemicals and their effects on babies and the like, belongs on other wikipedia pages--and needs to be introduced with careful thought, integrated into other topics, and by appealing to reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a poorly written article about a new documentary film, which has an IMDB entry and a few cursory mentions elsewhere on the web, but nothing that comes close to establishing notability. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The text is copied from [62] , but I'm not sure if it's a sufficiently close copy to merit a G12. No assertion of notability and no sources, in any case. Tevildo (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom. Agree with Cazort. Meph Yazata (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:34, 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) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Military during World War 2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Russian Military during World War 2

Basically a research paper/treaste with lots of POV and no real footnotes. Instead it has a list of sources. Everything salvagable is covered in Eastern Front (World War II), History_of_the_Soviet_Union_(1927–1953) and other places. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 09:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Uncited essay. It would be possible to write a very good article on this topic, but this is approaching it from totally the wrong direction and has nothing which can be used in an encyclopedic article. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Nick-D that it would be possible to write a very good article, but it would be called Soviet armed forces in the second world war, so it isn't appropriate to retain this as a stub.
It's arguable that this could be kept as a redirect to Soviet armed forces, but I don't think it's a likely enough search term for that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to keep this as a redirect. People are highly unlikely to type the whole term in the search box, enough to get an exact match. Cazort (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: due to the new auto-complete feature in the search box, if you typed in "Russian military", the rest of the phrase would appear. So a redirect would be a useful -- & enticing -- thing. -- llywrch (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research essay that can better be summarised in other places. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Badly written essay and adds nothing to other Wikipedia articles about the Russian involvement in WW2. Trevor Marron (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, the subject did not exist. NVO (talk) 18:27, 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) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agar (software)[edit]

Software with no assertion of notability (or notability generally) that I can find. Declined prod, with no reason given. Ironholds (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As non-consumer software, this set of C++ graphical libraries is unlikely to receive general interest outside the field of C++ graphical programming. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Though I strongly oppose the previous delete comment. Wikipedia is not a trivia site, the subject of an article should not be evaluated on general interests. Carewolf (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per lack of nontrivial coverage from independent sources. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:07, 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 16:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse country[edit]

Non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Changed) Keep: Not only am I finding numerous reliable sources that use this term, but I have found an article written specifically about this term: Cristina Odone, "Ye olde Brits, don't give up on the Mickey Mouse image", New Statesman, Mar. 26, 2001. Other articles that use the term in passing: [63], [64]. Check out the google news archive hits: [65] Cazort (talk) 14:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While not exactly a neologism, this is just an example of the use of "Mickey Mouse" as an adjective that means, basically, "inauthentic", which is already covered at Mickey Mouse#Pejorative use of Mickey's name. I don't think the article establishes that "Mickey Mouse _country_" has any independent notability. Tevildo (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and I change my recommendation from Keep to Merge and Redirect, although I think looking at the size of that section, as a separate matter, I would recommend to Split the section on pejorative uses into its own page, and make a paragraph on it about the term "Mickey Mouse country". Man this sounds complex but it shouldn't be too hard! Cazort (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete Agree with Tevildo, term can be applied to many things. Anything useful can be merged. --neon white talk 21:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This belongs on Wiktionary --Carbon Rodney 00:27, 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) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brotest[edit]

Non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as obvious neologism. Also, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JogCon (talk) 15:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Protologism at best, more likely just nonsense. Ladyof Shalott 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JogCon. Cnilep (talk) 00:08, 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) 07:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Fisher[edit]

WP:BLP1E. Minimal sourcing doesn't show notability. BJ^Talk 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not a BLP1E because she's dead and because two drowning murders 13 years apart are not one event. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient sources to establish notability. Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notaiblity not established and article is solely about crimes which I think is a BLP1e no-no? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. As it stands its very POV, and perfectly written it would still be more sensationalist than encyclopedic. I can't find further coverage on her than the scant details related here. Them From Space 05:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Living or not, there's no assertion of notability. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete part of me almost wants to say keep simply in reaction to the bizaare claims above about BLP1E for someone who has been dead for 30 years. A google search shows that there are some sources about this individual that might be enough to carry WP:BIO, however, that isn't obvious to me. Google searching for news hits shows that there are at least two other people of the same name (including an FBI lab supervisor who might meet WP:BIO herself). If I have time at some point in the future I may try to track down enough sourcing to show that this person meets BIO and should have an article but right now I'm not seeing it. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:45, 29 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 URL redirection . MBisanz ^talk 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of URL redirection services[edit]

Article content is a mere list of external links. Wikipedia is not a directory. The Anome (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ~~Keep~~Move Just because it is a directory now doesn't mean it can never be anything else. This is a perfectly notable topic, and the problems that it has can eventually be fixed. Remember, anyone can delete content. AFD is just for deleting titles. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ this title until the list has more than one notable member. Canvasback (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is your only argument, then it should stay. If the topic is notable enough that you predict it can become a good article, the best thing to do is keep it, not "delete it until..." Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright. Keep this list of 1 because it might become something else at some time in the future, who knows? Canvasback (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think lists should be avoided whenever possible, and when possible, converted to prose. In the spirit of this, could we consider moving/renaming this article to URL Redirection Service? This way it would not be so much of a concern if there were only a couple members...the article could describe what such a service is, and then could discuss various sites that provide these services, together with their history, features, etc. Thoughts? Cazort (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great thought. That would be a much better contribution to Wikipedia than the list. [P.S. You inspired me so much I changed my vote :)]Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 18:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - @ Cazort. We already have URL redirection#Services. But I disagree strongly with the comment about avoiding lists. Per WP:CLN, lists are a valid navigational aid and are complementary to other navigational aids. I think we should have a list (as long as it's longer than one item) and and article discussing the topic. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tollay agree with you that in some cases lists are fine. I think a prerequisite for a list, however, is having (a) enough items for the list to be meaningful, and (b) enough items notable enough to be included in the list, but not notable enough to have their own article (i.e. if all items in the list have their own article, a category is more appropriate). This article I think fails (a). Cazort (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a list of notable services. I just removed the two spammy external links, leaving a list of one item. Feel free to revert me and comment on the reason. Them From Space 23:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger to URL redirection per Cazort. Any notable ones should be there in possible history sections (which are non-existent). Current ones may not even be particularly relevant compared to historical attempts like VeriSign's SiteFinder. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found it necessary to semi-protect the article for the duration of this discussion because of excess ip vandalism. DGG (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We need this page as URL redirectors are not well documented on Wikipedia. Will most likely become a spam magnet though, but not more than other software lists. Laurent (talk) 22:54, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhisiart Tal-e-bot[edit]

Extensive article, but no notability asserted. Oscarthecat (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding few academic sources, two acknowledgments but no content: [66], [67]. However, I am finding a moderate amount of coverage in news sources. It appears he is not notable so much as a teacher but is notable as an activist: [68], all google news archive articles: [69]. This is enough to adequately source the article, I think. We might have to remove a few parts. I think this needs cleanup, not deletion. Cazort (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable as an activist, similar level of notability as other native culture activists see for example Native American activists. This entry serves to help round out the category Welsh Activists. Definitely clean up and sourcing is needed and more participation by other editors. ejly (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability asserted by leadership of several organizations. Activism is the subjects and the articles focus. I have done a minor cleanup mostly on wikilinks. Dimitrii (talk) 18:56, 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.

The result was Delete. Looking different than the average serial killer is not unusual or substantial enough to balance out WP:N/CA and WP:BLP. GlassCobra 03:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Russell (criminal)[edit]

WP:BLP1E criminal, otherwise non-notable. MBisanz ^talk 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In most cases, a serial killer is notable for one event - being a serial killer. See Category:American serial killers. George Russell has received sufficient coverage (see Ghits here), coverage in multiple books on serial killers [70] and some scholarly works [71]. In addition, he was cited as the example of how the demographic profile of serial killers changed in the 1990s, which is beyond the crime itself and does therefore meet WP:N/CA#Perpetrators. There is no valid reason to delete this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't pass Wikipedia:N/CA#Perpetrators. MBisanz ^talk 05:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I personally think this article is as worthy of inclusion, if not more so, as other such articles as Constance Fisher and Caroline Grills, which are little more than stubs. And yet, these articles have not been nominated for deletion (nor should they be); if you delete this article because you think it does not fit inclusion categories, it logically follows that you should delete these as well. Treybien 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Keep in mind that, while we do strive for consistency, the existence of other articles is not very relevant to this discussion. The notability of the subject is what is being questioned. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable for both coverage and as an example of the changing demographics of serial killers(and explicitly cited as a notable example of that in the article). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ: We don't keep things because they are examples of how to write things. Delete per WP:BLP1E ++Lar: t/c 04:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? Where did I say we did? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. لenna vecia 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Lara and Lar. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 29 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) 07:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Murnane III[edit]

Non-notable executive, never CEO or otherwise terminal leader. MBisanz ^talk 05:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't have enough of an opinion one way or another, but did have a couple of things to note. The article was created by Gmurnane (talk · contribs). Also, Murnane became a figure in Hawaiian Airlines' lawsuit against Mesa Air Lines when he was accused of destroying evidence and claiming that he was doing so to to remove pornographic material from his work computer, as noted in this previous version of the article and in [72]. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not show any notability just looks like a CV. Originator also created Jonathan G. Ornstein and Michael J. Lotz both of which are not really notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is basically just a recitation of positions he's held. While it paints a certain career picture, the list is not sufficient by itself to vouch for notability. In other words, there are lots of corporate vice presidents and investment bankers who are not notable for the mere fact of holding such positions. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Resume in a paragraph. لenna vecia 15:52, 29 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 list is well-sourced and notable. The subject is not inherently POV; perhaps the page could be modified to make it NPOV, but that is an editing issue and is outside the scope of AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place names considered unusual[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 17.</admin><editor> I personally feel that this list violates WP:NPOV and introduces systemic bias. What constitutes "unusual" is inherently not neutral. Aervanath (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator, plain and simple. Drmies (talk) 04:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV as what is "unusual" in one country or even region is usual or the norm in another. The "centralized discussion" is unpersuasive that consensus has supposedly changed for these subjective "unusual" lists, as many of the comments there boil down to "generally I think these are not a great idea but there's one I do like." Otto4711 (talk) 05:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is thoroughly backed by reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. This is the English Wikipedia, and the definition of unusual is based on the speakers of this language as documented by reliable and verifiable sources, all of which conclusively rebuts claims of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Alansohn (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons stated by Alansohn. Krakatoa (talk) 06:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is an "unusual" name? Deciding what to include will be inherently subjective and therefore POV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Nope. It's verifiable, and not editor POV in this case. The references make that rather clear. - jc37 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So who decides what's unusual? If someone decides that "New York" is a strange name for a place, and publishes that on their personal website, does that mean we should include it? Note that many of the sources presented here appear to be little more than personal homepages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
You mean like this one which list another book as reference here? Looks to me more like a situation where perhaps some cleanup might be needed.

Are you suggesting that there are no sources anywhere for this topic, and thus the topic is unverifiable?

Anyway, to answer your question, if a reliable source does. - jc37 08:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm talking more like this one. And you've sort of dodged my question - what standard of inclusion do we have? Are "Medicine Hat" or "Wooloomooloo" unusual names, for example? And does the place name have to be listed as unusual? Would an article entitled "Slightly odd place names in Mongolia" qualify an article? What about a place name in English that sounds plain to a native speaker, but sounds like profanity in a foreign language? There are plenty of places were inclusion could get contentious, and I'm not really convinced that enough serious study has been done on this topic for "reliable sources" to actually exist. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I wasn't dodging your question. It's what I said: reliable sources. Neither you or I get to decide what's "unusual".

The closest we might get is we could make a determination like: Since this is the English language Wikipedia, we perhaps should restrict this list to such places in which the places generally have English language place names.

But honestly, I'm wary and hesitant of even that. - jc37 08:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - referenced, and therefore, in this case, verifiable. It's not OR, and NPOV is followed, since "unusual" in this case is according to the sources. - jc37 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether something is unusual is determined by the sources (not individual editors) and they need to be reliable as always. (So personal websites don't count). It's easy enough to restrict it to the English language since we're an English-language publication. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is nothing OR about such a list when the criterium is that such places are covered by sources because their name supposedly is unusual. We just combine information from multiple sources, which is what we do all over wikipedia. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and Reinoutr. Owen× ☎ 11:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and overhaul. As we've seen with list of unusual personal names this information can be presented encyclopedicly and can be an interesting, if somewhat frivolous, read. Explaining some of the reasons why different groups see the place names as unusual and perhaps turning this into the lede for a list of notable places with names considered unusual may be a way to go. These are fixable problems. -- Banjeboi 13:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV and a magnet for nonsense. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general principle behind this article and similar ones was discussed recently(ish) at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things and the consensus of that discussion was that there is nothing in the policies cited above by those supporting deletion that states that "lists of unusual things" in themselves are deletion-worthy. To summarise the argument, it is that "unusual" is simply shorthand for "has been regarded by at least one reliable source as being unusual" and is a necessary shorthand for an article title - this was supported by a good majority of the contributors to the discussion. If there are other reasons why this particular article is deletion-worthy, let's discuss them. A discussion on issue which have already been resolved in the centralised discussion is not going to move us forward. SP-KP (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are multiple sources explaining why certain names are considered unusual from various perspectives. DGG (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unusual to whom, in what time period and at what location? What happens when things once considered "unusual" become usual? The attempt to define "unusualness" in this article is particularly lame. Let's break it down 1. "Names with unorthodox spelling or sound." Well, that's oddly discursive because, of course, "unorthodox" spelling and sound is in the eye of the beholder -- is in fact, a stand-in for "unusual" in this case. 2." Names which are extremely short (e.g., one-letter names) or extremely long." Extremely long, eh? Extremely short, eh? Well, where? Lots of shortish names in lots of countries that are bog-standard in those places. 3. "Names that describe something that is commonly not a geographical location." Let me translate that sentence -- "names that are not usually used to describe a geographical location are in fact considered unusual." Discursive again, with the added problem of defining what "things" are not "commonly geographical locations." 4. "Calendar related names." This one is just odd -- if there is a January, Texas, why is that any more usual or unusual than Paris, Texas or anything else? That's just an assertion. Finally, there are no examples of any of these supposedly unusual place names here (though i'm personally delighted there aren't). So what is the point of this article again? All it seems to say (in a fashion all dressed up to go to the prom) is the following: "By some standards used by some people in some places names, some place names are considered to be unusual. Which names are considered unusual vary by location and point in history." How is that an encyclopedic topic? By all mean redirect to Toponymy after deletion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see much in the way of information here, nor much potential for improvement. Anything useful can be merged into Toponymy. Dlabtot (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" doesn't actually hold much water here: I can find an infinite number of reliable sources naming people as terrorists, but yet no one would ever countenance a List of terrorists, because it's inherently NPOV. Just because something has been labeled by an outside source doesn't mean the label is NPOV, it just means we're reflecting the POV of the outside sources, which is not what we should be doing.--Aervanath (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you equating the word unusual with the loaded worded terrorist? I see your point to some extent, but we have lists of political prisoners. We use sources (presumably) to determine which ones are political prisoners. In the country of imprisonment most are probably charged with crimes. Are we being POV? But this isn't really a political issue so much as an issue of "I don't like it" for many Wikipedians and some legitimate concerns about synthesis. My conclusion is that as long as we stick to reliable sources, there's not a big problem with synthesis. Sadly, as a side note, a helpful list of subjects related to Obama was just deleted. So in that case Wikipedia and POV politics clearly played a large role. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I'm not equating "unusual" with "terrorism". What I'm saying is: just because one outside source has a POV that something is unusual, that doesn't mean that we need to list it. For a less emotionally-charged label, lets take Comic strips considered stupid. I could probably find a whole rash of outside, reliable sources that were of the opinion that various comic strips were dumb, but that doesn't mean we need to reflect that POV.--Aervanath (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk is cheap. Here's a stack of books about unusual place names that I found in a minute of searching. You won't find your comic strip idea so easy to source.

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the examples now added it's clearly not such a bad article that it should be deleted. I agree that it's notable. Besides, there are 12 keeps and only six deletes and one comment leaning towards delete. --Skyler (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand Referenced and seems like a good addition to Wikipedia. Quistisffviii (talk) 04:16, 29 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 list is well-sourced and notable. The subject is not inherently POV; as LinguistAtLarge suggests, perhaps the page could be renamed, or otherwise modified to make it NPOV, but that is an editing issue and is outside the scope of AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual personal names[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 17.</admin><editor> I personally feel that this list violates WP:NPOV and introduces systemic bias. What constitutes "unusual" is inherently not neutral. Aervanath (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In addition to the above listed Afds, there was also Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of unusual personal names.--Aervanath (talk) 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. BTW, the above referenced AfD is quite insightful. If I cite policy here no more than the folks did back in 05, it's cause I agree completely with nominator. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV as what is "unusual" in one country or even region is usual or the norm in another. The "centralized discussion" is unpersuasive that consensus has supposedly changed for these subjective "unusual" lists, as many of the comments there boil down to "generally I think these are not a great idea but there's one I do like." Otto4711 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is thoroughly backed by several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. This is the English Wikipedia, and the definition of unusual is based on the speakers of this language as documented by reliable and verifiable sources, all of which conclusively rebuts claims of WP:NPOV or WP:OR. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons stated by Alansohn. This article is considerably better sourced than the average article on Wikipedia. Krakatoa (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, what is an "unusual" name? Deciding what to include will be inherently subjective and therefore POV. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - referenced, and therefore, in this case, verifiable. It's not OR, and NPOV is followed, since "unusual" in this case is according to the sources. - jc37 07:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn. Whether something is unusual is determined by the sources and language is a non-issue since we're talking in the English language Wikipedia. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is nothing OR about such a list when the criterium is that these people are covered by sources because their name supposedly is unusual. We just combine information from multiple sources, which is what we do all over wikipedia. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with most strict assessment of notability of persons with unusual personal names in article. A person with an unusual personal name is not notable per GNG. A person who has received however much media attention solely for having an unusual personal name is "ONEEVENT" still not notable. See: that wee lass in New Zealand; Napoleon Einstein--Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Alansohn and Reinoutr. Owen× ☎ 11:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per abundant sourcing and generally acceptable presentation. I trust the OR tag is being addressed in some meaningful way? -- Banjeboi 13:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Delete, this article will never meet WP:NPOV and be properly sourced, the sources themseleves are whom the news reporters think that it's an unusual and interesting name. Opinionated articles and news sources aren't really reliable. Secret ^account 13:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV and a magnet for nonsense. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The general principle behind this article and similar ones was discussed recently(ish) at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things and the consensus of that discussion was that there is nothing in the policies cited above by those supporting deletion that states that "lists of unusual things" in themselves are deletion-worthy. To summarise the argument, it is that "unusual" is simply shorthand for "has been regarded by at least one reliable source as being unusual" and is a necessary shorthand for an article title - this was supported by a good majority of the contributors to the discussion. If there are other reasons why this particular article is deletion-worthy, let's discuss them. A discussion on issue which have already been resolved in the centralised discussion is not going to move us forward. SP-KP (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous books and encyclopedias which list unusual names of this sort and so the notability of the topic is evident. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has an inherent NPOV problem since there is no objective criterion for "unusuallness". The references do not actually demonstrate that a name is unusual, but rather that some particular group or person thinks they are unusual. If kept, it would have to be renamed as "List of personal names various individuals believe are unusual", in which case it would clearly be an indiscriminate collection of information. Locke9k (talk) 18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inherently unverifiable and unsourceable since there is no global standard for "unusuallness" (in fact many things that are unusual in one place are common in others) and we're supposed to be writing a globally focused encyclopedia. The article as it stands is sort of incoherent -- Armand Hammer's name is included because it was made up by his parents; "Christine Daaé" is included because she chose to name herself after a phantom of the opera character (name itself doesnt' seem weird to me); "Joker Arroyo" is particularly misplaced -- it's his nickname, and pinoys love silly nicknames. I used to know a brother and sister named Pepper and Ginger Tahanke, whose grandfather was an ex-supreme court justice named Ding Dong Tahanke -- and no one in the philippines thinks any of this is unusual at all; Lindsay Ann Crouse, which is about as plain vanilla a name as one can find, is included because her parents allegedly had an unusual reason for giving her this name; and on it goes.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It meets the notability standards. The article isn't defining what's unusual - it's merely commenting on places considered unusual. This is objective enough for me. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple available sources. Mencken has an entire chapter on it, and there are many later works. Individual dispubted entries can be discussed on the talk p. as usual. if we deleted all pages about which something was in dispute, there would be nothing of much importance left. I note the previous nomination was only 3 months ago. DGG (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is obviously no clear definition of what is 'usual' or 'normal', but there is a common knowledge of what definitely is or isnt. Few things on that list would be in the grey area - the name with 1000 letters, Dick Assman and Jesus Christ would all be considered 'unusual' by the majority of the population. At the very least, -- NPOV rules should help create a good article, not prevent a good one from being written. --Carbon Rodney 00:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not neutral as there is no standard for 'Unusual' It is simply a list of names that some people think funny. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources" doesn't actually hold much water here: I can find an infinite number of reliable sources naming people as terrorists, but yet no one would ever countenance a List of terrorists, because it's inherently NPOV. Just because something has been labeled by an outside source doesn't mean the label is NPOV, it just means we're reflecting the POV of the outside sources, which is not what we should be doing.--Aervanath (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see List of designated terrorist organizations. Also please see List of rivers by length. The latter has numerous difficulties of definition and measurement, as it explains, but it prospers nonetheless. Our articles are not required to be perfect and this article on names seems better than most. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also see WP:NPOV - that policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each should be presented fairly without giving undue weight to a certain viewpoint. If you find reliable sources stating that some of these place names are not unusual, we'd gladly give weight to those sources' viepoints. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Comment I would argue that the discussion has concatenated two discrete questions, the first question being "Should this article itself be in Wikipedia?" (the point of contention in this AfD), and a second question, "Will the article's content be completely unmanageable?".
I wholeheartedly agree that the content of the article will always have ongoing WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTE and more problems. As Stifle so concisely said: it will be "a magnet for nonsense." Howsoever valid in and of themselves these discussion points are, they address that second question, which is not the point of contention in this AfD.
So, back to first question: "Should this article itself be in Wikipedia?". With greatest respect to the (delete) participants, yes, there is no global or objective or [[WP:Unusual]] policy on what is "unusual". I would strongly suggest that what is "unusual" is independent of WP:POV. As Alansohn, Reinoutr, and other (keep) participants wrote, criteria for unusualness is extrinsic, and is to be founded on the reliable references for that something unusual.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as inherantly POV. What one source says is "unusual" another might say is perfectly normal. At best we can say "these names may or may not be unusual", and Wikipedia isn't a place for speculation. These names would need to be universally cited as unusual. Where I come from the name Mohammad is unusual, but its one of the most common names in the world. We can't be making judgement calls in our articles. A meta-topic such as "the compilation of lists of unusual personal names", while nonnotable, at least has a degree of objectivity to it as the topic would objectively look at both sides of the issue. Diving straight in to this topic is akin to having an article named "list of funny-looking people" and include everybody who was called funny-looking in the news. Can this work the other way? Can we have the article List of normal personal names and cite every name which has been called normal in reliable sources? That would be the case through the same line of reasoning by those arguing to keep this list, yet this example highlights the problems of POV articles. We can have one for each opinion on every topic, and none of them would amount to anything more than hearsay. Them From Space 06:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Up to this point, the main arguments for deletion are that this is original research and that it violates a neutral point of view. For the OR claim, I would kindly ask someone to explain how this is original research. I do not see any "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" in this list of names. If any of the names can't be sourced, they should be removed. The topic of "unusual names" is by no means original research, as a quick Gbooks, Gscholar, Gnews search for "unusual name" would seem to indicate. For the NPOV claim, I agree that adjectives like "unusual" can be inherently subjective, thus lending themselves to a non-neutral point of view. This is easily fixed by either renaming the article to something more specific, or simply defining what "unusual" means for the purposes of the list. Since other cultures and languages have very different criteria for "unusual" names, we also need to limit this to English-speaking cultures. (For example "Jesus" (Jesús) is actually a very common name in Spanish-speaking cultures.) So, first I would move the article to List of personal names considered unusual in English-speaking cultures (hopefully someone can think up a more concise title), and then in the lead sentence define the constraints of the list. Something like: "This is a list of personal names normally considered unusual in English speaking cultures. For the purposes of this list, an unusual name is defined as a name based on or the same as an organization, company, website, fictional character, product, place, or country, or names which are common words not normally used as first names in English, names that intentionally contain a meaningful phrase, names adopted or given as a form of political protest or for publicity reasons, names which read as a double entendre, names which have received media attention for their length (long or short), names based on numbers or symbols, and palindromic names". Giving the article clear constraints like that and requiring all entries to be sourced should take care of all the problems as I see it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:57, 29 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. Cirt (talk) 07:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China (song)[edit]

No attempt has been made in the article to establish the notability of its subject. --Pisceandreams (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is more than just a track listing. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 07:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did the Nom actually go look for sources themselves before it was AfD'd????? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - The article has been tagged for sources for over 2 years and none have been added. Also, my reason for deletion is the song's notability. Is a song that charted for 2 weeks and peaked at #51 really all that notable? --Pisceandreams (talk) 13:29, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacquelyn Sylvan[edit]

Declining db-bio deletion. I don't think this one is going to make it, but the article creator is making a solid attempt and deserves a fair shot. The single hit for the subject at Google news[73] is not reliable, and there's no suggestion at Amazon or anywhere else I saw that any of her books meet our notability guidelines for books. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not established through secondary sources. 98.212.129.124 (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy if author would like to work on it and try to find sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not appear to be notable, and I find the tone overly promotional. I failed to find any independent reviews of her books, and so must for the moment recommend deletion (or userfication pending improvements) Ohconfucius (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. An editor has requested here that this article be deleted. To quote: "Hi. I would like to request the page for Prince Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah is removed. There has been no Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s, the country is in a serious civil war, and that someone has put a page up claiming there is a prince, when the only sources are dodgy websites, and a cheesy low budget BBC tv show, its in very poor taste and is quite offensive. The article does not further wikipedia as the person seems to have achieved no serious accomplishments, and his importance is not obvious as he has no political power, and no recognition in the sri lankan community, or the rest of the world for that matter. Frankly I think its disguisting self promotion - more of a personal page than an encyclopaedic entry." Skomorokh 02:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skomorokh I'm completely with you on this, but for your interest, the kings of Kandy (Kingdom of Kandy) ruled until 1815, so there has been a Sri Lankan royal family since the 1600s. But yes, there haven't been any kings or princes of Jaffna since 1619 CE yet Mr Kanagarajah still claims to be one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.141.100 (talk) 10:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just to clarify, I made this nomination on behalf of another editor, User:Shuggyg, who posted the above-quoted request for deletion here. Regards, Skomorokh 10:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can only find one "legitimate" reference to this name, and that's in the Sunday Mirror [74], hardly the pinnacle of WP:RS. This article demonstrates that not even royalty are inherently notable. Pburka (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There have been no kings of Jaffna since 1619 CE. It is absurd for someone to lay claim to a title that became extinct nearly 400 years ago. Furthermore, Sri Lanka is a Democratic Socialist Republic - and therefore does not recognise titles of nobility, let alone extinct ones from several centuries ago. In addition, Mr Kanagarajah has not been able to produce a complete family tree tracing father-son descent from any of the Arya Chakravarti kings, rendering his claim even more tenuous. An individual's decision to lay claim to a title that has ceased to exist for several centuries by constructing a website does not warrant a wikipedia article let alone an article that by its title appears to recognise his claim to the dubious title "Prince". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 04:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page is simple vanity. I would suggest the page should be renamed to Remigius Jerry Kanagarajah and should remain as a record of the vanity and embarrasing ego of one man, however I believe the issue is very sensitive due to the upheaval in Sri Lanka. This page has no robust evidentiary support, and appearing on a low budget BBC entertainment TV show alone is not noteworthy enough to warrant an encylopeadic entry.Shuggyg (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as risable and unintentionally amusing as the program was, it was a low-budget reality TV show originally broadcast on BBC3.
Furthermore, irrespective of whether or not Mr Kanagarajah warrants his own wikipedia page, I strongly suggest removing "Prince" from the page's title. As his claim to the title is highly controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.165.55 (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be nothing about him in the news- even specifically searching English-language sources from Sri Lanka. Nothing about him on Google book search either, despite the fact that there has been a lot written by academics about the civil war and upheaval in Sri Lanka. Non-notable pretender. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this article is a constant target of self-promoting vandalism, look at the current version of the page. No matter how many times admins revert changes, individuals with an agenda vandalise the page: styling Mr Kanagarajah as "H.R.H." and replacing neutral phrases like "claims to be" to "is" and other such nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.138.253 (talk) 11:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is largely the same reason I gave at the last AFD, which concluded without consensus. There are only ~50 unique google hits for this guy, and the only remotely good sources are a biogrphy from from The Nation, an advertisement from The Independent, and the reality show mentioned here many times. I don't believe being on a reality show alone makes him notable, so the only source that might demonstrate his notability is The Nation. But given that newspaper's greater than normal biases, the complete lack of transparency on its editorial process, and some very questionable publications it has produced, I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. So there has been no substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. There has been substantial coverage in one dubious source, a low budget entertainment piece from another source, and an advertisement from a third source. These are apparently the only times this man has ever been mentioned outside of blogs and his own writings, or trivial lists of "exiled royalty" on unreliable websites. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:00, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 02:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Like That (song)[edit]

fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Unreleased demo song. Paul75 (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - The article asserts individual notability for this song (It is considered by many to be the 'Holy Grail' of unreleased ABBA recordings), which is a valid reason for keeping it per WP:NSONGS if that can be verified with reliable sources. Additionally, the article already contains enough material for a full article-- it shouldn't be merged just for being a stub. So, in conclusion, I think the problem is finding references to verify the material and notability of the song. Remember there's no WP:DEADLINE. Where can we list this article so that interested parties can look for sources? LinguistAtLarge • Msg 04:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unreleased demo song - not notable WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – The above user has been blocked for using sock puppets to vote-stack at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable demo, did not chart. A-Kartoffel (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC) Struck !vote of sock puppet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the unique nature of this song makes it notable in my opinion, even if it did not chart. -Drdisque (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is an interesting case, although I am inclined to agree with LinguistAtLarge, regarding keep for now. There is clearly a lot of information about this song, and if it can be sourced to multiple reliable sources, then the topic meets WP:NOTE. Given the amount of information in the article, I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and presume that at least a portion of it can be reliably sourced to independent sources. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is incredibly poorly sourced, with two references for the entire article. It fails dismally on all other WP:SONG requirements, and the song is already covered in some detail on ABBA unreleased songs. I don't think there is any real justification for a seperate article for an unreleased, demo track. Paul75 (talk) 08:34, 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. CSD G11 by User:LadyofShalott. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razorfunfish[edit]

Non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Prod tag removed/challenged. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete as self-admitted protologism. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:MADEUP. Cnilep (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - not even a protologism, just something madeup yesterday. Wikipedia does not exist to give some made-up garbage google hits. Ladyof Shalott 02:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wonder if this can be G11 deleted as blatant promotion? Ladyof Shalott 03:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I tagged the article for G11 deletion rather than deleting myself so that at least one other admin would look at it. Foxy Loxy deleted it per the G11 rationale. The article was recreated, and speedily deleted again by Mentifisto. I won't SALT yet, but recommend it if the article is created a third time. Ladyof Shalott 04:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear: delete and salt per Lady's cogent argument. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Created a third time. Deleted a third time. Sprinkled liberally with SALT. Ladyof Shalott 04:53, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulse Nation[edit]

Declined CSD-spam, still doesn't look notable to me. MBisanz ^talk 07:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has been blocked, for using sock puppets to vote-stack at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I ran a search on Google News that didn't pick up anything, although I'm not sure as to what I should look for as the article doesn't even state what Pulse Nation actually is (a student organization?) Them From Space 18:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Lots more information added now and lots more 3rd party references added too! Blob123456 18:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Ged UK 10:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down to the Cherwell sources. The others are not reliable sources. Cut or source the "Famous faces" section. Cut the "current activity" schedule per failure of sources and WP:NOTDIR which says it should not be listed even if sourced.—After cutting, consider whether there's sufficient material for a separate article. I'd say not, in which case merge to University of Oxford.
On no account delete outright without a merge. Well-sourced material should not be removed from Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm sure there is an appropriate article to merge to, though it certainly doesn't warrant a page of its own. Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable, no widespread coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Struck !vote of sock puppet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable due to lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. (Even their URL redirects to Facebook). At best they're a non notable entertainments company, at worst its a puff piece for the Union ents reps. Nuttah (talk) 10:44, 28 March 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 02:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable tiny company. -Drdisque (talk) 03:44, 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 keep. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punkradiocast.com (now Punk Radio Cast)[edit]

Claims of listenership are unreferenced. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. There are some google hits for this website but most news stories are about bands who have appeared here, not about the station itself. Is this streaming radio station notable? Rtphokie (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: possible self-promotion [75] insufficient 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 02:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above user has been blocked for using sock puppets to vote-stack at AfDs. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following comments by Minklinkdink were on the article talk page. I'm offering no opinion of my own at the moment about deletion.Phil Bridger (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why the LARGEST Streaming PUNK ROCK Website would be Questioned for Notability. The One who has questioned that also stats that they have found several third party links from Bands that have been played on the site. Also as for 3rd party coverage Check the section entitled PRC in MEDIA there you will find Stories in AP which is a Notable music industry Publication. Minklinkdink (talk) 02:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of third party references for the Notability of Punk Radio Cast. Minklinkdink (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No one is questioning how great the station is, it's just that it's really written as a promotional thing. The article of recent news is kinda useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabochon (talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:PROMOTION. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Struck !vote of sock puppet. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Drdisque (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've cleaned up the article, moved it to a new title, and trimmed out nearly all of the spam and junk. The sources are somewhat iffy, but they do hold water. GlassCobra 12:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GlassCobra's improvements and clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Believe (2006)[edit]

Lacks notability, lacks references. Not finding any reviews or indication that this album has charted. RadioFan (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ - The article has a couple third-party sources, and they appear reliable. This is not including lyrics websites, tabulature websites, and product websites. This combines make 2,280 GHITS for "I Believe" "Rapture Ruckus". ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an album doesn't need to chart to be notable. It just needs Independent, reliable sources, same as any other article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe some of those sources are independent. One is a myspace page, another is their website, and the last is a christian rock blog. The other source is one profiling up and coming bands, which proves a lack of notability. Tej68 (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing !vote to Keep on the basis that I found two independent, reliable sources[76][77] stating that the album won an award. I also have a source that the song, I Believe, made it to #7 on a NZ chart. It's unfortunately pay-per-view. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)*Keep The Album won a New Zealand Music Award for "Best Gospel / Christian Album" [78] so that is probably enough in of itself. I do, however, believe the article is exaggerating - still looking on the "spanned hits" comments. Also per WP:NALBUMS the bar for albums by notable groups (as is the case here) is pretty low. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Album debuted at #7 in NZ [79].~~ err, I can't read - wrong album :) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be their next album, Live At World's End, friend. It does help prove that this band is notable, even if only in New Zealand, though. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither the album, nor any single charted. Although the album apparently came close (was listed as a "heat seeker", meaning it was a hot new release, but not with enough sales to actually make the top 40.) I have updated the article to accurately reflect the available info (i.e. removed "hits" and other fluff) but left the "best selling Christian album" bit b/c I can neither confirm nor deny that part at this time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple RS say this album won a national yearly award. The fact that it was NZ-specific doesn't matter; it still passes WP:NALBUMS. Jclemens (talk)
Keep for winning the award and the ref's to support it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 22:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per multiple RSs. John Carter (talk) 15:48, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy River Nightmare Band[edit]

Article that asserts significance for a band, claiming tours of US and Japan. I am unable to locate reliable sources that verify this. Google news shows they had gigs in Seattle and Portland, and even Vegas,but not US tours. The paucity of news hits does not even show local notability. The article creator has an outside connection with the band which complicates the thing, viz http://www.sorenwinslow.com/MRNB/Bio.asp and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muddy_River_Nightmare_Band&action=history Furthermore, [MUDDY|RIVER|NIGHTMARE|BAND[&sql=11:jcfixqedld0e~T2 Allmusic does not give any info that shows notability. Nor does Billboard. No evidence of two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels. The thing has been speedied twice and then I prodded. I am not satisfied with the PROD, and am sending to AFD. Dlohcierekim 02:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I know it's redundant, but seriously, there isn't a single substantiated claim to WP:MUSIC inclusion criteria here. - Vianello (Talk) 03:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and I cannot find any sources independent of the subject either. Fails WP:BAND. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I'm not finding any evidence of these "tours" either. makes me wonder if this unsubstantiated claim was added simply to avoid CSD. This article has been deleted previously.--RadioFan (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete ~~Hasn't this already been speedy deleted several times? If so, why go through the AFD process, when~~ The article's author ought to be receiving article creation warnings. I nominated it initially, seeing no third party reliable sources, and much of the text was nonsense. ~~Why is this up for discussion? (Consider the questions rhetorical)~~. JNW (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I just don't see any coverage in reliable sources. While Google hits are not the beall-endall of sourcing, I can't find a single mention of them that isn't promotional. TN X Man 03:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to mention nothing in books or scholar, either. Dlohcierekim 03: 57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete- Nothing to support Notability. ttonyb1 (talk) 10:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note also that two incorrectly named and likely unnecessary Oregon-related categories were created for this band. If someone has time to do the honors at Cfd, that would be great. Katr67 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dlohcierekim 23:16, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women Inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame[edit]

This is a content fork and no references or indication of the notability of this topic is given. I'm not really a fan of these gender/race/nationality split lists, especially in cases like this. Why not Canadians or Germans or posthumous inductees. Hell, why not "Metal acts inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame", since it has received far more coverage. We have a List of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees (and it's a pretty good list, if I do say so myself), so why are splits needed?

I'm not sure why the fact that a certain editor is "not a fan" of specific pages is a sturdy argument for deletion. --Rytch303 (talk) 23:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the lead misrepresents the article. It declares that it is notable because "only a relative handful of women have been inducted", thus insinuating that women have been snubbed. This is untrue since almost every year has seen at least one inductee and is 50 really a handful? In fact, I've read articles that say that too many undeserving women acts are inducted. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 01:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 24 Induction Ceremonies, but only 18 of them have included female artists. Every ceremony has included male artists. --Rytch303 (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 02:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate list article, and more complete than the main article. Cf. 1990, the Platters. Good evidence why we need it. DGG (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Taylor isn't listed in the RRHOF profile as being inducted (you know, following what's verifiable), which is why she wasn't previously included. I think lists like these set terrible precedents, especially since absoloutely no proof of notability is given. Why not create articles for every gender/nationality/ethnicity/religion/etc. for every Hall of Fame or award? Let's leave lists like that to fansites and official websites and keep wikipedia to articles about notable topics rather than a list of what is basically trivia.
- At the very least, it should be merged into the main article (I could set up a system which identifies the female inductees, but I really think it's pointless). -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't tell whether Zola Taylor was or wasn't inducted as a member of the Platters. For some groups, the Hall of Fame web site specifically identifies who the inductees were, but apparently not for the Platters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the citation on the site includes her. [80]DGG (talk) 18:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't have list for every single different type of band inducted into the hall of fame. This would set a precedent for a variety of ridiculous lists being compiled. Tej68 (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list does not argue for "ridiculous' lists; it represents only itself. --Rytch303 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly do we need this article when you could just indicate on the List of inductees which ones are women, so much easier. It also makes more sense.Tej68 (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Or if we keep it, I think the next step is List of Caucasian-American men that have or once had a goatee and long hair inducted after the year 1997. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 07:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category which is not recognized by the recording industry as a requisite for awards. --Rytch303 (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strawman. A split for gender is nothing near as ridiculous as the list you're suggesting here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork. The HOF inductees list is more than sufficient. There is no compelling reason for this level of atomization. We could, after all, have "list of jews" "list of christians" "list of lesbians" "list of rockers under 5'10" " in the HOF, and they would be equally ridiculous and damaging. This is trivia.

These are categories which are not recognized by the recording industry in terms of awards. --Rytch303 (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? How does the Grammys splitting their categories by gender relate to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame? Why not start a "women in Rock and Roll" page instead? The Grammies also split their awards by genre, so should there by "Reggae artists inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" or "Hip hop artists inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame" (in fact, the latter has generated a lot more controversy and discussion, but it still is rather unnecessary. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to debate the inclusion of these pages should another editor choose to create them. )Genre and gender both provide distinction within award-giving in the recording industry.) However, I would prefer to debate the viability of this specific page. The assertion that the inclusion of hip-hop artists has created more controversy than the inclusion of female artists is unfounded and undocumented. the exclusion of both categories of artists has been fodder for the press. I doubt one could assert the disinclusion of one group as greater than the other. --Rytch303 (talk) 23:21, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though the raw data for this list is (mostly) available in the original Rock Hall article, grouping inductees by gender brings a lens that illuminates the subject differently. Its usefulness is distinct from the original article because this grouping promotes analysis of a trend, highlighting the rate at which female artists were inducted. It served me as a useful roster that I didn’t have to recreate on my own.

Specifically, I’m a grad student currently working on a paper about the historiography of Rock and related genres. I referred to this list several times for the section about the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s role in canonizing who rates as a “Rock Legend”. Gender absolutely matters in Rock and Roll, so much so that the comparison to other subcategories is insulting. Gender is a primary lens through which artists in the Rock genre are regarded, given the nature of rock culture and history. When and how the Rock Hall chooses to (or chooses not to) induct female artists has crucial influence on the perception that women are significant in shaping the music. That influence makes this list noteable.

Several other “Women in…” articles have been created as companions to the list of all honorees (List of Olympic medalists in athletics (women), List of female state governors in the United States, List of U.S. military vessels named after women...). Actually, what I would like to see in the article is a broader discussion of controversies surrounding the in/exclusion of women from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The list implies that there is a significant discrepancy, but it could flesh that idea out more frankly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wndergirl (talk • contribs) 02:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User blocked as a sock puppet of Rytch303 (talk · contribs).

In the case of List of Olympic medalists in athletics (women), it's a length issue. There are so many medalists, that the page had to be split and gender was the most logical choice. There is also a List of Olympic medalists in athletics (men). In List of female state governors in the United States is a list where that data is not available on any other single page. In this case, it pretty much recreates the content already on a single page (AKA content forking). -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 02:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, if another editor were to create a page which named every US governor, would this list be useless? --Rytch303 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? You also have to remember that being Governor of a state is considerably more notable than being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Like I said above, in the case of the female governors, there is no other single list, so it's not a fork and does have uses. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 22:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are you defining notability? That sounds like a specious argument. --Rytch303 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Per the notability guideline. At the same time, this page is content forking (read the last paragraph of "What forking is") and it does not meet the requirements of the stand-alone list guideline because it pretty much just recreates the content of another page adds very little in the way of original content. Would you be willing to accept the page being redirected to the list of inductees if I put together a system to highlight female inductees? Although I really dislike that idea because even if awards are split by gender (for obvious reasons), the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is not. And this article suggests that female inductees in the Hall of Fame than any other division and giving it undue weight. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would the page look like if notations were made for gender? --Rytch303 (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't comprehend what you posit as "obvious reasons". -Rytch303 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The idea that allowing this list means we would allow all such split lists is a fallacy. Consensus determines what we allow, and I'm more than happy to allow this as its existence improves the encyclopedia by offering focussed and significant information to our readers. It's sourced, it's neutral, it's therefore fine. Hiding T 12:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article are you looking at? I don't see a single source anywhere on the page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake. It's sourcable. Hiding T 19:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gender is a significant category in the recording industry, particularly in the arena of award-giving. Other major industry awards such as the Grammys and the American Music Awards are doled out according to gender (not race, national origin, sexual orientation, or other qualities based on the artists themselves that have been suggested by others on this page). As there are separate categories for male artists and female artists in many genres, the recording industry itself must then see gender as a defining category for contemporary music. Similarly, major music magazines and television networks (Rolling Stone, MTV, and VH1) have created notable content around this theme as well. Therefore, the significance of gender (already made notable by the recording industry itself) is reinforced in cultural discourse through articles and programming which further define the unique relationship of gender to contemporary music-making and the recording industry.

While the Rock Hall itself does not make use of gender categorization in its own awards, the fact that gender has become a defining category within the industry means its awards are not immune from interpretation along gender lines. While the gendered structure of the Grammy Awards can create something of a balance between male and female winners, the Hall of Fame Inductees are overwhelmingly male, thereby creating an interesting series of questions about how the Hall itself interprets (or doesn’t interpret) gender as a salient category within the recording industry. (The grad student writing above speaks to this point quite well.) It should, however, be noted that while the Rock Hall does not separate awards by gender, it does promote various programming at its museum around the theme of Women in/and Rock.

As a few editors have argued that this list paves the way for (indeed) ridiculous lists such as lesbians, or Canadians, or Jews, I think the point to remember is that the recording industry itself does not single out categories such as these in terms of award-giving. Gender, however, is a category that has been ensconced into its award-giving history, and therefore makes a valid point of departure from the main list of Hall of Fame inductees.

I have also contacted the Rock Hall (by email) to clarify the question about Zola Taylor as their website indeed leaves the matter up for interpretation. --Rytch303 (talk) 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to contact them in the past and gotten no response. So, there are the Juno Awards, which are pretty much solely for Canadian artists, so does not indicate a significant division? So, using your logic, we could start a list of Canadians inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. As well, this isn't an article about women in the Hall of Fame, it's just a content fork and could easily be redirected back to the list. If indicating gender is really necessary, I can put together a system that would indicate women. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Junos, like the Grammys, divide awards by gender and also induct artists into its own Canadian Hall of Fame. --Rytch303 (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My argument only concerns the significance of the relationship between gender, the recording industry, and contemporary music-making (as posited by the industry itself). If someone else would like to create another page of Canadians (or Muslims or Asian-Americans), I would be happy to debate its merits. However, for now, it is only this page which is up for debate. The argument that this page opens up the possibility for other (possibly not as appropriate) sub-lists is a tendentious one that assumes the purpose of this page (or other pages like it) have a political motivation instead of one grounded in already extant definitions and strictures made by the recording industry. --Rytch303 (talk) 21:11, 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 Speedy deleted per CSD-G11. لenna vecia 15:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Gimenez Norfleet[edit]

Cross-wiki spam created by CPrat (talk · contribs). Non notable per WP:CREATIVE. No reliable independent secondary source available. Original research. Deleted from French and Spanish Wikipedias. Request for deletion: Portuguese. AntiCross (talk) 01:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. —AntiCross (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Spam. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant vanispam -Drdisque (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:08, 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, Nakon 05:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSEmu[edit]

Non-notable eumulator. No third party sources, no indications that it is notable. TJ Spyke 21:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSEmu Pro was later discontinued, though its plugin system is still used by all major Playstation emulators today — what do you mean no indication of notability? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/ merge Seems worth including somehow as part of history and development of these systems. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Article seems slightly notable per the second lead paragraph and the legacy section, but I'm not sure if we really need it. The Earwig ^{(User | Talk | Contributions)} 20:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can't find any third-party sources on this to support an article on it. It's already listed at List of video game console emulators, otherwise I would have suggested that it be listed there as well. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 19:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city^‽ 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect. No reliable sources means no article. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:48, 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 01:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How LIEAP and WAP Work Together[edit]

Statement about how two organizations work together, which seems more appropriate for listing on the individual organization pages, as this particular part of the article is not more than three sentences. I would have proposed for CSD, but it appears there isn't a category for this. Plastikspork (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:NOT#HOWTO and probably a bunch of other guidelines. A CSD category for essays and guide-type articles is long overdue in my view. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. This could probably have been slapped with a PROD tag instead of being brought here, though. GlassCobra 12:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. While the substance of the article may be valuable, it would belong at LIHEAP or weatherization rather than under this title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia project is a requirement for a course that I am currently enrolled in at Montana Tech of the University of Montana. I understand why your questioning the page, but I have not completed the entry yet. Upon completion, it will meet the guidelines of Wikipedia and offer useful and applicable information. - --Aewillard (talk) 02:31, 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. There is plenty of vote-stacking on both sides, and not much of an attempt to establish a clear consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Grundy (song)[edit]

Non-notable song; fails criteria at WP:NSONGS. fuzzy510 (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, no evidence it charted. JamesBurns (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note – This user has been blocked for using sock puppets to stack votes at AfD. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 01:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (No not delete) Coverage is not trivial. Major bands have covered it from 1969 to 1990's, possibly later too. Just because a song does not have evidence of charting in the Anglo Western world doesn't mean that it is any less notable. I believe that the song was a hit in Hong Kong for Danny Diaz & The Checkmates. Also a European group may have had a hit with it too. I'm currently looking into that. More than 5 groups have covered the song. BTW: Just to let you know also,There are many songs of notability that have been covered by groups that have not charted. (George-Archer (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
keep, I agree with the above. The song has been covered by Euro bands and minor hit in some Euro countries, Czek, Germany etc (Sharkey45 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
KEEP, this song is covered by multiple artist and was hit in South East Asia, Hong Kong hit and popular in Singapore and the Philippine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Real Natural (talk • contribs) 10:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no charts or awards, covers limited to obscure bands, sorry this just isn't notable enough. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC) – Struck sock puppet !vote. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Tell me A-Kartoffel, how do you determine that the bands are obsure ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by George-Archer (talk • contribs) 08:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:34, 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 no consensus; could possibly pass WP:PROF #1, 8. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Kegel[edit]

Interim president of a college, no other citeable facts. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PROF: [81] "Dr. Charles H. Kegel served I.S.U. with honor and distinction for 25 years as professor of English, Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, Dean of Faculties, Acting I.S.U. President, and Academic Vice President." JJL (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is about academic honors; being dean, president, etc. are administrative positions. The footnote in WP:PROF that suggests otherwise is misguided. It may be that there are actually reliable sources about Kegel, but there is no sign that his academic credentials would meet the standards listed at WP:PROF. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per Criterion 6, he seems to qualify. JJL (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that's exactly what I am saying. "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." Dean and president are not academic posts, footnote 13 notwithstanding. It's questionable whether every administrator of every academic instrituion is notable, but certainly they are not all notable for their academic achievements, which is what WP:PROF is supposed to be about. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm with Carl on this, acting president for one year doesn't pass WP:PROF in my eyes, The ISU english dept awards a scholarship to one undergrad a term in his name [82], and the Liberal arts building is named after him [83]. I think these go towards WP:BIO rather than WP:PROF. Here is a Google Scholar search. I don't think it shows he passes WP:PROF (h-index 3), but the publications are late 50s/early 60s and in a discipline I know too little to judge. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The scholarship is named after him because he established it in his will; this is what they mean by "This award derives from the Charles Kegel estate ..." I am very interested by the building, though. There are not that many buildings on a college campus, so having one named after you is some sort of award. Unfortunately this all predates the web. I wonder if I can find the local newspaper in a database. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WeakKeep "Acting president" can mean many things, but in this case the additional offices show notability. Next step is no find his academic work, because even for what at the time was not a first rate university, one does not get to be full professor without a something: WorldCat has what would nowadays be considered a marginal amount [84].DGG (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A Google book search shows that his work on Salinger is impactful, possibly enough for WP:PROF #1. I don't think Google scholar is the right tool for finding citations to humanities studies from the 1950s. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Also possibly meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). He seems to be close to meeting several of the criteria, which one could argue suggests that he meets at least the more general criterion #1.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - from the google scholar [85]]. Are they his? He was professor for over 2 decades, V.P. (Does not matter he was acting or something, he played the position an administrator). I will say "Yes". I'm having fun here.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 12:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, the GS results are his. DGG (talk) 03:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious that this one is notable, really... Just another defamation magnet we don't really need. delete ++Lar: t/c 04:11, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today with Pat Kenny[edit]

Non notable radio shows, I can't find anything on Google to suggest they are particularly notable radio shows. I'm sure I have seen a guideline somewhere regarding shows like this, but I can't find it anywhere. Anyway, I feel they fail WP:N. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Bazj (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both articles are obviously in need of expansion and more diverse sources, but both programmes are in the top 10 listened-to radio programmes in Ireland; a very quick Gsearch found the Irish Times and the admittedly primary-source-ish (although quoting the JNLR survey, which is the audience-counting standard for radio in Ireland) RTÉ verifying figures for the last survey period. Obviously I appreciate that more rounded articles based on more than just crude numbers should appear, but the articles have only been in existence for less than 24 hours, so possibly time should be given for expansion. Notabilty tags aren't expensive. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 16 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 00:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable enough. COuld always be boldly merged to RTÉ Radio 1. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quick note on News at one: really should be moved to title such as "News at One" (RTÉ radio) or something along those lines. Technically it isn't called "RTÉ News at One" and generates a lot more ghits if RTÉ is included outside the title. But regarding merging: both are notable in their own right. Haven't had much of a chance to expand the articles, but one problem I have in the time I have given to looking for online sources regarding the early days of either programme is trying to wade through all the thousands of passing mentions. Another problem, with the News at One especially, is trying to find the online equivalents of the paper sources I know exist (I've read them :)). For example, the programme, when it was launched in the 60s, was the first news programme on Irish radio of its type, rather than a straight news bulletin and has been regarded as the model for later programmes; there is a brief mention of the fact in an obituary of the man credited with the introduction of the programme [86], but there are much more detailed paper sources out there. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Addendum Just a quick clarification: It was called "News at One-Thirty" before the mid-80s, but same programme. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:53, 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 keep per sources added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Beta Alpha[edit]

National fraternity with only one active chapter. Fails WP:ORG, no third party sources. Google turns up nothing related, not even their personal website - but several unrelated fraternities with similar Greek letters. I'm just not seeing the notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 01:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No third party sources talk about it. Tim meh ! 01:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete has a history and has existed at more than one campus but no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm finding some independent sourcing out there. Do we actually have frat notability guidelines lying around somewhere?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you finding those sources? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google, as usual. :-) I added the links that looked most notable/reliable to the exlink section.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nice job on finding that, I sometimes forget about Google books. We need a few more though. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Alpha Beta Alpha for correct capitalization. There do appear to be some sources available to confirm the historical existence of this organization. I suspect that the organization went into decline due to the fact that library science is now studied primarily at the graduate level instead of the undergraduate level. I will try to improve the article in the meantime. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page has been moved as per Metropolitan to make the title MoS compliant. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 13:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep The notability of this fraternity is confirmed by the sources that have been added to this article. Cunard (talk) 15:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment It's been suggested to me that it may be part of or affiliated with as large as Beta Phi Mu. So I'm throwing that out there. It's small.(refactored sorry. sloppy editing) But given its history I think it's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I support keeping Alpha Beta Alpha, I don't see how the organization could be as large as Beta Phi Mu given that ABA has only one active chapter and BPM has about 40 active chapters. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I didn't adjust my comments properly. It's not. It's one chapter as you note. Sorry about the consfusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:59, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farstone Technology[edit]

Vanity page, no assertion of notability Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per G11 and/or A7 spam and notability TurningWork (talk) 13:07, 16 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 00:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CORP -Drdisque (talk) 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but trim the fat and spam. Gets 65K Ghits, including some decent looking sources: [87] [88] GlassCobra 12:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the article down and added in some sources. GlassCobra 14:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on the spam trimming, much improved! I'm still concerned about notability though, the references you've provided all read like rehashed press releases, so my original recommendation has to stand Delete doesn't pass notability TurningWork (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same as TurningWork (Although I am now only a weak delete because of notability). Article has been cleaned up so the worse offense has been removed, wouldn't be too sad with keeping it either.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources added are to public relations news services or reprinters of the company's own press releases, not really independent of the business itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 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 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Stebbins[edit]

Not notable Dan D. Ric (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only inline references in this article are two links to companies created by the subject and added by User:Johnstebbins. Previously there had been links to company websites and a youtube video, these have been removed by another user.

The article was created by User:Mamaleal, Caitlin Leal is listed here as one of the company administrators. Dan D. Ric (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to meet WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:04, 16 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 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:15, 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 Redirect, content has been merged. GlassCobra 12:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Poems by Rita Dove[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Poems by Rita Dove

Page does not meet requirements for stand alone articles keystoneridin! (talk) 06:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we have a number of these lists, see, for instance, the impressive List of poems by Catullus. I'm a bit bothered by the lack of clear rationale in this nomination, and would like to know from seasoned editors what the proper standards might be in this case--even for this woefully underdeveloped list. One item, is that a list? Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rita Dove - adding this list wont make the parent Article excessively long. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I have serious doubts about the usefulness of the format of this particular table. Who'd ever want to sort by publication details, if those details are of this kind, "Volume 84, Number 38"? But that's not a matter for AfD, I know--just a note, since the article talk page is blank. Drmies (talk) 16:41, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rita Dove. No prejudice against recreation at some later date, though a format-sorted bibliography might be better. - Eldereft (cont.) 02:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've gone ahead and merged the content (singular, haha) to Rita Dove. I'd perform a non-administrative closure here, but the AfD is not yet a week old, I don't know how to do it, and I don't know if my standing is good enough. Even if this were kept I'd merge it, boldly. Whether a redirect is in place, I'll leave that to others--I don't think there is a necessity for that, but there is a history here, even though it's shorter than the bill of rights of Elbonia. BTW, it's a shame that the Rita Dove article is in such a poor state, given that she's one of the poetic powerhouses of the US. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 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 no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayward Davenport[edit]

Lacks claim to significance. Exhibiting in one Royal Academy show does not constitute notability. Possible WP:COI issue. JNW (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - three minutes after I restored it, that's fast! I'll be working to improve the article to satisfy notability concerns over the next five days, but won't be able to do it tomorrow as I have pressing real-life concerns. Best, – Toon ^(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speed was coincidental--we both noticed and were working on this at the same time. As stated above, I think there are several concerns. If there are sources supporting notability, I'll be happy to see this become a keeper. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I think the potential WP:COI requires explanation from the article's author. Additionally, I agree with nom that notability hasn't been established. Details of the Sotheby's sale would definitely help. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Potential COI for an artist over 100 years old? He sounds notable, but we should give the editors more time to dig up the appropriate sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's another recent Sotheby's lot [89]; I have referenced the main one. We have hundreds of articles on artists whose work Sotheby's won't be accepting for sale either now or in 100 years time. Probably notable purely as a businessman - purveyor of legal opium to the British masses. There is this [90] on that. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete THere isn't any substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fame and notability aren't synonymous (WP:N: It is important to note that topic notability on Wikipedia is not necessarily dependent on things like fame...) - it is clearly going to be more difficult to find web-coverage of someone whose work was exhibited in 1894. The fact that his work was exhibited at an exclusive gallery and two peices were sold at Sotheby's indicates notability; that he was head of a notable company further extends that. – Toon ^(talk) 12:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above..in a way, it seems ok...Modernist (talk) 23:39, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayan name (moved to Ayan (name) )[edit]

Neologism Bothpath (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It exists as both forename and surname (see All pages with titles containing Ayan - and I have renamed it to Ayan (name) while stub-sorting it. PamD (talk) 06:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clean-up or delete. The lone 'reference' is not particularly reliable, and supports only a portion of the claims made. Regarding "more than before": before what? Cnilep (talk) 17:12, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see an encyclopedia entry here. Punkmorten (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only ref given is not a reliable source. I've looked in A Dictionary of First Names (ISBN 0-19-211651-7), which has a supplement on common names in the Arab world and a supplement on common names of the Indian subcontinent, and "Ayan" is listed in neither supplement, so I am unable to verify this information. —An gr 18:22, 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 delete. The consensus is that the subject does not meet guidelines for inclusions. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

André Harris[edit]

Non-notable Bothpath (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trout-slap for the nominator for failing to explain their reasoning. When you call an article subject non-notable you should always explain what guidelines it fails and how and how you tried to find sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any sources that show this person meets WP:ENTERTAINER. Based on what I can tell, all the roles look like they've been in minor productions. Rnb (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER without references. Roles are minor. WP:RS coverage not found in search. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any reliable or relevant source Rirunmot (talk) 16:56, 29 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 Blonde Charity Mafia. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Pyle[edit]

Notability. As seen from the fact that nothing links to this article. Sophie Pyle is not yet notable. Perhaps if this show airs, but it's more likely, this would be a good sub set of a Blonde Charity Mafia article. I wouldn't oppose a merge Arteros (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search for her comes up with masses of Twitter, Facebook and other such. Not a good sign. The TV thing hasn't aired yet. Oh dear... Mingling with Hilary Clinton and John Kerry? They are notable, all right. Notability isn't contagious under those circumstances. To be honest, I wouldn't think the TV thing will make her particularly notable if and when it airs - but I'm falling foul of WP:CRYSTAL myself there. Peridon (talk) 23:19, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Blonde Charity Mafia. JJL (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Blonde Charity Mafia is fine with me, conditional on someone expanding the BCM article first. Otherwise, delete. Arteros (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I fail to see how the BCM merits an article under WP:CRYSTAL apart from concerns of notability. No-one else in the article has a WP article - apart from the USA and the TV network. Peridon (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's a separate discussion. As long as it exists, it seems like a good rd target. JJL (talk) 19:35, 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 delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autovogue[edit]

Lack of reliable sources. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 14:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see how this meets WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:35, 16 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) 00:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not met notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability per WP:CORP. CultureDrone (talk) 11:34, 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 redirect to Charles Bingham, 4th Earl of Lucan. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Bingham, Countess of Lucan[edit]

Not notable wife of a peer. I don't want to claim that it is a copy, however note that it resembles the article about her husband Charles Bingham, 4th Earl of Lucan very closely. Phoe (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She has a very tenuous claim to notability in being the great-grandmother of Lucky Lucan, but that's all. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:52, 16 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) 00:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Charles Bingham, 4th Earl of Lucan. JJL (talk) 01:35, 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antônio Marcos de Azevedo[edit]

Non-notable footballer, never played in fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 11:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you created this -why not Wikipedia:CSD#G7? Stu.W UK (talk) 12:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to not met the guidelines for inclusion per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:41, 29 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 01:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adriano Bernardes Rodrigues da Silva[edit]

Non-notable footballer, he never palyed in fully-pro league Matthew_hk t c 11:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you created the page and nobody else has made a notable contribution, why not request speedy deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#G7? Stu.W UK (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks to fail WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to not met the guidelines for inclusion per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per availability of reliable sources. Someone should try to add them in, though. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VocaLink[edit]

Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. BACS is undeniably notable, and the page on the BACS website [91] seems to indicate that VocaLink is a major partner. On the other hand, this isn't strictly speaking _third-party_ coverage. If some can be found, it should be added. Tevildo (talk) 14:42, 18 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) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep. VocaLink is a subject worth having an article on - it is a commercial company but it does provide the FPS which is notable. This "article" however is more like a glossy pamphlet from the PR firm. What the heck does "This is complemented by value-added Managed Services that leverage industry expertise and technical capabilities" even mean!!? Grible (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC) (oops)[reply]

- "You have to pay us extra if you want us to do any actual _work_ for you", in my experience of such corporate communications. :) Tevildo (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources found by Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 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 into Limbo of the Lost. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Studios[edit]

Nominated as failing Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Commercial_organizations for being a small (3 people) company that made only one videogame. I propose that although the Limbo of the Lost Controversy is notable, the company didn't gain notability, under an analogous argument to WP:ONEVENT. Habanero-tan (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge; while WP:ONEEVENT does not apply to companies, I understand the reason for wanting to work along similar lines. Analogously to WP:ONEEVENT the solution to this issue is to merge to the article about the event. This may suggest a change in guidelines; WP:CORP should perhaps suggest that a company notable for only a single product be discussed in the article on that product. JulesH (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:20, 16 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) 00:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Limbo of the Lost basically repetition of the same thing, the company's relevancy is wrapped up with the game anyway, since they don't seem to have produced anything else. Someone another 00:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Limbo of the Lost. Seems this would fit fine in that article. MuZemike 14:01, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable gaelic footballer - does not appear to have played any games of note at a national level, with his career based on his own local club. No references and many of the claims appear to be unverifiable. The last line is telling "he did not feature in any of the McKenna cup matches". Note: The previous afd on Michael Hannon appears to be for a different(?) Michael Hannon, with the result Delete TheClashFan (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non notable. No major coverage. There is also some COI/self-promotion going on, see [92]. Iam (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC) This user is a sockpuppet of the nominator, TheClashFan. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Snappy (talk) 13:05, 19 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) 00:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:07, 30 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) 00:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McBride Secondary School[edit]

Andrewrp (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep concur with Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) that high schools are generally notable. JJL (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. Secondary schools and high schools are not the same thing. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you base that, however, in Canada the term "Secondary School" is used almost universally and is synonymous with "high school", as they typically run from grades 8-12. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, 8-12 means it includes the grades 9-12, which is what the US calls a high school. Splitting hairs here. tedder (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 01:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is there no reason for deleting given? tedder (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School District 57 Prince George. Notable or not, the article contains insufficient information to warrant a separate entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article desperately needs more references and content, however, unless it's a very new school (I couldn't find a date on either the district's or the school's website) there should be some. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be deleted. It had vandelism, should be merged or deleted. Nobody even looks at the page. It is not substantial, and does not add. Andrewrp (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vandalism is absolutely no reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the school educates to grade 12 which constitutes a high school. Sources are available and the way forward is to expand the page not to delete it. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NHS-- The article is sourced and has expanded since nomination.--J^mundo 18:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are notable. Expand rather than merging. Dlohcierekim 03:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - WP:NHS is perfectly clear, why are we even discussing this (other than perhaps nom does not realise that in UK and Canada (and probably other places) they are called Secondary not High Schools)--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:58, 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animarathon[edit]

Is there a different notability threshold for anime conventions? I would say that an event which attracts only 1000 participants is bound to be non-notable on a world scale. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not based on the number of attendees, but on coverage by reliable, third-party sources. An example of a notable convention with less than 1,000 attendees is Tsubasacon. That convention has been covered by both local and national media. But it seems you didn't even look to see if there are any third-party sources. And given the event had ran for 9 consecutive years, there is a good chance that such sources exists. In fact, a Google News search is showing some promising hits. --Farix (Talk) 11:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 11:38, 16 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) 00:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could maybe include in a list of these type of events. But I don't think this event has enough independent notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a good possibility that sources exist. There is no deadline here. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of the sources are either minor or unreliable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:06, 30 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.