< 2 April	4 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 redirect to Saanen#John F. Kennedy International School. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John F. Kennedy International School[edit]

Declining ((db-spam)). ~~but my vote at this AfD is for speedy deletion as db-spam.~~ Throwing this to you guys because I know there's a lot of support for keeping schools whenever possible. Note that the school is run by the Lovells and the creator's username is VictoriaLovell. Also note this is a small, private primary school. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am the original speedy tagger. Note, in addition to the nom's concerns, that this school is rather small in terms of number of students (75, according to the article) and only accepts students up to 14 years old. According to numerous precedents, primary and midddle schools are redirected to the school district unless there is something notable about them (such as their building being listed as historical). None of these exceptions seem to apply here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles for non-notable primary/middle schools do not have a district to be merged into, the best target for the merge is the geographical location of the school. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - I searched for reliable sources, but all I could find were press release type articles and directory listings. Unfortunately, it doesn't meet notability guidelines. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy with the merge and redirect as noted below. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 02:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Saanen#John F. Kennedy International School per precedent. I have completed the merge. Cunard (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I'm not convinced that merging it is a good idea. It's boarding school and not a primary or middle school of the district it's located in. -- User:Docu
comment there is another version at JFK International School. -- User:Docu
Delete This almost looks like a speedy for spam. We support keeping schools when there are independent reliable sources that allow for the creation of a neutral article. Chillum 15:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Saanen#John F. Kennedy International School per precedent. The target page is badly in need of some content so we may as well start here! TerriersFan (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, that article could use the content, if we pare it down. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have JFK International School, which appears to be about the same institution and written properly. Hence, we can use the latter. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 10:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney at law (Sri Lanka)[edit]

No source to be found actually talking about Sri Lankan attorneys. Ipatrol (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If there is anything about Sri Lankan attorneys that is different than about those in the rest of the world, this article just doesn't mention it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Refs added. The legal practice defers from country to country so too the attorneys.Cossde (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge if a better place for this information can be found. It's a bit of a vague article at the moment, but information on how you qualify as a solicitor in a country is sufficiently notable to warrant a mention somewhere - the only question is whether it is here or in another article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't it be better, then, to move the article to Judicial system of Sri Lanka (which happens to be a redlink within the article we are discussing here)? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as valid stub. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easy to rescue, an encyclopedic law stub, perfectly good start to something better, per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very encyclopedic. It may be worth considering refactoring the set of articles about Sri Lankan law and linking it all together with a series or category. Jwray (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion. The strange habits of the attorney trade differ greatly from country to country. How they must perform their duties in Sri Lanka will certainly prove to be as worthy of inclusion in this and subsequent articles in how differing legal systems require the practice in different countries. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss (korn song)[edit]

Non-notable song that has never charted. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:50, 3 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" 02:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NSONGS. Highly unlikely ever to grow beyond stub status.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (and tagged as such). Already deleted at a previous AFD. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treno (micronation)[edit]

A made-up "micronation" with exactly one Google hit (a website under construction), referenced with that site and a Wikia wiki, and posted by User:KingAlex, apparently one of the "founders". ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on no indication that it has been noticed by the rest of the world. It's refreshing to read an article about a micronation, and never find out where it's located. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as something made up one day. WillOakland (talk) 06:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simple posts of "delete its made up" Should not apply to this article and moreover a google search should not qualify as verifying notereity. Every micronation is made up, and most on wikipedia have done nothing of merit except garner more attention then others. A mere reading of List of micronations demonstrates this. Several nations on this list boast no wikipedia article however are included. If a near total ban on original micronation posts such as these exists, as it appears from other articles of deletion demonstrates, please include this on the notoriety web page with specific reference to micronations or original research. --KingAlex (talk) 13:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because other bad articles exist isn't a reason why this one should stay -- it's a reason why other articles should be cleaned up or removed. Also, while Google isn't the final arbiter of notability, given that there is absolutely nothing about Treno that isn't self-published, Treno just isn't notable at all. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All work is self published before being published elsewhere, if no one reported on the Declaration of Independence would America still exist? simply because I am currently the sole publisher does not mean the country is my own or the ideas my own. I am a founding member yes, but I am simply posting a profile on a country. I no where declare myself supreme ruler or otherwise aggrandize myself because it is not MY country. Treno does not have a leader because of it's practice of direct democracy and self governance. Notoriety is next to impossible for a micronation to attain because most news outlets don't care and government's don't acknowledge they exist. So, barring every member of the Trenian population stripping naked with the words "Treno for Life" painted on their bodies and running through the streets Treno won't get the notoriety wikipedia claims to require. Seeking notoriety for notoriety's sake is the real ego trip here, not Treno --KingAlex (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Currently many road blocks stand in the way of groups like Treno. The United Nations prohibits sovereign nations that don't have dry ground under their feet. Many of these breakaway groups are mislabeled as anarchists by macro nations." (http://www.exploretreno.com/Treno.pdf) And one more--Users on Wikipedia vote Delete on articles like this. Micronations need to have some external notability before they become listed here. Wikipedia is not for their introduction to the world. Eauhomme (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These guys have made their point. I'm just not sure what it is. Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. If Wikipedia is not the place to publish words you made up on one day, it's certainly not the place for countries you made up on one day. How many deletes do we need before I can invoke the snowball clause? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable group. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if it exists, it can not be verified by secondary sources -- core policies. See also non-notable places. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a micronation covered in multiple reliable sources would be a keep. This is not an example of such. -- Whpq (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - per spam, notability, verifiability and advertising. The main contributor is User:KingAlex, who seems to have a severe conflict of interest with the subject, since being the "founder" of this nation. Also, is "delusions of grandeur" a suitable deletion reason? Greggers ^{(t • c)} 10:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon Ranger: Shadows of Almia quests[edit]

Wikipedia is not a video game guide, and that's exactly what this page is. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If possible, the info should me summarized into the main article, but it is certainly not worthy of a separate article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Pokémon Ranger: Shadows of Almia.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE, current article name is not a likely search term. --MASEM (t) 17:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed, wikipedia is not a game guide WP:GAMEGUIDE. JamesBurns (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE reasoning. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 04:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT -- e.g.: not a directory, not a game guide, not plot summaries... We don't cover every single quest in every single game. Randomran (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a game guide. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if one knew a great deal about "pokemon" one could make this comprehensible and then one would have a non-notable game-guide unfit for inclusion in wikipedia. But it isn't even that good.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant game guide. Also delete per WP:SNOWBALL Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Fricke[edit]

UNreferenced biography. Please delete. Alio The Fool 22:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My first thought on reading it is that it should be easy to demonstrate notability if it is true and not overstated. This may be rescuable. I will see what I can dig up. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing lots of hits in Google Books (not just for his books but for people writing about him) and in Google Scholar. His news coverage is showing up in Google News but it is old and seems to be pay-to-view content. I have added the court ruling as a reference and will tag for rescue. The article needs a lot of work but I am pretty sure he is notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 23:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with User:DanielRigal. I did my own cursory search before moving from the article to the AfD. I found multiple hits in Google Books that would prove suitable for expansion and sourcing, as well as enough hits in Google News to show that the event has had repercussions in law and society and not only was covered in depth at the time, but continues to receive coverage for its ramifications. Not being referenced is no reason for deletion if they are available. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it has so people should add references. I take it to AFD if its an unreferenced bio for a long time. This is like that. Someone now fixed it and itis referenced so withdraw. I am wiling to nominate for deletion if its 1 a bio 2 unreferenced 3 been unreferecned for at least a year. Alio The Fool 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even in its form as nominated, it had clear indicia of notability; it just needed references. DanielRigal's edits have provided references to back up the claims. Keeping is now a no-brainer. TJRC (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to me that there are enough WP:RS to meet WP:N — Ched : Yes? © 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At first glance this articles appears to be about a person notable only for one event, however this event/person has legs so it deserves an article. Unionsoap (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the near-unanimity here, and the substantial improvements made to the article since its nomination, I suggest we invoke the Snowball Clause and close this as Keep. TJRC (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw. Article now has referneces so it is ok. Alio The Fool 00:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn Magioladitis (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Zhakata[edit]

Unreferenced biography. Please delete. Alio The Fool 22:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is apparently in the middle of an overhaul, and there's been tons of references added. Looks OK to me on a quick glance. fuzzy510 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Referenced biography. Please keep. For the longer version: Notability has been established through significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as added to the article. Note to nominator: Please read WP:BEFORE. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine if you want to fix it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leonard_Zhakata&oldid=276880483 is what it looked like. If no one is giving references I am going to AFD. If you want to source it fine go ahead and we'll keep it. In its state it deserved to be deleted and I'm not going to fix unrefed biographies if people won't fix them. This article has been like this for years I think. But if you want to withdraw fine, b/c it won't be delted now. Alio The Fool 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep my impression of the google hits is that this person is notable, however, I have no idea about Zimbabwe books and web content, and I would not be at all surprised in ability to verify much of it is not available online. This is exactly the sort of material which needs offline sourcing to help rectify systemic bias and make the internet a better place by having material not currently available online. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a workable article — Ched : Yes? © 14:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw - Now has references so its ok. Alio The Fool 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Senseless!... says you, says me 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Gary[edit]

College Basketball head coach for Centenary College of Louisiana. No third party, non-trivial sources, a search of Google only finds press releases and one article that qualifies as trivial along with Centenary College's official website, and Google News comes up with zero. I couldn't find specialized notability guidelines for coaches anywhere, not on WP:BASKETBALL, WP:CHOOPS, or WP:SPORTS, so I'm not sure if the fact he coaches for a D1 school makes any difference or not. -Senseless!... says you, says me 22:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It does matter. Division I basketball is the highest level of amateur basketball competition in the United States. Please see the declined speedy on Matt Matheny, which was declined as showing proper notability for the same reason. fuzzy510 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highest level of amateur competition for basketball is the olympics per WP:ATHLETE. -Senseless!... says you, says me 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympics is NOT amateur competition for basketball in the United States. Additionally, while I can't find exactly where it's been written, but Division I coaches have been considered inherently notable. --fuzzy510 (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for something along those lines before I took this to AfD, I couldn't find anything concerning notability of coaches. My feeling was that it would have been one thing if he had taken his school to the NCAA championship game or had multiple Final Four appearances, but he hasn't done anything noteworthy with the school's team as of yet, and beyond that, more importantly, there are no third party, non-trivial sources asserting notability listed. Additionally D1 vs D2 or D3 has to do with scholarships and budget, its not a promotion/ relegation system similar to European Soccer leagues. -Senseless!... says you, says me 22:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter that it's not a promotion/relegation system? It doesn't diminish the accepted fact that NCAA Division I is still the highest level of competition that in which a basketball player can engage participate in the United States without playing professionally. --fuzzy510 (talk) 22:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of play is generally higher in D1. Zagalejo^^^ 23:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note for full disclosure I am the article creator. fuzzy510 (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say Weakish keep. Did you check the Google News archive? Here are some fairly recent articles about him. At least some of those should count. Gary also received some media attention during his career as a player. [1] [2] Of note is the fact that he participated on Tulane's first team that reached the NCAA tournament. [3] Centenary is one of the more obscure D1 schools, so I wouldn't argue that all Centenary coaches are inherently notable, but there actually is something to say about this guy, so I'm not opposed to having an article. Zagalejo^^^ 23:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently not (then again I was primarily looking for things concerning him as a coach), thanks for finding those references. I'm on my way to a recital, but I'll add them in when I get back tonight. -Senseless!... says you, says me 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G11: Blatant advertising,. Housekeeping, (non-admin closure) Ipatrol (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFIMA[edit]

Article written by organisation founder. Spammy, unreferenced, and no aparrent notability. I42 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and besides, no article with a huge company logo at the top ever ends well... --DanielRigal (talk) 22:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As per G11--Ipatrol (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as db-spam. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as spam. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. NAC. JulesH (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from Manchester[edit]

List doesn't appear to be needed, as there is a category (Category:Musical groups from Manchester) and an article (Music of Manchester). —Snigbrook 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per policy, usually when there is a category , a list is also justified. No reason given why this is inappropriate. DGG (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is, but this list is the same as the category except it contains bands not from Manchester, musicians that are not bands, and bands that don't appear to be notable (obviously these shouldn't be there). —Snigbrook 23:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of a list is that it can provide more information than a category could, such as dates active, genre of music, members etc. While the list does not currently do this, it should be expanded rather than deleted. Nev1 (talk) 01:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp per above. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no viable deletion Rational provided. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists (potentially) provide much more information than categories. Categories are meant ot be a means of navigating between similar or related articles, whereas a list is supposed to give an overview of a subject with a lead and information on each entry (see WP:FL? for what an ideal list should be like). Also, while music of Manchester is a related subject, it does not include every notable band from the city, nor should it as it would be too long and deserves its own article. The list is not in a great state and requires development, but should not be deleted. Nev1 (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid list, and not redundant due to a category.--Michig (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists and categories can work hand-in-hand. Lugnuts (talk) 08:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Noizz[edit]

Non-notable radio show with no substantial or reliable sources. POV article created by someone with clear COI, but no sources to redeem it from. Contested Prod without improvement to article dramatic (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.

Delete as non-notable per nom. clearly COI.--ClubOranje^T 21:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant coverage, WP:COI, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 05:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near reaching the notability threshold. 9Nak (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bone the Fish[edit]

Either a Non-notable neologism or non-notable web content or both. The Washington Post reference (the only reliable source doesn't actually have the word "bone" in in it.

As far as I can tell, it looks like jumptheshark.com got sold to TV Guide, so the people who ran the website made bonethifish.com, thus the creation of the term. kelapstick (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable article?

http://mikehernalsteen.com/blog/social-media/bone-the-fish-the-new-jump-the-shark/

Kb3777 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The website has only been around for about a month and I couldn't find any third party reliable sources talking about it. I don't think the blog link above qualifies as a reliable source since the author doesn't appear to be an established expert on the topic. Laurent (talk) 11:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism based on a single event. 9Nak (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siberian Wikipedia[edit]

Article on a wiki that reportedly contained less than 1200 legitimate articles, was written in a language that may not actually exist, and is almost completely unreferenced. The wiki was shit down barely a year after it opened. The only reference used is actually to a Wikipedia AFD on the language. clearly fails WP:N and WP:V. Firestorm ^Talk 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the WP:N. Bastique ^demandez 19:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether you liked the wikipedia or not is another matter, but unlike many other language editions it was notable, precisely for the reasons outlined by the nominator. Independent sources can easily be found [4][5], so it is certainly more notable than most of the wikipedias listed in Template:Wikipedias. Colchicum (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete no reliable sources and no established notability? No encyclopedia article. Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:N. Weak keep. 373 ghits and none appear to qualify as reliable sources. The bg.ru article provided by Colchicum is substantial coverage of the topic, and I'll take it on faith that the source is indeed reliable. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Большой город (Russian for Big City) is a biweekly urban magazine. I'd say, WP:RS for this context. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While in the end, it was determined that keeping Siberian Wikipedia around doesn't serve Wikipedia's interests, Wikipedia is a notable entity, and this episode of Wikipedia history is clearly worthy of encyclopædic treatment. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move into wikipedia or user space or delete the article fails our notability criteria for mainspace but the information there might still be interested for some wikipedians Alex Bakharev (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The history of this project was notable, I would say especially so for those who disliked it. But it could go into WP space. DGG (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are numerous outside sources about this wiki as correctly noted (with links) by Colchichum.Biophys (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting subject. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As in WP:INTERESTING?--Ipatrol (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia Space as a topic about Wikipedia without sources outside of Wikipedia. Tavix : Chat 00:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply These are outside source provided by Colchicum.[6][7].Biophys (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article has notability for the very reason that this wiki was disestablished (hoax, gaming the system). I think it is worth reading for people who would wish to establish new wikis, without considering real possibilities. Russian and Polish wikis also have the corresponding article (I've based the text on ru wiki entry). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 08:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Meta Not enough sources for the wiki, nor the language. Good page for meta to show what can go wrong with a wiki.--Ipatrol (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, but there are numerous articles on such minor wikis that have only 1000 articles and no other interesting facts. E.g. Silesian Wikipedia. As the article itself explains, sib-ru.wiki used to be quite 'bulky' at the time, surpassing many notable real language wikis. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That sounds a bit like a WP:BIG argument. Both the article and the closure page at meta say that a large number of articles were blank, nonsensical, or incoherent. It seems that the project just tried to bulk itself up to prevent closure, a hollow scheme that was easily seen through. At most the wiki had only 1,000 or so useful articles. There are not enough non-wiki sources to verify more than a sentence of this article. Just move it to Meta.--Ipatrol (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore Siberian language and merge to that. Siberian language (please read the deletion discussions) should be merged with this page and built up as an article about the language and its brief moment of fame on Wikipedia. Yes I'm aware that it was a made-up language; it's still notable for being briefly widely used enough to have its own Wikipedia. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is unsourced. The only sources were to the previous AfD discussion for this article, which I removed, and was reverted with the edit summary that the article isn't really able to be sourced any other way. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for information, and if it is unable to be sourced via independent, reliable sources which discuss the article subject in great detail, then it is pretty clear that we shouldn't have an article on it, and that is precisely the case here, as there is no notability in the real world. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what's the notability of the article Silesian Wikipedia, Venetian Wikipedia or even Yiddish Wikipedia in the real world? Do these articles I linked here have any more external sources than the one discussed here? (I managed two give some external links, now, too). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and I usually respond to such arguments that they are irrelevant to this discussion, as we are not discussing them here. They need to be discussed separately, outside of the confines of this AfD. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When used properly, a logical rationalization of "Other Stuff Exists" may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain. Colchicum (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, the most logical response to OTHERSTUFFEXIST is SOWHAT? It's true that other stuff exists, but it's not relevant in deciding whether this stuff should exist. Either way.

In order to make reasonable decisions of this kind, we should figure out *what kind* of other stuff exists, how it is *like* the stuff in question, and what are the *differences*. Something like studying case law. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional The Tomsk News article which I have reviewed seems more like the rehashing of a press release (or something) and doesn't say anything apart from that a wikipedia for a made up language has been opened. It's not really discussing the subject in any great detail. And the Bulgarian source, whilst giving a little notability, still means that we are lacking multiple sources which discuss the subject. We can't build an article based upon a single source. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. My point was that in articles about Wikipedias and just wiki stuff, we probably don't have many good third-party sources anyway. E.g. the Czech Wikipedia seems to be one of the top wikis, yet it's a stub totally unsourced with just one external link about edit warrring there. If you discrad this as just WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I could argue you are being somewhat hypocritical here.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it hypocritical to discount WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments? We aren't discussing Czech WP here. If you believe that it doesn't meet the threshold for inclusion, then nominate it, and perhaps Czech speakers can establish notability, as sources for them are likely to be found in Czech language. The problem with this article, is that Siberian isn't even a language, so it's entirely impossible to find reliable sources in that "language". --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bg.ru is not a Bulgarian source, it is a Russian magazine. :) Any notability is relative, and in the absense of explicit notability criteria the existence of the other articles show us the threshold of notability for them, which happens to be quite low nowadays. It is hardly disputable that per our general notability criterion Siberian Wikipedia is more notable than many others (unlike them, it has received at least some coverage in independent reliable sources.) Is it notable enough? I don't know, but some precedent has been set. Colchicum (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for picking that up. My mind somehow made me write Bulgarian. But does it establish notability? It's a single article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable former wiki, no multiple reliable sources. I see the notability of this entry derived from the discussion about the Siberian language (which we don't have an article about anymore), and anything that can be said about the wiki (and shouldn't be in article space) is already in the deletion discussion on meta and does not need to be kept here. Kusma (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noted analyst of Russian and Eurasian affairs Paul A. Goble mentions Siberian Wikipedia in his blog. Blogs are an acceptable source if written by established experts in the field, and topic is in the area of their expertise. Martintg (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELFPUB applies here (particularly claims about third parties), as does, dare I say it WP:NOTADVOCATE. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't apply in this case, Paul Goble is an acknowledged expert in his field. If you doubt this, let's take it to the reliable sources notice board and get wider input. Martintg (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The purpose of not considering blogs reliable in Wikipedia is refraining from quoting everybody's grandmother and her cat as reliable authority on sword-wielding skeletons. However, blogs are not ding an sich; they're communication channels -- and where they communicate with an acknowledged expert, they're citable. Of course, they should not be considered as the first resort. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And have either of you got a reliable source which indicates this is indeed Goble's blog? Anyone can start up a blog using credentials of another individual. It's for this reason that blogs are not generally regarded as reliable sources, and even then they can only be used as sources on themselves, and when it doesn't involve claims against third-parties; which this article does, in that it is a rehash of the Zolotaryev's opinions who started the monstrosity that was the Siberian Wikipedia. I find it funny, though not surprising if this is indeed Gobles blog, that the closure was blamed on Russian nationalists; there's nothing like spreading good-old Russophobia; which comes to think of it, given Gobles career as an anti-Russian propagandist, he is well placed for it, so maybe it is his after all. But still, verification of ownership of the blog is required within the confines of this AfD, as people are claiming it is a reliable source. But still WP:NOTADVOCATE comes into play. --Russavia ^Dialogue 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is your verification: [8]. And lately you have been the only person engaged in advocacy here. Colchicum (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That may be confirmation. But it is still WP:NOTADVOCATE as it isn't independent reporting as such. If anything it is giving notability to the editor who is on a crusade to invent an anti-Moskal language, because as Martintg himself writes, it mentions it, but it doesn't give any indepth independent reporting on the stain on WP's butt that was the Siberian Wikipedia. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supermarket tabloids in the United States[edit]

This piece is unreferenced, strongly biased, and has no apparent ability for expansion. It is of such low quality that while it should be merged, the material would need to be completely rewritten. Therefore I am nominating with intent to delete Ipatrol (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Very notable subject, there's even an entire book on the exact subject: For enquiring minds: a cultural study of supermarket tabloids By S. Elizabeth Bird Univ. of Tennessee Press, 1992, ISBN 0870497294/ There's also a full chapter on them in a standard work, Hachten, W. A. (2000). The troubles of journalism: A critical look at what's right and wrong with the press. L Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Took me 60 seconds on Google Books to find them. I suggest paying some attention to WP:BEFORE. It can be as easy to source an article as to nominate it for deletion without looking.DGG (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it's non-notable, I'm saying it should be merged, but there is nothing to merge as the whole article needs a complete and thorough rewrite. Therefore, the page should just be deleted and a new section should be written at a place like Tabloid. This is GFDL possible as the new section would copy nothing from the old page.--Ipatrol (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Back in October, someone moved this from supermarket tabloid to this pretentious title, apparently thinking that it was a good idea. It wasn't. Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I agree that this would be best merged with Tabloid but it seems apparent that this is a merge proposal not a proper AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tabloid. If it grows enough, it can be split off later. — Ched : Yes? © 14:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, an topic about which entire books have specifically been written is sufficient for an article of its own. AfD is not for merge discussions, in any case. DGG (talk) 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While AfD may not be the appropriate place for an editor to bring an article in the hopes that it is merged, it is the appropriate place for commentators to opine as to the appropriate place for content—i.e., own article, nowhere, another article. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and in particular Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. If you don't think this is the right way to go about things, try to build a consensus to change the guide. Bongo matic 06:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on talk. Closing editor is free to interpret my !vote as a Keep — Ched : Yes? © 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (the reply is on my talk, not this page's talk--DGG)[reply]

Keep The article covers a clearly notable topic, as demonstrated by book coverage and ample reporting in newspapers and magazines about the topic. While additional sourcing is needed, the article meets the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - valid stub, but move back to Supermarket tabloid Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major item under US culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe407 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move back to Supermarket tabloid. The concept is notable and can be established through sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 William Stamps Farish II. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Stamps Farish, Jr.[edit]

This individual does not seem to be notable, and no sources are given to back up the little information given on the individual Gabe0463 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources and not even an assertion of notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on his father, who is extremely notable--as is his son. He himself died in WW II too early for anything significant, and I could not find a NYT obit. DGG (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I don't see enough notability for an independent article, but a targeted redirect to a short section in the Dad's article would be okay. The family is notable so including him seems helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The only reason he's notable is that he's the son of William Stamps Farish II, so that's where any information on him should go. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 10:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arturo De Bourbon[edit]

This self-promoting page doesn't prove any notability. JaGa^talk 19:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotional fluff piece which does not meet notability requirements. Wperdue (talk) 20:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete yet another attempt to use wikipedia as an advertising service. no reliable sources, no notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , possibly speedy, as both A7, no indication of notability, and G11, promotional. DGG (talk) 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability can't be established, and even what is claimed is pretty thin. 9Nak (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live At The NIGHT Volume 4[edit]

Same as for series article Live At The NIGHT Series: No claim of notability made. No reliable sources can be found and no sources at all are in the article. Album released once every few years by a radio station to its members, no indication of siginificant regional influence, no significant sales or distribution, clear failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:N The Seeker 4 Talk 18:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable, no assertion of notability and none establishable by me. No reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all related ones. Same reason for all. Not notable because of music guidelines. Alio The Fool 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live At The NIGHT Series[edit]

No claim of notability made. No reliable sources can be found and no sources at all are in the article. Album released once every few years by a radio station to its members, no indication of siginificant regional influence, no significant sales or distribution, clear failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:N The Seeker 4 Talk 18:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live At The NIGHT Volume 1 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live At The NIGHT Volume 4
delete non-notable, no assertion of notability and none establishable by me. No reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 22:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious G11 speedy, purely promotional with no redeeming feature. DGG (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restyle (women's consignment shop)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Restyle (women's consignment shop)

Does not meet notability guidelines at WP:CORP. No external sources. Radiant chains (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Spam. I42 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails CORP, also it's spam/advertising for a consignment shop of no notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie

This movie has been rumored to be in production since 2007. Since then, there has been no verifiable evidence brought forth for this movie. Please see the history of both the television show, as well as the recently archived comments on the talk page. So far, the only sources brought forth are a fan forum and fan wikia, both of which fail WP:RS. Addendum: this may qualify under WP:CSD#G4 as previously deleted material, see the deletion log Yngvarr (t) (c) 17:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having been involved for way too long with this this film has never been proven to beyond a few YouTube clips, forum posts, some heresay and wishful thinking from over-eager fans added for good measure. This specific movie has been subject to WP:NFF for some time and if most of an article regarding a movie is trying to prove it exists with little regarding the content/plot of the film itself, it throws whatever belief in the subject's existence out the window. treelo _radda 18:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be deleted until reliable sources verify this movie's existance. Raziel Tea-time 19:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALL. No reliable sources. Re-add it if/when it is actually released somewhere. Wperdue (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete per all of the above and WP:HAMMER. Jclemens (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of verifiable reliable sources. (Note: this article is not eligible for speedy deletion under G4 based on that deletion log, since this is the first AfD/VfD discussion for the subject.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

If it is called Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie - for Wp:CRYSTAL.

If it isn't called that - for both Wp:CRYSTAL and Wp:HAMMER. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One look at the editor's user talk page answered any question about good faith. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 13:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as failing reliable sources Skier Dude (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nomination withdrawn -- now there are sources and an explanation. Wish those had been there earlier. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civil law (area)[edit]

Unsourced and improbable-seeming definition. Author removed prod tag without adding sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The most important branch of law in France, Germany etc. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 17:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't really know much about the civil law legal system, but I don't see what is improbable about this definition. I know that civil law is a major branch of law in the common law system, and this seems like a similar branch of law in the civil law system. Calathan (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's different. In common law it is usually the opposite of criminal law and mixture of various provisions, but see California Civil Code, which is similar to continental system.[9] In continental system the civil law is precisly defined and it is something like criminal law or commercial law and it lives by its own and not as just the opposite of criminal law. But, if you propose to merge Civil law (common law) and Civil law (area)‎ I am not against. —Guy Peters ^{Talk • Contributions • Edit counter} 20:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The civil law (legal system) has a civil law component equivalent in function to civil law (common law) (i.e. the law relating to interactions among private citizens). I'm not sure if the title is very helpful but the topic is certainly encyclopedic. de:Privatrecht clarifies that civil law is the major part of private law, with exclusions like commercial law as mentioned in this article (and in the civil law legal system, there are 3 pillars: public law, private law, criminal law). Given the Napoleonic origins I'm pretty sure this basic structure is general with the civil law legal system. Rd232 ^talk 19:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected by Dr. Blofeld to existing article and nomination withdrawn by Oo7565. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Achaia Klaus Museum[edit]

no third party sources Oo7565 (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page redirected. Article already exists at Achaia-Clauss, its basically a winery but is considered a "wine museum". Article exists on two other wikis too. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok with the page redirect the article seems to be fine now so i withdrew this i am sorryOo7565 (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Hamilton (baseball)[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/gsearch not turning up more than blogs, stat pages, and passing mentions. That leaves WP:ATHLETE. Does several seasons at single-A and 20 games at AA mean he's competed at a "fully professional level"? (The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says no, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Delete~~ Recent additions to the article indicate the subject passes the general notability guidelines. --kelapstick (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom, does not meet WP:ATHLETE. black ngold29 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep per added sources. Clearly some are better at finding references than I. Recommend a withdrawal, Fabrictramp. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fine with me, but we've still got a couple of delete !votes, so not eligible to be closed yet.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC) Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source should be "significant coverage" in prose, otherwise every A, AA, AAA, college, and high school player in the country could have an article. black ngold29 21:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being under contract with a pro team does not make one a "fully professional athlete" as per WP:ATHLETE if they're in the minor leagues. I fail to see how it matters that a site has "stadium info" when we're talking about the players, and when it comes to them it lists only stats. If a scout is using Wikipedia to help them with their job, they're in pretty bad shape; and I don't see how that applies to this discussion. black ngold29 00:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- i suspect that when there is full coverage of local newspapers in GNews/GBooks, a project that is has begun, we will find articles in their home towns or where they have played. These teams are major fixtures in many smaller cities. The next recourse of those who want to go by formal sourcing is predictable, they will redefine significant coverage in such a way as to keep out whatever articles they on some intuitive basis want to keep out. There are already cases where we have in effect added "non-local" to the definition of what counts. Wouldn't it be better to go by some fixed standard, easy to determine and hard to dispute once it is settled? My feeling is to compromise at some number of AA or AAA level games or seasons. DGG (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  - I personally would love to have some standard. Unfortunately, consensus has been hard to come by. The last several times it was worked on, almost everyone agreed that a single MLB game works, and almost no one argued for rookie league. But that area in between has always been pretty darned gray. (My suggestion was AAA is fully professional, as that guaranteed salary is better than working at McDonald's full time here in California).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the last time we discussed the WikiProject's notability guidelines in depth (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines) I think we did reach a consensus. We couldn't get agreement on any standards based on level of play, awards, or the like. But then we started a discussion of sourcing, and there was agreement that to be considered notable an article needs to have good sources—more than just statistics or a trivial or passing reference in a news article. That consensus was reported back to the Wikiproject (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 7#Minor league notability - draft now available) and the revised guidelines were later posted on the WikiProject page. They then disappeared with a page redesign. Of course, any "consensus" is only relative to the editors who took part in the discussion and isn't permanent, so it may be time to re-open the discussion. BRMo (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're saying the same thing in different ways. When I said consensus was hard to come by, I was referring to "playing at xx level in the minors equals notability". (Jeez, can't you read my mind? *grin*) IIRC, everyone was in agreement that if there were enough WP:RS to have met WP:BIO for a non-athlete that the player was notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was to not use an x-number-of-games standard for particular levels of minor league play, but rather to qualify minor leagule players either for specific milestone accomplishments (league awards, records, etc.) or under general notability guidelines. And there WAS a consensus - the guideline was listed as such on the project's front page, until it was inexplicably removed during a redesign. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I still can't find a link to it. Any chance you can point me to one? Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines does not sound like what you (and Kinston eagle in another AfD) have mentioned being the compromise, and that's all I could find. Thanks!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I looked around for a while, but I can't find it. We've talked about this a lot - at the page you mentioned, at Wikipedia talk:Notability (athletes), at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)... after a while, they all start to blend together. I guess we can always put it up for discussion again (*sigh*). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking a keep/delete position here, but if someone wanted to work on the article, there are plenty of good sources on Mr. Hamilton available. Not brief or statistical mentions, but actual articles: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Scout.com (a content partner of FOX Sports), Sports Illustrated, etc. People who don't follow baseball don't really appreciate the enormous volume of media coverage that even low-minors baseball receives. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article. I had seen the SI article and discounted it because it was two paragraphs discussing and injury. But I do have a question on the Scout.com article -- it seems to me to be a repost of a MadFriars.com article. Is MadFriars a reliable source? I had assumed it was a Padres fan site, but it also seems to have some affiliation with Fox (Which doesn't necessarily make it a reliable source. Not a slam on Fox, just saying some news organizations have discovered that popular content drives advertising revenue.) Any education on this would be appreciated.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scout.com is, IMO, reliable. They get credentials from teams to cover events, they conduct interviews and other acts of journalism, they have editorial oversight, etc. The branding for the site says MadFriars because Scout.com likes to create sub-sites for each team they cover, for branding purposes. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, I'll add this to my mental list of okay sources. Change me over to the keep category, and kudos to Hit bull, win steak for a job well done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The SI article includes a (dead) internal link to a full article about Hamilton's injury in the Beaver County Times (a satellite paper owned by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review conglomerate), which includes considerably more detail about the situation. Unfortunately, the BCT puts all their content behind a pay wall after about a week or so, and their archive search sucks, so you'd probably need a paper copy at this point (or microfiche, or something along those lines). The injury was a big scandal at the time, since it resulted in some measure of permanent disability for Hamilton. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He meets the requirements set at WP:ATHLETE and the verifibility needed for WP:N is there too as shown by User:Hit bull, win steak. It just needs to be implemented into the article. Borgarde (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pennance, I've added the Post-Gazette ref and searched through madfriars to find a ref for an awardd and an all-star game appearance, which have also been added.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Recommend withdrawal, as recent additions have helped appease original nomination's reasoning. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Hyatt[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/gsearch isn't turning up more than blogs, stat pages, and passing mentions. So it comes down to WP:ATHLETE. Is 9 games at AA and 2 at AAA enough that he's competed at a "fully professional level"? (The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says no, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning of Kalepstick. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 03:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Guidelines which say that every pro athlete is notable enough for Wikipedia already create an unbalanced situation where it is easier to keep an article about an athlete than one about a writer, scientist, or politician. When we step beyond that guideline and consider minor leaguers, notability must be shown and here it isn't. --Boston (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See, WP:OTHERSTUFF, this is an argument to be avoided whether voting to delete or keep. Borgarde (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Professional athlete as per WP:ATHLETE who has played in a fully professional league. Borgarde (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Shine and Mary Greene[edit]

Notability not established. Doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. لenna vecia 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The claims in the article aren't backed up by sources and I couldn't find much by way of reliable sources on Google, and Google News had nothing either. Malinaccier (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; per nom & Malinaccier. ww2censor (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per being blatant advertising. No keep votes, even the admin who declined the original CSD seems to agree it is speedyable. Chillum 15:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uconnect phone[edit]

Declining db-spam, taking to AfD, this is a judgment call. This is an option on every "2004 model year or newer Chrysler, Jeep, or Dodge", meaning that there may be a lot of owners out there who'd like to see an article about it, although the article as written is too promotional. Most hits on "uconnect" aren't referring to this product. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is written in an unencyclopedic promotional tone also it is not notable enough. I only found trivial mentions on google news. I also removed a large FAQ section which was a copyvio. More of the article may be a direct copy paste from somewhere, but I haven't found the source yet. --DFS454 (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page of the article this is the creators input:

the uconnect phone article was set up by myself as completely informational to the general population, and was not set up to promote a particular product in any manner. All of the Graphics/ Diagrams are completly self made and open for public usage.
thanks you for your time,
Regards,
Aaron

--DFS454 (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No attempt to show notability. Written by user:Chryslerllc as advertising / user guide. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Gah ... don't know how I missed the company username, it's usually the first thing I look at. I'll spamublock them when we're finished here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 17:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I had noticed, I would have speedied (sped?) the article. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trikr[edit]

Declining db-spam, taking to AfD; tone seems descriptive rather than promotional, and I can't db-notability (A7) software (although there's a current discussion at WT:CSD on this). - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 16:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Could there be any other decision? There is no content, and the notability of the subject is dubious at best. Chillum 15:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of any notability fuzzy510 (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No evidence(or claim for that matter) of any notability whatsoever.Wacko Jack O 01:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Garr[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/google search isn't turning up more than blogs, stat pages, and passing mentions. So it comes down to WP:ATHLETE. Does 38 games / 51 innings at AA mean he's competed at a "fully professional level"? (The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says not, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE--kelapstick (talk) 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning of Kalepstick. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 03:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE's requirement of playing in a fully professional league. Borgarde (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Cardenas[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/google search isn't turning up sources that show notability, so it comes down to WP:ATHLETE. Does a couple dozen games at the AA level mean he's competed at a "fully professional level"? (The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says no, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE--kelapstick (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning of Kelapstick. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 03:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has never played a game in the Major Leagues. Unionsoap (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike some of these other nominations, Cardenas is a genuinely notable prospect. Winner of the Baseball America High School Player of the Year Award, Gatorade High School Player of the Year Award, first-round draft pick, Gulf Coast League All-Star, participant in the All-Star Futures Game, included in a major deadline trade, etc. If you want some of those reliable sources that the nom's "good-faith" search didn't find (and which many of the other posters here apparently blindly trusted): Miami Herald profile, Baseball America profile, Philadelphia Inquirer profile, etc. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:ATHLETE and Hit bull, win steak's comments. There's sources there to add the All-Star information to the article by a quick google search, I guess the nominator just missed them. Borgarde (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myron Leslie[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/google search isn't turning up RS that show notability. So it comes down to WP:ATHLETE -- do a couple of seasons at single-A and a couple at AA mean he's competed at a "fully professional level"? The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says no, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning of Kelapstick. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE's requirement of playing in a fully professional league. Borgarde (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kendy Batista[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/gsearch has not turned up WP:RS other than passing mentions and stat pages. Batista has pitched 1 inning at the AAA level, but has now been released. Is this enough to meet the requirements of WP:ATHLETE? I'm unsure, but leaning towards no. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trusting nominators good faith search. Per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Richardson. The reference is not significant coverage, it is saying all the players that were let go. It's enough to prove that he played minor league baseball, but not enough to establish Notability.--kelapstick (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning of Kelapstick. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- And i suspect that when there is full coverage of local newspapers in GNews/GBooks, a project that is has begun, we will find articles in their home towns or where they have played. These teams are major fixtures in many smaller cities. The next recourse of those who want to go by formal sourcing is predictable, they will redefine significant coverage in such a way as to keep out whatever articles they on some intuitive basis want to keep out. There are already cases where we have in effect added "non-local" to the definition of what counts. Wouldn't it be better to go by some fixed standard, easy to determine and hard to dispute once it is settled? My feeling is to compromise at some number of AA or AAA level games or seasrsons. DGG (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable as an athlete. Esasus (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE's requirement of playing in a fully professional league. Borgarde (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 CSD-A7. Article text admits its own non-notability. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Bokonton[edit]

Article has been tagged WP:CSD G3 and PRODed -- both removed by creator. This is a blatant and obvious WP:HOAX. A made-up land invented by a person in her bedroom with too many inanities to list. A search reveals nothing. Read, then WP:DELETE and WP:SALT heavily. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | ^needles 16:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete— Non-notable micronation; no sources to establish notability. —SV 15:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.B. Diaz[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/google search isn't turning up WP:RS that show notability. So it comes down to this; is his A / AA experience enough to meet WP:ATHLETE? I'm not convinced that the low salaries of AA make it a "fully professional level". Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning of Kalepstick. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE's requirement of playing in a fully professional league. Borgarde (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:R'n'B as CSD:G7. TerriersFan (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

República de Lanfang[edit]

Meant to edit es.wiki not en.wiki Bethan 182 (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged db-g7. —SV 16:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Everidge[edit]

Unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player). Good faith gnews/google search only turned up one article about this player (in his hometown newspaper); the rest are blogs, passing mentions, and stat pages. This alone isn't really enough in my mind to meet WP:BIO, so it comes down to whether a full season at AA meets WP:ATHLETE. Count me in the "weak delete" category. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep I looked too and found mostly "passing mention", except for this from Major League Baseball about him winning "Minor League Baseball Yearly Award for Best Double-A Single-Game Performance (but I also found a forum thread devoted to people who think he sucks as a baseball player). The two combined may be enough to keep, but it might not. Anyway I am erring on the side of inclusion on this one.--kelapstick (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had discounted that article because MLB isn't really independent of the subject. The award itself might tip it over to the notability column, though. Depends on how important the award really is.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I am on the week side of this keep, I figured combined with the local paper interview it was "on the line", and in my eyes the tie goes to the runner.--kelapstick (talk) 17:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep - ~~Statistics together with a short interview in a local newspaper do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N.~~ BRMo (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Addition of new sources brings this article (barely) above the "keep" line for me. BRMo (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a lot of articles and pages that just mention this guys name, and a news article on MiLB.com (not independant) that gave the whole page on his performance last year about his RBI count. What were you searching for to get one result? Borgarde (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Fully professional player who passes WP:ATHLETE. MVP of his team in 2005, Texas League RBI champion last year, and another MiLB award to his name. He was also a Mid-Season and Post-Season All-Star in the Texas League last year. Borgarde (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't have a problem with "local coverage" being used to establish notability, but an interview is not independent of the subject. All the information comes directly from Everidge, with no onus on the reporter to do fact checking which is a principle of WP:RS.--kelapstick (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It was my understanding that minor league all-stars were notable per compromises made this past year. Those of us who feel that all minor league players are notable per WP:ATHLETE agreed to back off when those who feel that the minor leagues are beneath their lofty WikiProject agreed to allow minor league all-stars. If these compromises are no longer in place I see no reason why I and others shouldn't start adding dozens of new minor league articles each and every day. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could link to that discussion? I had originally been of the opinion that MiLB All-Stars should be notable, and had been convinced otherwise. If a new consensus changed that, I'd love to see it. (And man, we really need to get something official done on this issue!)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after E/C)There is nothing that is easily accessible for editors who are not regulars at WP:Baseball (myself included) to see what decisions/agreements have been made with regards to minor league players. The only thing there is to go on is the editor's interpretation of WP:ATHLETE, which is not always consistent, even within WP:Baseball. The drafted (not adopted yet) notability guidelines are even buried within the project, and are not even linked on the main WP:Baseball page. Personally I have no problem following whatever guideline (players are notable if they are AAA and/or all-star, even any minor league player) is accepted (even if I don't agree with it), however whatever guideline is adopted also has to be accessible to editors who are not part of WP:Baseball, if nothing else a link to it at WP:ATHLETE. An editor should not have to dig through a WikiProject's talk pages to find out what agreements have been made in order to decide if they should send an article to AfD.--kelapstick (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see last year's discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines. The discussion reached a consensus, which is now reflected in the revised WikiProject Baseball notability guidelines, that notability for minor league players should be based on significant coverage in reliable sources (that is, Wikipedia's general notability guideline). These guidelines were included on the main WikiProject page for a while; I'm not sure why they were removed from there. BRMo (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the discussion I went by, but Kinston eagle seems to have another one in mind.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with the nominator switching sides to preserve the article and no calls for deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfredo Gonzalez (baseball player)[edit]

Procedural nom (unbundling from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Diaz (baseball player)). Good faith gsearch isn't finding indepedent, reliable sources showing notability. So the question comes down to whether he meets WP:ATHLETE by having competed at a fully professional level. 6 years in the minors, including some time at AAA. Personally, I'm ambivalent about whether this is enough. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep~~Delete~~ Changing to keep, playing in the CBPL qualifies him under the proposed baseball notability guidelines that I based my stance on.(from my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Richardson)There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 15:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak keep - ~~Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N.~~ BRMo (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC) First, a caveat. The article's text continues to be a short paragraph, and although it currently cites three reliable sources, two of them are statistics sites and the other is to an article on his team with a one-sentence mention of Gonzalez. I have some concerns about treating his CPBL play as the determining criterion. I believe that all Wikipedia articles should at least meet the general Wikipedia standard of "significant coverage in reliable sources." Whenever we adopt supplementary criteria such as "all MLB players are notable," it is because we know enough about the coverage that MLB baseball players receive that we can safely assume that reliable sources can be found. It was interesting to see that assumption tested in cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Bunce and to demonstrate that we were able to find the sources, even for very obscure players. However, in this case it feels like it may be an attempt to use the CPBL criterion to bypass the general notability criterion, and I'd definitely have a problem with that. However, I decided to spend some more time looking through the Google News archives. Although I never did find an article focusing on Gonzalez, I did run across some interesting facts (for example, he was called up to the LA Dodgers in 2003 and was on their roster for 6 days, though he never appeared in a game). I guess I'm now convinced that there's enough information scattered around in various sources to write at least a well sourced two or three paragraph article, which is enough for me to change my vote to a weak keep. I'll contribute by adding a couple of sentences to the article along with citations. BRMo (talk) 02:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep He played 5 games at AAA (spread over 3 seasons). I consider that sufficient as a compromise. BTW, has anyone actually tried to search for more extensive sources? DGG (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I spent quite a bit of time searching google and google news before nominating.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not you think he qualifies under WP:ATHLETE under his minor league career, this guy has also played for the Sinon Bulls in the Chinese Professional Baseball League (which according to the notability standards that keep being stated he qualifies) the highest level of baseball in Taiwan. I am just gathering reliable sources now to add the CPBL Sinon Bulls to his article. Borgarde (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his profile link: http://www.cpbl.com.tw/personal_Rec/pbat_personal.aspx?Pno=B0D2 . And heres straight from the "guidelines" people are stating their deletion rationales on "Have appeared in at least one game in any one of the following active major leagues: Major League Baseball, Nippon Professional Baseball, Korea Baseball Organization, Chinese Professional Baseball League or any other top-level national league.". Borgarde (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the CPBL playing info to the article -- that's enough to tip me over to the keep side. (I'd withdraw the nom, but since there's been delete !votes it wouldn't mean much.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of forms of government[edit]

This article offers a less comprehensive and more confused list than the relevant template and less background information than the main article. I don't see that it serves any purpose? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think there's reason to delete a topic that should have an article because the current article isn't very good. It should be improved. --Oldak Quill 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's redundant to the template, though. What else would you suggest putting in there to improve it? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a template listing forms of government is not a good reason to not have an article listing forms of government. It is an important topic. Ideally, the list should follow each entry with a short description. --Oldak Quill 17:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is not redundant to the template, because it contains different (more) information. I would be OK with a merge with Forms of government, if that is appropriate, but I prefer to keep the list separate as a supporting article to Forms of government. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with forms of government, no need for a separate article. Nerfari (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point, although I would suggest they should be separate. Forms of government should be about different categories of government, why they are categorised that way, and how they differ, listing important examples of each. List of forms of government should be a more exhaustive list of forms of government, naming more obscure forms of government that the main article wouldn't have space to touch upon. --Oldak Quill 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True, I was judging the list at the time, now it's been restored to its former glory I can see why it needs its own space. Nerfari (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list seems to have been butchered and so I have restored it. In any case, templates and list articles serve different purposes and so the grounds for deletion are flawed. Colonel Warden (talk)

Ah, I hadn't even thought to check that - well done, it looks good now! I'm still not entirely opposed to a merge, even so - surely the template-list and the main article would be enough, together? ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is convenient to have a list without discussion of each item. However, it needs to be matched to the Forms of government Category which only contains WP articles rather than also Wiktionary items. There probably need to be at least redirects to WP articles that discuss them, which could be sections of articles. Bracton (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was OK, sourced now, fair enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Baldi[edit]

Non notable Science Prof. Contested prod Scott Mac (Doc) 13:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, article needs references but subject quite obviously meets WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. As a faculty member in the same department this is too close for me to express the opinion I have. I'll just point out that the "Chancellor's Professor" title is explained here. If there are any other factual or UCI-specific questions about this case I'd be happy to answer them. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no explicit notability claim, apart from the 3 awards, which don't have WP articles. Can you in a few words explain their significance? Rd232 ^talk 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wilkening one is a campus-level award that does not meet WP:PROF #2. I'm not sure what the other two are but I suspect they're of a similar level. If you want to pay attention to honors rather than research impact the ones to pay attention to are the Chancellor's Professor and the AAAI Fellow. Or perhaps more than either of those two (from his web page rather than from the article) he is also Fellow of AAAS. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well the Chancellor's Fellow link you gave says "Chancellor's Fellows are faculty with tenure whose recent achievements in scholarship evidence extraordinary promise for world-class contributions to knowledge, and whose pattern of contributions evidences strong trajectory to distinction." Key word for me: "extraordinary promise". I'm not clear what being a Fellow of the AAAS or AAAI means; is it different than being a member? Rd232 ^talk 15:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Chancellor's Professors and Chancellor's Fellow are two different things (I mistakenly wrote Fellow above, but have corrected it). Chancellor's Professor is an honor below Distinguished Professor and endowed chairs but above full professor, reserved for 3% of the UCI faculty. As for what it means to be a fellow of AAAS, see WP:PROF #3 — it's a significant honor reserved for I believe a total of 3600 notable researchers across all of the sciences (that is, the new fellows elected each year replace fellows who have died). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, getting closer to notability. But the Ch Prof is still a level below the Distinguished Professor level mention in WP:PROF. I'm not sure what weight to put on the AAAS; really would like to know more about the impact/significance/WP:RS coverage of his work. If that's substantial I'll call it for a keep. Otherwise I'll stay neutral. 16:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
For that, a common standard used here is to look at the citation counts in Google scholar. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the significance of citation counts variously enormously between fields, and I don't know this one. Google Scholar says 1400, but there are multiple P Baldis. Using Scopus to break it down, there's 373 for all P Baldis, and Scopus assigns 124 of those to our Baldi ("Baldi, Pierre F."); 61 of those to "Baldi, Pascal" who seems to be a quantum/optics specialist and 45+12 (2 entries) to "Baldi, Paolo", a mathematician. (That doesn't add up but with Scopus it rarely does.) So it looks like 124 for our guy, not trivial by any means, but I don't have the knowledge to say whether, in this field, it's enough to confer notability. I guess I lean to a weak keep and see where it goes. Rd232 ^talk 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scopus may not be the right tool to use. For computer science, Google scholar works much better than the commercial databases, because it includes conference publications that the others ignore. I think the top 20 Google scholar hits are all the correct Baldi. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first two results in David Eppstein's google scholar search are to the correct Baldi and register ~800 and ~700 citations respectively. Do we really need to spend more time on this one? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. You can omit checking citation counts and the like on this occasion. If the subject is indeed an AAAS fellow, the AAAS election board has already done the required vetting – you can be certain the subject is notable. My only comment would be that some confirmation of the fellowship would be good. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep With the recent edits, I think he fulfills the requirements. ukexpat (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion above. Rd232 ^talk 18:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep fellow of AAAS and title -Atmoz (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly above WP:PROF, per above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Speedy close anyone? – ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A technically, I think we need the nominator to withdraw the nom for WP:SK, looks like WP:SNOW though. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops yeah I meant snowball keep. – ukexpat (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-Keep-Keep - He is a notable Professor of Computer Science. He has large number of publications (refer to Google Scholar) - many of them are highly cited (We need just 10 to 15 of them to say he is notable). What is his Erdos number? I do not care his publications in DBLP. I have not met him, but have heard good things about his research. Genome his research area is a hot stuff. I have updated his article.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Erdős Number Project Data Files his Erdős number is 2, via Richard Michael Wilson ("Embeddings of Ultrametric Spaces in Finite Dimensional Structures", SIAM J. Alg. Disc. Meth. 1987). I have added him to our list. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I read somewhere that Erdos Numbers 1 and 2 are one of the measures for wiki notability. 1 is definitely. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 13:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are — notability is not inherited from one's co-authors. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I donot see anywhere in WP:PROF how teaching experience (15 or more) at higher education is counted for notabaility. In one of the cases, that was my point. Math and science have never been more important to the future of our children and our nation (US). Many universities in the US are prioritizing teaching over research. How could I make this suggestion to wiki board if that makes sense?

I donot understand the importance of Erdos number section in Wiki when Erdos number is not used for notability. I believe Erdos number 1 has some value for notability, co-authorship may not be !

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), and probably other criteria as well. Citation impact clearly indicates notability. This is a snowball keep case.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of Saint Gregory[edit]

This article or section has multiple issues.
This article does not meet the general notability guideline,the article is likely to be merged or deleted. (March 2009)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
A major contributor to this article has a conflict of interest with its subject.

Ad.minster (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and place stub template on it. rdunn PLIB 11:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic is not notable, nor are there any neutral sources on it. Ad.minster (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the above !vote calling for the deletion is from the nominator him/herself. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and place stub template on it. -- Secisek (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Multiple issues" and "needs additional citations" are of course not criteria for deletion. It is unclear whether COI is one or not (I think not), but regardless, the fellow he identifies with the COI is me, and I have not been a major contributor to the article, nor did I create it. That leaves the notability question. Here are some references:

[10] By a diocesan news source, about religious orders in general, with specific mention of BSG.

[11] A brief bit from a diocesan news source.

[12] A much longer article from a diocesan news source about the community.

[13] An article from a secular news source about one ministry of one brother, with brief mention of the community

[14] Similar tothe preceding

[15] A lengthy article from the New York Times about a ministry of the community

[16] An brief article from a diocesan news source about the community and a local connection

[17]] Obituary from the New York Times about a brother who had been a White House official

[18] An article from a diocesan news sources about a ministry of the community

[19] An academic paper about skullcaps which mentions the community (!)

That's a quick web search's results. There are other references in media which are not indexed on the web. Tb (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three further mentions:

"Yearbook of orders fine for Britain, but lacking US info", Episcopal Life 10:1 (January 1999), 29.

"What Religious Life is Facing", The Living Church, March 1, 1992.

Changing Habits, award-winning documentary film produced by Sara Needham ([20], [21], [22], [23], ...)

Tb (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 3 and formatted this entry. No vote. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 13:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: restored the article text as of July 31, 2008 (last edit before the recent argument about the page), and then added back the references and tags that were recently added. This results in a clearer article, and clarifies that the artcle also has long had a stub template, as rdunn had suggested. Tb (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I am myself not yet certain about notability, but I take note that the nominator removed sources and substantialcontent from the article before nominating it for deletion. This is a usually reliable indication that the nomination is not in good faith, and that there is either animus or COI involved. It is obvious that the ~~author~~ one or more contributors to the article has COI as well. We judge the article, though and do not delete because of COI on the ~~author's~~ contributor's part, or keep because of improper behavior on the other. The additional references mentioned above should now be added to the article. The author left me a message that he feared it would violate 3RR, but it will not in this case. DGG (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't identify me as "the author". I did not write the article, and I have not played a significant role in its history, as I noted in its talk page. The original author was User:The Wednesday Island, who is unknown to me and has not been active for some time. The only people with a possible COI to the article are me and User:Brkarekinm, both of whom only made minor edits. Tb (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity is always better than oblique reference. So here are all the edits (before yesterday) by anyone that would have a potential COI: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. My previous count was inaccurate, for which I apologize. I would suggest that looking at these shows that they are all minor and demonstrate no POV problems or bias, nor do they come close to being the major part of the article. Tb (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course adding more references would be a good thing, but in light of the possible POV/COI concerns, I would prefer someone else make a reasonable selection. I think I should not be the one to do it. I've already had more influence on the article than I think is proper today. :) Tb (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I adjusted my comment about author: i meant "any contributor."DGG (talk) 00:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable as discussed above, and that's the only valid claim put forward in favor of its deletion; COI and a call for additional sources are not good grounds for deletion. "multiple issues" is not an independent ground of anything. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs expansion, that's all. shirulashem (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim of notability in the article, and non-found in a google search. Untick (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. [30] returns 2,290 hits for me, and [31] returns 5,960. So I'm assuming you didn't mean that you couldn't find BSG in a google search. If you mean that you couldn't find notability, I just listed about a dozen sources, including an article in the New York Times and an award-winning documentary film. I'm not sure what you mean about a "claim of notability" in the article; that is a speedy-deletion condition sometimes, but that's not relevant here. Even China doesn't have a "claim of notability". Still, it's easily cured: [32]. Is that sufficient to answer your objection? Tb (talk) 04:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why you mention the article on China (which, by the way, includes numerous claims of notability throughout), because it has nothing whatsoever to do with your little group that was formed in 1969. The sources you referenced have only a trivial reference to the group, and I do not know what you are referring to when you say "an award-winning documentary film". Has this group been the subject of a documentary (not just a trivial mentioned within the film)? And if so, where is the reference as I could not locate it within your list? Untick (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant only that China never says, "oh, and here's why China is famous" in any particular sentence. Never mind, it was a silly point anyhow. The award-winning documentary film is Changing Habits; if you'll follow the links above you can see mention of it. The film itself is about a half-hour in length, and details the nature of the community and one brother. The article in the NY Diocesan newspaper which I referenced above is specifically about the community, in an issue which featured one column about BSG and one about OSH, both of importance to New York. The article in the NY Times about Fessenden House is about a ministry created and staffed by brothers in the name of the community, which is itself mentioned in the article. Likewise, the article in the Living Church from 1992 is mostly about BSG. Tb (talk) 04:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long discussions in VfD's are tedious, so I won't say more on this thread unless requseted, except to add that your statements are unpersuasive. That you don't know what I am referring to when I say "an award-winning documentary film" suggests you did not read my list of references very carefully, where you'll find above "Changing Habits, award-winning documentary film produced by Sara Needham". I hope you were not similarly casual in your review of the other sources I listed, and I'm impressed that you were able to get a seventeen-year-old copy of The Living Church and a ten-year-old copy of Episcopal Life so quickly. Tb (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the documentary film "Changing Habits" is Brother Karekin Madteos, not the BSG. None of the references listed for this documentary even mentions the Brotherhood of Saint Gregory by name. By the criteria for general notability, Brother Karekin Madteos is notable, so perhaps you might put your attention to create an article with him as the subject. The NY Diocesan newspaper is not independent, and the NY Times article about Fessenden House might allow you to reasonable argue that Fessenden House is notable, but it does not give notability to BSG. Untick (talk) 04:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already have to break my promise. Sigh. Have you seen Changing Habits? It is not the press report about the documentary which is evidence of notability, it is the film itself, which, as I note, spends about half its energy talking about the community and its life. Your judgment is your own, but it is important that your judgment be based on the facts, which it is clear you are not quite cognizant of. Tb (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The facts in the article must be verifiable; that means that you must be able to point to references that support your claims. If the film is about the BSG, then find a verifiable reference that says that. Your claims are not verified by the references. Sorry. Untick (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point that the film itself is the verifiable reference. Sorry. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are missing the point that the claim that BSG is the subject of the documentary film is not supported by the references. A non-referenced claim is a non-verifiable claim, and should be deleted. Find me a review of the documentary stating that the subject of the documentary is BSG and I will change my vote to keep. Untick (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a review of the documentary a valid reference for you, and yet the documentary itself is somehow not? Is there a Wikipedia policy that I haven't run into that says that films can never be valid references in a way which web and printed documents can, or are you making this up? The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is tedious. If the notability of this little 40 person group, that was formed in 1969, is totally dependent on a non-notable documentary short that does not itself claim to be a documentary of the little 40 man group, then I am very confident that this group is not notable. Untick (talk) 05:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are changing your arguments. Do you then concede that a documentary, and not necessarily a review of a documentary, is a valid reference? And you are fighting a straw man. Nobody has said that the notability of the BSG is "totally dependent" on this film. A host of references have been provided. I am arguing with you because of your illogical insistence on a secondary over a primary source. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (who has nothing to do with the BSG, now or in the past)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed. Untick (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the verifiability rules. There is nothing in them that makes a documentary inherently less of a reliable source than a review of that documentary. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that User:Untick only counts something he can find in a three minute google search as a source. He posted here [33] only four minutes aften his previous edit [34] and in those four minutes he was able to examine five thousand google hits, two articles in old non-google-indexed publications, and a documentary film. Or rather, I suspect he hadn't, and yet he still felt confident in saying that no references were there. At this point, I think it's clear that his real beef is that the group has forty members and is forty years old, and he thinks that small groups are not notable. (He's now derisevly said "this little 40-person group" or words to that effect several times.) What is the point? His judgment is not based upon an actual examination of the sources, and he's not willing to actually check out the references himself if it requires anything other than clicking a mouse. That's not sufficient. Oh, and the criteria explicitly say that reliable sources include "published works in all forms and media". And, let's not be confused, Changing Habits is a secondary source; the primary source was the interviews and such which were edited into the film. Tb (talk) 05:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment User:Untick, because Wikipedia is an Internet resource, there is a clear tendency to use online references as sources. However, that is in no way a requirement. The fact that a particular reference is not online does not make it non-verifiable. Many articles use offline verifiable sources, such as (gasp) paper books and, yes, even documentary films. They're certainly legitimate and their use is appropriate. TJRC (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a documentary can be used as a reference, but it must be verifiable. So far all that has been presented is the unverified opinion, put forward by Tb, that the subject of the documentary film is BSG. His unverified opinion is contrary to the verifiable references posted by Tb himself) which state that the subject of the film is a man named Karekin Madteos, and not the Brotherhood of Saint Gregory (which group is not even mentioned in the posted references). Untick (talk) 21:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Perhaps you are determined to. It's already clear that you did not bother to check the google search you described. You didn't bother to read the list of sources to even notice mention of a documentary film before you posted that you didn't know what I was referring to in mentioning it again. Now you are saying that it's not enough to provide a source, proponents of notability must also provide a source that proves that the sources say what ones says it says. How far back does that go? A source for the source? A source for the source for the source? At what point do you get off your duff and bother checking something, rather than repeating ad nauseum that "it isn't proven" because the proof must be proven, and the proof of the proof must be proven, and the proof of the proof of the proof. What it amounts to is that you do not regard a documentary film as a source, unless you also have a review of the film. Well, that's contary to policy. We now have you three times applying standards contrary to policy: 1) you think that the size or age of the group is relevant, 2) you think that a documentary film is not a source on its own, 3) you think that your failure to find references after a four-minute perusal of five thousand google hits is sufficient. Feh. Tb (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I agree that a documentary can be used as a reference, but it must be verifiable." It is verifiable. You can buy a copy of a book; you can buy a copy of the documentary. You can borrow a book; you can borrow (or rent) the documentary; or catch it if it's aired on television. I'm starting to agree with Tb. I'm trying to WP:AGF here, but it certainly it seems like you're pretending not to understand this and are straining to miss the point. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination reads like a maintenance template, not a deletion argument: lack of notability is the only deletion reason advanced, and notability is now adequately established. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i'm convinced. These brothers exist (and that level of religious devotion) speaks for itself.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to scrape by the notability standard, bad faith nom. GlassCobra 23:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4 - Recreation of material deleted by discussion, without addressing the reason for deletion (Reliable sources to show notability) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finda.com.au[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable online publication. No independent reliable sources asserting notability have been provided. Mattinbgn\^talk 13:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Recreation of a deleted (via a AfD in January) article which has no reliable sources proving its notability. Bidgee (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4 or, as the recreation appears to be independent and the AFD was only a couple of months ago, redirect to the company. Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Character (word)[edit]

Extensive etymologies, especially those that cover multiple meanings of a word, belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Powers ^T 12:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to character (symbol). This seems to contain information that goes well beyond a dictionary definition, of a sort that does not belong in a dictionary. Using "word" as a disambiguator and containing an "etymology" heading seem to be the chief flaws; so I changed "etymology" to "history" and voilà! 'tis fixed. Besides that, I find this article interesting, and despite that essay, being interesting is not a flaw. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep of course, merge or move discussions are welcome on the article talkpage. As for "Extensive etymologies, especially those that cover multiple meanings of a word, belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia", see our Category:Etymologies, and especially my note here. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless of all that, Wikipedia policy is quite clear: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject, such as Macedonia (terminology) or truthiness, but encyclopedia articles rarely contain multiple distinct definitions or usages of a term." That latter clause describes this article to a tee, and I see no compelling reason to make it one of those rare exceptions (which, in fact, are not all that rare it seems). Powers ^T 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't see any policy reason to remove it, and it's a nice article. Not opposed to moving it. Verbal chat 14:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Smerdis and dab. —An gr 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move per discussion above. Perfectly encyclopedic article, links together many others. No policy that would require its removal. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have an article that links together the various meanings of the word. It's at Character. Powers ^T 01:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; the page met WP:CSD#A7 as it didn't state why it's notable. -- Menti fisto 13:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smogon University[edit]

Non notable website with not notable software. Please review the page history for more information. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 12:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Software.In total, all the shoot-Offs have a total of 500,000 members.Notable.-PeRmEtHiUs (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No meaningful assertion of notability, either as a website or as software. Not seeing RS coverage in Google search. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Uruguay relations[edit]

There isn't even a Croatian embassy in Uruguay. What, what is notable about an embassy anyway? Are we going to have articles for relations between every country in the world? There's nothing to say here. This and most other similar short articles should be deleted. Or merged, whatever. Pick-a-chew (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean seriously, there are many entities - people, companies and ideas - that are much, much bigger and significant than tiny embassies between small countries, and yet these do not have Wikipedia articles.--Pick-a-chew (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Pick-a-chew (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to confer notability here. The lack of embassies in other countries doesn't exactly help that. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Prior precedent is that if the countries don't even have embassies then the article should be deleted. Also, I've looked for independent, secondary sources that discuss this topic in a non-trivial way, and I've not been able to find anything.[35][36]Yilloslime ^T_C 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absent a showing of some type of bilateral agreements between these two countries. It's not helpful that Croatia has no embassy in Uruguay, and that Uruguay has no embassy in Croatia. Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Croatia, Template:Foreign relations of Uruguay, Category:Bilateral relations of Croatia, and Category:Bilateral relations of Uruguay are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - That's sort of an other stuff exists argument. Maybe those templates shouldn't exist. Maybe most of the articles linked to from the templates shouldn't exist. I definitely don't think we should have a "Nation–Nation relations" article for every combination of countries, simply because diplomatic relations don't exist between all countries, and where diplomatic relations exist, they are not automatically notable. And even after showing notability, we actually need sufficient verifiable information to support a stand-alone article, otherwise the info should be merged somewhere else, like "Foreign relations of NATION". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would add that anybody can make a template, and that it's not uncommon for someone to create an empty glass and then say "we need to fill this empty glass". The existence of a template for "Foreign relations of ______" should not be viewed as an endorsement of a particular set of articles. A template only means that one editor made a template. Mandsford (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - strong precedent indicates that mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - strong precedent shows almost every bilateral pairing of countries have notable relations. Not speaking Spanish or Croatian/Serbo-Croatian/Serbo-Croati-Bosniac/whatever, it's harder to get the usual cornucopia of sources for such things, is probably best, [37] also gets in there. Still no reason to try and hold these articles to a much higher standard than WP:N. WilyD 15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source says nothing about Uruguay; the first, six words about how the two signed a "memorandum of understanding", the significance or notability of which we have no idea about. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure we do. It's difficult to communicate with you when you aren't aware of standards, precedent and jargon. Please avoid using the word "notable", which carries special connotations, that make your statements confusing. WilyD 16:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - First, you are not to tell me what words to use or not to use (unless they breach WP:CIV or WP:NPA). Second, WP:N mandates significant coverage, which is not met by a six-word mention. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, why are all these being nominated for deletion when clearly the only problem is they are underdeveloped? :( --candle•wicke 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Part of a series of nearly contentless articles made by Hilary T (talk · contribs). One would think that the fact that all of them have been prodded or AFDed would deter Ms. T. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Foreign relations of Croatia and Foreign relations of Uruguay because there's nothing in the article to distinguish it from the other 40,000 possible pairs of countries. Jwray (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Range Manibalism[edit]

This article fails the Notability Test. Its one source is IMDB, which isn't reliable, because it can be edited by its users. There's no reason why Wikipedia should have articles on Xavier episodes. Wikipedia is not the place for just plot. We need real-world information, which is impossible, since there's literally no credit sequence. Hence, Wikipedia has no place for it. The question isn't if this will be deleted, but when. TBone777 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow--who could even read that plot summary? Dear writer, that paragraph is too long. Merge whatever can be salvaged from this chunk of prose into List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes and leave a redirect. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect both to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. Simply plot summaries. Black Kite 18:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to episode list without merging the ridiculously long plot summaries. Graymornings_(talk) 12:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Street To Nowhere. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hauser[edit]

Doesn't seem to be notable outside the band. Hilary T (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band. His name still makes a plausible search term. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Street To Nowhere - although he doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines, his name is a plausible search term. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and please remember AFD is not a vote. MBisanz ^talk 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CompleteFTP Server[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dialectric (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contested PROD. Unreferenced article about an apparently non-notable product. Tagged as such for 2 weeks without improvement. Googling shows no signs of RS coverage, or much of anything else. See comments on talk page. DanielRigal (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, article lacks 3rd party references establishing notability. Dialectric
Delete, yet more software with no showing of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the 3 lists that CompleteFTP is listed in (Comparison of FTP server software, List of FTP server software, List of SFTP server software) would be completely useless if you remove all products considered non-notifiable - you'd be left with IIS, Filezilla and maybe one other product. Agreed, they aren't exhaustive lists, but removing any of the few products listed makes every reader less informed. In particular there are very few SFTP servers specifically for the Windows platform, and CompleteFTP does not appear any less notifiable than the others listed. Also its earlier incarnation as edtFTPD was widely used, and significant for being a Cygwin port of a Unix FTP server. Note I am the author of the article and one of the developers of the product. Bblackshaw (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I should also add that if you google "FTPS Windows", which is a pretty broad search in this area, CompleteFTP comes up in the first couple of results, which to me indicates it is a significant product. Bblackshaw (talk) 12:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that you shouldn't vote (i.e. say Keep or Delete) more than once. Of course, you can still make as many comments as you like. I have struck out your second keep, just to keep things straight. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As Bruce said, why keep lists of things if you're not going to allow people to add things to them? CompleteFTP is as notable as many of the other servers in the lists Bruce mentioned. FTP servers are not a sexy technology that people are likely to write articles about. Yet they are a very important part of the invisible plumbing of the Internet. Much more important, for example, than some groovy new social networking idea that gets heaps of press for a few months and then dies a quick death. I'm not saying the notability criteria are fundamentally flawed but surely they need to be applied judiciously and consistently (wrt other FTP servers) Hcaandersen (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be careful of falling into the WP:WAX trap. The fact that other non-notable articles exist is not a reason to keep this one. If you can spot other articles as poorly referenced as this one, and Google shows no RS coverage, then they are candidates for deletion too. That is how we should enforce the rules consistently.BTW: How do you know user:Bblackshaw as "Bruce"? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I just found this: [38]. You both work at EDT, who make the product we are discussing. I think you guys have a conflict of interest issue. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hey Daniel, I disclosed this in my earlier post where I said I was one of the developers - I wasn't trying to hide the affiliation. Does it invalidates the points though? Bblackshaw (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I appreciate that you made the disclosure. User:Hcaandersen did not and I thought it important that the connection between the two of you and with EDT was made explicit so that the closing admin can make an informed decision. It does not invalidate the points made, which is why I responded to those as well. I am not accusing either of you of acting in bad faith and I apologise if I gave that impression. You are using your real names and it would have been easy for you to disguise who you are if you had wanted to. I still think there is a potential COI. The thing about COI is that it isn't always done in bad faith. People just find it hard to be objective about the merits or notability of their own products. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With regards to the article itself, I think it is pretty neutral in nature - there's no marketing in there, just a basic history of the product. Bblackshaw (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that it is not intended as spam. It is the sort of description that one might legitimately submit for inclusion in a software directory. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a directory. I appreciate that this is not very obvious when somebody sees a list of products or companies with articles and thinks that theirs is equally worthy of inclusion. The "not a directory" thing is what I seem to end up explaining to people more than anything else and I do wonder if there was some way to prevent these misunderstandings before somebody goes to the trouble of making an article. Only last week I had to explain to my boss why it would not be appropriate for my employer to have an article here. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to point out that I'm using my real name as my user-name and I implied that I know Bruce, who has already disclosed his affiliation. The fact is that I saw the list on wikipedia and noticed that there are products from relatively obscure companies on there. You say that the existence of other articles is irrelevant, but surely existing articles give readers a strong indication of what's acceptable. And I think it's reasonable to expect that rules be applied consistently. By the way, what's "RS coverage"? Hcaandersen (talk) 01:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Sorry for using jargon. RS is a very common abbreviation for Reliable Sources. I should have linked it. BTW, I see that you never got the standard welcome message when you joined. This explains all this policy stuff so I have added it now. Also, thanks for confirming that it was a list article that got you started. I have a nagging suspicion that these are a cause of a lot of incidents like this. We have a policy that Wikipedia is not a directory but then we have list articles that look very much like directories to anybody unaware of the policy. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedied as a copyvio Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Mikita[edit]

These two articles relate to a fighting style and its "creator" and are very similar in content. Most references are self-published sources. Notability not established by credible independent sources. WWGB (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC). I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Delete both:, per nom... unless additional sources can be provided. Any print articles from newspapers? I'm only finding superficial references online that don't seem to add to an argument for notability. I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 11:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and delete Fightology as not notable. Crude attempt at creating notability by use of Wikipedia by editor with probable WP:COI and no previous interest in editing. --Boston (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for a speedy & blanked as a copyright violation of this page --Nate1481 13:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fightology is a copyvio of other parts of the site stitched together --Nate 14 81 13:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stick Cricket versions[edit]

Per WP:VG/GL - Game articles should not include exhaustive version histories, let alone stand-alone articles. Or, from a WP:N perspective, the version history is not a notable subject. Marasmusine (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable split article of a subject which seems to lack notability itself. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an article with no notability at all, with non-notable information QueenCake (talk) 17:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I would be tempted to say "merge", but after looking at some contribs and article history, I don't think there is anything verifiable here to merge; it's almost completely original research. MuZemike 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. As per WP:VGSCOPE, we don't need exhaustive lists of version histories. Randomran (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cleveland Heights, Ohio. MBisanz ^talk 04:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Court[edit]

Minor non-notable road whose only claim to fame appears to be that some people once painted some murals there. Note: subject to blanking by an IP who has also made legal threats, saying that he owns both houses in this road and the article is an invasion of privacy. I don't see this as relevant - it's simply not notable Black Kite 10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the town article. The attempts to save the neighbourhood are clearly relevant to the history of the town as proven by the local sources, though not enough can be said to support a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per MGM above. GlassCobra 12:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as noted. But if the same info is retained, beware the IP making the same complaint; so maybe some legal beagle could pre-empt that argument by finding out if there is any issue? For example, does posting a picture of that mural (wretched as it may be) violate the rules about "freedom of panorama" or whatever? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the town article. A minor mention of this would be appropriate. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per MGM's sound reasoning. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per MacGyverMagic. This seems like relevant history of the town in question, but we don't need a full article on the street. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A street with some local history; but rather poorly sourced. The campaign referred to in the article may deserve some mention in some article, perhaps the town article, if people think the subject is worth discussing there; but more and better sources are definitely needed. -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure glad I downloaded everything from that article before it disappears. That mural looks priceless. Like a Rembrandt. Well, maybe Rembrandt when he was 2 years old. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the sources that are cited and that I can find, including page 91 of ISBN 9780738533889, are actually discussing Coventry Village, giving this street a brief mention within a broader subject, Wikipedia should do the same. I therefore suggest a merger to that article, rather than to the town's article. Uncle G (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds like a good idea. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article and posted the photos. The article is purely of local interest and mostly a relic of the past. This street was the most eccentric neighborhood in an eccentric area of the Midwest (and, clearly, what is left of it continues to be). Some sign of that may be seen from the murals posted, and others we linked to through the article.

This Rock Court article is not notable as is the one for the Terminal Tower. The fact is that if an IP had not complained, no one would care, and I'm sure the admins have better uses of their time. There can be no "invasion of privacy" of any individual as there are no persons identified, and photos record images of inanimate objects (a street sign and the side of a building) in public view. If you surprise me and keep this a discrete article, I can fn, citing to local newspapers and newsletters of the time. Do what you think is best. Swinterich (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - 99.29.153.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked (again) for blanking the page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Note to self: The IP made an explicit legal threat to one user here [39] which led to his original block a few days ago. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threat I believe that I figured out who our complainer is. At one time, a litigant needed to ask for advance court permission to sue anyone on his own behalf as the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas declared him a vexatious litigator. That basically means a person who uses the court system to wage vendettas. Here is the link: [[40]]. Here is another link (note street address): [[41]]. Being banned from filing lawsuits without advance permission is extraordinary. No persons or private information are involved in the wiki article, and I am not concerned that anyone's rights are being trampled. There is no legal exposure for a lawsuit over anyone's wiki edit. (At least not from one guy in Ohio!)

I suggest that if you merge and redirect, consider doing so to Coventry Village, a closely-related article, by both geography and subject, rather than Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Swinterich (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding legal threats, wikipedia's rules are that (1) we try to avoid potentially libelous situations, of which there is no evidence in this article; and (2) anyone making legal threats can do what they want as regards a suit, but they are not allowed to edit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (G12) as a copyright violation. Mgm|^(talk) 12:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kelly (Irish Musician)[edit]

No sources to establish notability. As such, this fails WP:BAND. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - copyvio from here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the information currently in the article. Deb (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Structural load. The article was redirected by another user right before the AfD nomination — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of construction[edit]

Unreferenced; looks like a dictionary definition WP:NOTDIC; no WP:Reliable source Chzz ► 09:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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'. Only substantial contributor has requested deletion. Will redirect to noosphere as a fairly obvious target. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noösphere[edit]

Lacks reliable sources. The fact that the project's web site is down does not help with establishing notability. -- Dandv (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dandv (talk) 09:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am the article creator, and I expected this to become a healthy and productive open source project. (I was hoping to use it myself once it got more developed.) This seems by now (3 years later) not to have happened. Staecker (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SNOW keep. NAC. JulesH (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ukaan language[edit]

No references Chzz ► 09:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be stupid. ~~If you want refs, add them.~~ What am I talking about? It has references. kwami (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— [42][43] and the SIL link in the article. Enough evidence that the language exists. —SV 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, don't be ridiculous, if you simply deleted all unref'd pages, most of wikipedia would fall over. Put a refs needed tag there by all means but deleting it is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Really, there are other pages that need policing more that the language stubs. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SNOW. I've referenced it with SV's links. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Referenced well enough to show the language exists, which for small African languages is often the best we can hope for. Oh, and nominating an article for deletion 3 minutes after its creation - by a well-established Wikipedian and administrator, no less - is generally considered uncool. —An gr 20:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the deletion rationale is obviously invalid. Why are we having this conversation? Aleta ^Sing 04:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

« Why ? » ? Because of human Stupidity. This non-Discussion is CLOSED. --Budelberger (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC) (

).[reply]

Absolutely Keep - I don't understand the rationale for deleting this stub. Every language deserves its own stub at least. And if a language is cited in Ethnologue and has an ISO 639-3 designation it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia--whether we know a lot about it or not. If it is deleted from ISO 639-3 and Ethnologue, then we can delete it. Until then it exists and should be listed in Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 06:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 blatant misinformation and WP:SNOW — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chantalle[edit]

Slang term, delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —SV 08:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
08:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete - It fails all of Wp:DICDEF, Wp:NEOLOGISM, Wp:OR and Wp:N. Also, it was created by User:ChantalleSou, so there's Wp:COI issues and the possibility of Wp:NFT as well. (It was also Wp:PRODded and endorsed, and the same user deleted both.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per DitzyNizzy. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G3. Hoax/joke/nonsense. Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Guy (USMC)[edit]

Even if the content is correct, the subject does not merit an article. --Zundark (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per WP:DICDEF.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
08:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete, weakly, in its current state. The brief content ("That guy" was a term coined by the USMC for drill instructors to use. Used as a correspondence term, it is how drill instructors address one another and other recruits.) is rather confusing. If there was some kind of official directive requiring USMC drill instructors to confine themselves to "that guy" rather than more colorful language, this might be notable and verifiable, so any deletion should be without prejudice. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF and WP:N Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Drmies (talk) 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:DICDEF. I'm not sure this article is long enough to merit a stub either... Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverified DICDEF. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (G3) as blatant misinformation (I'm happy to provide a copy to someone who wishes to post this to Uncyclopedia.) Mgm|^(talk) 09:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killer penguins[edit]

Hoax. Last time I checked, penguins weren't natural predators of humans. Also, no hits on Eudyptus Nici as a legitimate type of penguin. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...yeah, they don't exist. CapitalSasha ~ talk 06:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an obvious hoax per nom. No Ghits for "Eudyptus Nici". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely a candidate for a trans-wiki to Uncyclopedia; this was pretty funny for a hoax. Nate • (chatter) 08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has a Wp:HOAX - They aren't natural predators of humans, and they don't live in the Arctic either. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Already deleted by User:Orangemike per WP:CSD#G1 — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Party Posse Broomball Club[edit]

Unremarkable sports club with no assertion of notability. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete no hope of being notable.--RadioFan (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, silly nonsense. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy delete--why is this even at AfD? Please, any passing admin, close this and delete this "silly nonsense," as Lankiveil put it so succinctly and correctly. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyPrompt[edit]

Could not find any reliable sources documenting why this program is in any way notable. Daniel J Simanek (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - entirely non-notable, violates WP:WEBHOST and WP:CRYSTALBALL as well. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per LinguistAtLarge. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete even. No sources, WP:CRYSTALBALL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandv (talk • contribs) 10:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete-Crap Yourname (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Unseen Bean[edit]

Pulled from the db-spam deletion queue. A difficult case that could use some discussion. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 03:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What's the nominator's argument in support of deletion? Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 06:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always happy to talk about the hows and whys, like how much of a rationale should be provided by the deleting (or in this case non-deleting) admin, feel free to discuss here or on my talk page. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: See this diff—someone other than Dank55 nominated it for speedy deletion as spam.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 07:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FYI, I was the speedy delete nominator. Reason then and now is primarily based upon the patently weak substantiation of notability based (so far) solely on twitter comments by Lance Armstrong, and some Yelp reviews of the place. My thoughts on the speedy nomination were "Hmmm... one short paragraph and a mention by Lance Armstrong on Twitter ... appears to be a simple Hey! We exist! entry ..." Mind you, sounds like the kind of place that I might check out as a rabid coffee afficionado, I just don't think that based on the entry's references that this rises to any level of notability for an encyclopedia entry. -Quartermaster (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "unseen+bean"+boulder&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en Google News turns up several news reports about the place. While some of them are local, there are several others as well. -- Mgm|^(talk) 14:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the articles references are in my opinion WP:SPS, and the article is written as spam; However, the article can be rewritten, and other sources can be found to establish notability, eg Reuters Blogs - BUT written by Reuters Staff, article by Alice Ashmore, ANCHORA writer, and CU Bboulder TV. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The central issue here ought to be whether the subject meets the standard for significant news coverage to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Let's look at those cited by the article and a few by AfD commenters here. The Armstrong tweets are a distraction and don't deserve serious treatment; let's ignore them. The Reuters blog coverage was a human interest piece tangential to their reportage on the DNC. (Had this seen broader exposure beyond a reporter's blog, it might meet the benchmark.) The Ashmore piece appears in a Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired newsletter; its target is a narrow, special-interest audience. And, not to belabor this, but the Yelp pieces are predominantly reviews accompanied by a brief human interest piece. Neither significance nor depth of news coverage are established; the article fails WP:COMPANY. Jim Ward (talk·stalk) 17:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I do not think regarding reviews accompanied by a brief human interest piece is a good reason to disregard references. I think regarding reviews with an opinion of their content as to what is notable, may lead to a pick and chose attitude, an opinion of the wiki editors as to what they think is important, regardless of the amount of coverage. I think what is meant by "Trivial or incidental" at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria refers to the amount of coverage, not the ~~quality~~ content of ~~this~~ the coverage. i.e. I think the following are trivial and incidental:[44][45][46] etc.. While the references may not be in depth coverage, multiple independent sources can be cited to establish notability. See also CU Bboulder TV, Denver Post (Denver, CO), Rocky Mountain News, Daily Camera, are in my view multiple independent sources establishing notability. Also I think blind and visually impaired are perhaps a niche audience, but they still count, and their independent publications can count as a good source. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC). Post Scriptum: the other news reference I found is Fox, but is not a valid reference as it is a press release. I agree with the Armstrong reference being no such thing. what next? The restaurant he has lunch in? The people he meets? Ludicrous. Amusingly, perhaps this is an unusual case of WP:NOTINHERITED.[reply]

Information. Searching Lexis-Nexis Academic for the phrase "unseen bean" for the last 10 years within Major US and World Publications, News Wire Services, TV and Radio Broadcast Transcripts, Company, and SEC Filings returns 12 hits.

1 hit: The Associated Press State & Local Wire, September 15, 2003, Monday, BC cycle. Blind businessman says his product, not his disability, attracts customers. 683 words. Only substantive article found.
1 hit: Company profile from Netvention (a directory entry)
1 hit: Global Broadcast Database indicates brief mention of "Unseen Bean" on local ABC news on December 27, 2006 (three duplicate entries re 5:00pm broadcast that day)
2 hits: Market Wire, August 14, 2008 mentions "Unseen Bean Coffee Company" supplying coffee in the blogger tent at the Democratic National Convention.
5 "false drops" (mostly mentions of "unseen Bean" referring to unseen episodes of "Mr. Bean."

Summary: In 10 years, only one piece specifically about the company and the individual running it. Other entries are only mentions (no details), directory entry, or false drops (search terms satisfied, but not about subject -Quartermaster (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: list of refrences so far:

Sources

Reuters Blogs - BUT written by Reuters Staff
article by Alice Ashmore, ANCHORA writer
CU Bboulder TV.
Denver Post (Denver, CO)
Rocky Mountain News
Daily Camera
The Associated Press State & Local Wire, September 15, 2003, Monday, BC cycle
ABC news on December 27, 2006 (three duplicate entries re 5:00pm broadcast that day)
mention in Market Wire, August 14, 2008.

other point, I do not think spam is a good reason to delete. Article seems notable, needs a clean up, not deletion. yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without any additional sources, this just manages to fail WP:ORG. The Twitter reference is not even worth discussing. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep: New information provides multiple instances of WP:RS. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I guess I should have done this at the beginning of the deletion discussion. The article has been rewritten from scratch and notability has been established per the general notability guideline via significant and exclusive coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references were not on the article at the time I added a delete ~~notice~~ vote. Thanks for the save. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, I just added them now. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are good enough for me. Neat topic. Zagalejo^^^ 07:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You, Editor:LinguistAtLarge, for the SAVE. The article deserves a keep. Overtime more can be extracted from the references. Unique is, or should be, a valid reson for inclusion in the Encyclopedia.--Buster7 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love & Peace (group)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Love & Peace (group)

I am somewhat skeptical that this band meets WP:BAND. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, Seems to meet criterea #6 of WP:MUSIC, perhaps a merge to and redirect to Hinoi_Team? It is likely that there are japanese reliable sources to assert notability, but finding them would be tough. Russeasby (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems pretty clearly to fail WP:MUSIC fuzzy510 (talk) 02:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters. MBisanz ^talk 04:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Hendrix[edit]

Extremely unnotable minor fictional character from Law & Order SVU; appeared in maybe five episodes. Fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Too minor for mentioning in character list; only needs listening in episode lists, which is already there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails WP:Plot and WP:N. Karanacs (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Law & Order SVU as plausible search term. -Atmoz (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing but plot summary with no encyclopedic content as required by WP:NOT: Wikipedia covers fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the development, reception, and significance of notable works. The subject of the article also fails WP:N as there are no reliable, independant sources that examine the specific character apart from the television series. Them From Space 21:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above~~, then redirect for search purposes.~~ G'day, Jack Merridew 11:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
struck suggested redirect; there are other hits on this name, such as http://www.rebeccahendrix.com/ — G'day, Jack Merridew 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Character not notable enough and this literally just a plot summary. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:A Nobody is attempting to "save" the article by merging it without discussion to List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, however considering the extremely minor nature of this character, such a merge is not appropriate as character lists do not include such characters. After it was reverted, he started a discussion, but did so at the talk page instead of just noting so here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but those "merges" are literally just name drops, so I left it. Ryan4314 (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we could merge all the characters that have articles on them to that list, that would be better than having individual articles. We just have to make sure the list itself is notable and has a substantial lead to show that. Them From Space 18:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some already, but Hendrix is too minor for even mentioning in the list. Some others, particularly Benson, Stabler, and Munch, are notable enough for standalone articles, but they need some serious work. (the OR...man the OR). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is part of a larger pattern of such disruption.
Note the following from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion, which is linked to from ((AfD));
- You should exercise extreme caution before merging any part of the article. If you are bold but the community ultimately decides to delete the content, all your mergers must be undone. (This is necessary in order to remain compliant with the requirements of GFDL). It is far better to wait until the discussion period is complete unless there is a strong case for merge under the deletion policy. This is not an issue, however, if the merged content is not merely copied and pasted, but instead completely rewritten so that only uncopyrightable facts are transferred, not copyrightable expression.
Nakal anak. G'day, Jack Merridew 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasons:

Enough information about the character to fill an article.
If you aren't interested in the article, you aren't likely to ever find it, unless you are specifically looking for things to delete(a rather horrible hobby to have).
There is no shortage of space on wikipedia, so no reason to delete something just because you don't like it. Some people will find the information interesting to read.
The notability guidelines are suggestions, not policy. You don't have to follow them, and shouldn't just use them as an excuse to delete something you don't like, for whatever reason.

Dream Focus 19:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is policy to delete something that doesn't fit in with the notability guidelines. See WP:DEL#REASON. Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to...Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline. Nobody said anything about not liking this material. We're just trying to build a better encyclopedia, and that includes enforcing our standards. Them From Space 20:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reason to delete, not a rule saying you have to delete. Just a reason to nominate something for deletion, or consider it for deletion. It all goes down to consensus, which means the opinions of whoever is around at the time to post their opinions. And you are trying to build what you consider a better encyclopedia, not what many people would consider better. Since there has never been an actual vote by wikipedia users, no one can say what most people would prefer it to become. Dream Focus 20:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think consensus is clear here that while they arent perfect, the notability guidelines are the best tool for the job of keeping Wikipedia a discriminate encyclopedia. I refer you to the recent RfCs on notability. Them From Space 20:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge about one or two paragraphs of this. There needs to be enough to identify her role, not tell the whole plot of each episode she was engaged in.,complete with detailed lines of dialog. Her role is not that important that it mattes exactly what she said to whom The problem is not a question of keep or delete. The problem is how much content is appropriate on a topic,with the secondary problem of where to put it. This content is too much. The GNG notability guidelines are useless for fiction characters, because they only deal with what is worth a separate article, which is not the problem here or in most fiction questions at AfD. This much would be wrong as a separate article or merged, & it doesnt make the least real difference which, it's a content question. Not having something would be equally wrong, In a sense, that's an afd question: since merge is considered a form of keep, the only justification for delete is if you think there should be no mention of her at all in Wikipedia. If there should, it would be a merge or a redirect, but not a delete. Does the nominator actually think there should be no mention? DGG (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the nominator does. 5 episodes out over over 200 is not worth mentioning in neither the main article nor the character list. Her appearances area already properly mentioned in the specific episode summaries. Nothing else to say. And no, deletion does not mean there should be no mention at all, it means she does not need her own article nor does her article need to be redirected anywhere. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect, as long as this article isn't kept. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT, the Reception section is extremely trivial, and there is nothing to merge (except excessive plot, where trimming needs longer than coming up with five original sentences to describe her plot arc). – sgeureka ^t•c 10:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is verifiable through multiple reliable sources as confirmed on Google News. Moreover, the subject is notable as she appears in five episodes in an award-winning television show on a major network (NBC) that has even appeared in the top 20 ratings lists for the week as confirmed in Entertainment Weekly. The character is played by an actress who is notable enough to have her own article as well. The article passes WP:NOT#PLOT by containing out of universe information including the name of the actress portraying the character and a section on critical reception that can be expanded further by use of the above cited Google News sources. Now alternately, we can merge the article as is being discussed elsewhere and as the nominator did without any discussion for several other characters for this show per WP:PRESERVE. This memorable (yes, I watch this show...) recurring character has appeared in several episodes across three seasons. Few characters have had so many appearances and few characters from this show are covered at all in multiple reviews/previews. We are not discussing some one-off weekly villain after all. As such, merging a sentence or two to a character list with a section of recurring characters would not only be harmless, but be a fair and reasonable compromise given that this article is neither a hoax, copy vio, nor libel. Rather it is something created in good faith and edited by multiple edited and viewed by hundreds more every month. If as indicated above, there are arguably more notable people with this name, then that is a call for a disambiguation page or a rewrite that focuses on whoever is most significant with this name, but not a call to redlink. If as the nominator suggests the subject is at least worst covering in the individual episode articles, then that two suggests there may be mergeable content or a reason to redirect, because obviously far more editors than who have commented in this AfD and far more readers as well find value in typing in "Rebecca Hendrix". As such, we should at least maintain a redirect to the series page, the list of characters, an episode page, etc., i.e. there are other more valid options to be considered per WP:BEFORE. It probably would have been best to have had the merge discussion first as well. Now, granted I find this article interesting and useful and believe it has room for expansion and as such should be kept and yeah per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world); however, I am willing to acede to a reasonable compromise that allows for a redirect with edit history intact. We should be able to meet at middle ground now, i.e. okay, some don't want separate articles, others don't want the content totally lost. It's a win-win for all of us to just in such instances meet at a half way point and we should be willing to do so to avoid perpetuating animosity in these fiction AfDs. And I think if we view that as the basis for a compromise, then we have a means to move forward. Now obviously not all fictional character articles should even be redirected and I'll agree in such cases as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tony_Cunningham_(Tony_&_Friends) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, but in this case we have List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, which is an obvious redirect location. We know people want to look for information on the character, some of us don't think we should have a separate article, but seriously, there's no real reason why not to redirect to the character list per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. And we should keep the edit history intact should anyone decide to make use of those pay-per-view Google News hits (having a basis to improve upon is a big help rather than starting over) and should this recurring character continue to have additional appearances that cause more sources (after all, the show is still running strong). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be cut down by 1/2 and ideally 2/3 if editors will read it. Remember Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read Ikip (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it would be redundant to add her biography to the 5 or 6 episodes she appears in. One biography linked to the episodes is much better. It meets requirements for both notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor fictional character with not a single reliable source about that fictional character? Why is this even a discussion?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it is a major recurring character verifiable through multiple reliable sources as confirmed on Google News that discuss the character... --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Rebecca Hendrix (played by whoever), a psychologist who specializes in victims of sexual assault..." slides right into the five episodes she appears in. The cited sources are press releases or offhand mentions; nearly none of the Google News hits are actually about this character. Redirect this wherever, I don't care, but there's nothing here to salvage except a ton of redundant plot info for a show we already cover in episode-by-episode detail. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did a little search for the character: Found Futon Critic 1, ProJo.com, The Record, Futon Critic 2, Inteligencer, and Corriere Canadese (French), among others. The character herself edges the plate for WP:GNG... and one biography on 6 different pages seems a bit clumsy. She is not only WP:Verifiable, she is so in numerous WP:RS that deal with her. A redirect does not serve the better good of Wikipedia, as it is not proper to delete sourced and encyclopedic material. A merge? Well, that can be discussed on the article's talk page as is recommended by WP:ATD and WP:AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot repetition for a non-notable character which hasn't received substantial coverage. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which as has been proven above is a false and dishonest claim as it is a notable character who has received substantial coverage. Please be honest in AfDs. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See the sourcing closer, it's just plot summary and TV.com which is far from reliable Delete or Merge, to list of characters just do not keep as an invidual article. Secret ^account 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge (not delete) content to some list of Law + Order characters. Female doctors are notable, was a central character for a short time. 3rd party sauces. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that much information can be copied over. They'll just widdle it down to a paragraph or less, and the rest of the information will be lost. Does anyone believe its possible to copy over ALL of the information to another article? Dream Focus 10:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do Secret ^account 13:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unnotable, minor fictional character. Eusebeus (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is actual a notable, major fictional character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in my view; now I suggest you stop, since you have already stretched my patience sorely by grossly abusing our WP:RTV policy. Eusebeus (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What in gods name does this have to do with whether Hendrix is a "unnotable, minor fictional character"? Ikip (talk) 17:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per A nobody and Dream Focus, notable and major fictional character. In addition, since many editors voting for delete have supported the deletion of nearly all character pages on wikipedia, the "unnotable, minor fictional character" sounds like just another common justification for the deletion of more character page work of editors. Ikip (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But couldn't much the same be said of editors such as yourself who have a long track record of nobly defending fictional content as important, encyclopedic and of immense value to readers to justify the retention of articles like this one? Eusebeus (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you see the same editors running around nominating hundreds of things for deletion in a year, because they don't like something. There use to be a tool to track that, but it was taken down. Some people always vote delete, because they don't like this sort of thing on the wikipedia, while others want to keep it, because there is no reason to delete it. We aren't running out of space, and it isn't hurting anyway. Dream Focus 18:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It doesn't matter how much space we have, it matters whether the article meets existing WP guidelines and policies. Those are the arguments we should be having, not complaints of "but you always vote this way". Karanacs (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank You Eusebeus, your flattering characterization of me is accurate, is mine of some of the editors here, at least yourself? WP:KETTLE: I don't think it is hypocritical at all to point out how the majority of some editors time on wikipedia is spent trying to delete other editors contributions while I attempt to save those contributions, I see the two goals as mutually exclusive, and starkly different. Ikip (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD has been mentioned on Law & Order SVU, Law and Order, List of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit characters, and List of Law & Order characters Ikip (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on the Google News hits that have been repeatedly mentioned here. I checked them - of the 9 hits, most are vague references to the character in plot summaries of episodes; two simply mention the character name when discussing the actress (and one of those is a press release). There is no real-world information about the character. I'm not seeing any hint of notability whatsoever. Karanacs (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you didn't find more information, because when you try different search combinations like "Mary Stuart Masterson" and "Law & Order" you get even more results that provide real world information about this obviously notable character, which is why the article has sections on development and reception and with a little effort can expand these sections further. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the pretty much the same sources I saw. They do not provide significant real-world coverage of the character beyond a plot description. The rest belongs more properly in the article on the actress (that she is "best known" for this role) or is trivia. Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do provide significant real-world coverage of the character beyond a plot description, which is why the article has sections on development and reception. But anyway, saying it should be covered elsewhere is a reason to merge and redirect, but not to redlink. And given that an effort is being undertaken to construct character and episode lists for the series in general, the wisest move would be to lave the edit history available for these potential merge efforts. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those sections are each one sentence long and likely cannot be expanded any further. That does not equal "significant" coverage by any stretch of the imagination whatsoever. For "significant" coverage, there must be an actual discussion of the character beyond a plot summary or a mention in passing. Karanacs (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are significant enough for our purposes, because they go beyond plot summary to comment on the character. I only used the sources that were not PPV and subscription based. Most are the pay ones and as such there is a very good chance the article can indeed be expanded further, but even then, there is still absolutely no valid reason why we would not merge and redirect in the extreme worse case scenario as we have something to gain from doing that whereas redlinking actually causes us to lose something. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the pay sites; nothing useful there. Please see the WP:GNG definition of significant. That is the sense in which I am using the word and does not appear to be the way you are. I believe that what you have found is essentially trivial (the role is mentioned in passing). Karanacs (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then WP:IAR as deleting the article hinders our efforts to imporve Wikipedia as we need this article for the merger efforts with regards to the list of characters and episode articles. The article actually passes the WP:GNG because it is multiple mentions in multiple reliable sources and by simple common sense logic, i.e. played by a major actress in a major show across three seasons. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, a major actress in a brief guest role in five episodes out over over 200 (and seriously, most of the time she only appeared for 2-5 minutes with a minor handful of lines). Deleting this does not hinder any merger efforts as it doesn't belong in the character list either, and is already covered in the episode list so nothing to merge. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, a major actress in a major recurring role that caught the attention of reviewers in multiple news sources. Deleting this accomplishes nothing of value and no, she is not already covered adequately in the episode and character lists, which is why we can merge from here, but in any event, we absolutely don't redlink articles that have a valid redirect location. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable subject. Article is entirely WP:PLOT except for two sourced items about Mary Stuart Masterson, one of which (under Development and production) might be good to add to that article since getting on Law & Order was (as I read in that article) considered a big break for her. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: There's no denying that since nomination, the article has expanded to include out of universe sections cited in reliable sources. Now, despite the bold text above, we have calls to merge the newly sourced information to Mary Stuart Masterson per [47], to redirect to somewhere per [48], to mention in the episode list per [49], etc. Now per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, we cannot delete the edit history to decide on where best to merge and redirect to and in fact, it actually looks like we have several possibilities here. It is clear that there is no consensus for outright deletion as again half of the bolded deletes seem okay with redirecting and even merging and the ones that just say "entirely plot summary" are no longer accurate given the improvements. So, instead of needlessly escalating tensions, let's all just compromise on the middle ground and decide how best to merge and redirect. No need letting this discussion turn ugly as that way we all gain something. Those who don't want a separate article, we won't have one. Those who want it used somehow per [{WP:PRESERVE]] have that as well. We can merge the sourced information to the actress article per the above suggestion, see what we can do with the episode list and character list in the talk page merge discussions for which there's no rush. We should be able to see that we have a benefit from compromising here and that it should make everyone happy. After all, our goals are not to "win" arguments, but rather to do what's best for the project and milking this article for what we can should be a fair and reasonable way to satisfy everyone. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability problem seems to have been resolved per Schmidt's entry. A general reminder to all: AFD is not a vote, off-hand remarks without anything but copypasta one liners should be ignored by the closing admin. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9691 Zwaan[edit]

Very short article that contains no information about the subject other than its name. No context and no references. Azviz (talk) 03:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a stub for an asteroid; if I'm not mistaken, these are pretty much automatically notable. The context is the asteroid belt, I imagine, and that should be enough--blanks will need to be filled in, but that's not what AfD is for. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

your comments say it all: "if I'm not mistaken" and "I imagine". The reader would not need to be/not be mistake, and would not need to imagine if this article contained references. Wikipedia articles NEED references. If references are not included the article is useless and should be deleted until an editor is ready to write more that an unreferenced titled.Azviz (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my comment does say it all. The context of the asteroid belt (you didn't get the joke) is notable enough. It's an asteroid, so it's notable. Period. Besides, it was referenced--you seem not to have noticed that there was a link in the article to the database of the R&D center Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and if you think that that kind of reference is not reliable, then, well, you're in the wrong place.

Delete No indications of notability. Only 1 source (which is just NASA's entry on it, so that is a trivial mention at best). No context. It doesn't even has basic info like when it was discovered. TJ Spyke 04:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Just NASA's entry"? That's not enough? Surely you know what NASA is. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Referencing the article and adding the date of discovery and who discovered it was actually quite trivial. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the editor who deproded the article should have added the date of discovery and who discovered it. Azviz (talk) 05:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Either way, I did it. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding is a simply matter of acknowledging that the proposed deletion is not uncontroversial. Perhaps the editor who prodded it and put it up for AFD should have followed WP:BEFORE. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG with at least three reliable sources of information in there. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets general notability guideline (now). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable and sourced. Nomination made in bad faith by brand new account harassing editors his previous account had run ins with, as part of a string of other such edits, as noted on other AFDs and sockpuppet report and strongly suggested in account's own user page. Need a good blocking. DreamGuy (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right on. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable. -Atmoz (talk) 19:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This should be a given. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question At what point does WP:SNOW come into effect? --BlueSquadronRaven 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with haste as sourced and notable. With no disrespect to the nominator, such stubs are acceptable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (G3) (blatant misinformation, vandalism) Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chazzin[edit]

Contested prod. Article is a neologism and a crystal-ball exercise, among other things. TN X Man 03:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Article does not assert notability. -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I almost speedied it as G3 Vandalism, but given the article's edit history, I suppose we should get some consensus here. This is plain old vandalism, blatant misinformation, non-notable neologism, something made up in one day, etc-- "The word chazzin will soon be added into the web site www.onlinedictionary.com and www.urbandictionary.com. This will be a commanly (sic) used word". — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Neologism. Let's not waste any more time on this. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Live from London - David Gray[edit]

Declining db-spam deletion, taking to AfD; none of the 34 ghits (for "Live from London EP" david gray) suggest notability for this "online only" album, but I can't speedy delete for that. 'Officially released" albums of notable musicians are often presumed notable regardless of ghits ... but was this an "officially released album" per WP:MUSIC? - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 02:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Welcome to the new order in the music industry, I guess. I think if an album or EP has only been released on iTunes, it still counts as an official release even if it's not available in any other format. But I admit I'm not sure if there's a precedent on this, which is why I'm not saying keep. ObtuseAngle (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. While I agree with ObtuseAngle here, and maybe the WP:Music guideline needs to be tickled up to mention the new ways of releasing albums now, the article still fails the good old significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage for a non-notable release. JamesBurns (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability, looks like an A7 to me. delete. Releasing your own music on the internet is not a sign of notability, just a sign that you have a web host. Chillum 15:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if it were a physical release, it hasn't charted and there isn't enough media coverage to justify its own article. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Welch[edit]

This pseudoscience article should be deleted because it has no reliable sources, and no reliable sources exist as far as I can tell. Looie496 (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (I had listed it as spam for speedy). Pseudoscience, promotional, original research, and no independent references. No evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 02:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I removed the speedy tag, i notified the author to add some references. DGG (talk) 03:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Real scientists have references galore. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially an advert for a fringe science-based training course without reliable third party references. Anaxial (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graf Orlock (band)[edit]

Contested speedy. Band with unclear notability. Sources could be interpreted as providing trivial or unreliable verification. Produced several albums, but label is not major and it is unclear if the label could be considered an important indie label. Is Decibel magazine's top 40 a national music chart? -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Decibel magazine's top 40 is just the magazine's top chart, not national. Level Plane Records is an independent label which from looking at number five WP:BAND seems to fit it's criteria to be important; formed and still active since 1997 and has notable artists from the talk page (Envy, Racebannon, Melt-Banana) and has featured releases from others like Hewhocorrupts and Aiden Baker's Nadja project. But maybe the issue is that's it's not notable enough to help pass number five. The Phantomnaut (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1 for multiple album reviews and or mentions; Punknews.org [50], [51], Decibel (magazine); [52], [53], PopMatters; [54] and others [55], [56], [57]. Level Plane isn't a notable record label, at least by Wikipedia's standards, and I've tagged it as such. While it may have some notable, i.e. bluelink, bands, notability is not inherited. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing coverage in 3rd party reliable sources to pass WP:MUSIC#C1. Decibel is a reliable source but the others are forums and blogs which dont pass WP:RS.--RadioFan (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. A blog is a type of formatting - a way in which someone chooses to distribute content. Please judge publications on their editors and editorial judgement rather than their website layout. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nonsense about blog sources automatically being unreliable is poison, and has no basis in policy or guidelines. riffic (talk) 10:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment self published sources such as blogs are not generally considered reliable. See WP:SPS. The only exception to this is self published material from a recognized expert who also is published in reliable 3rd publications. An example would be a blog maintained by a newspaper columnist or one of the news networks blogs. These dont appear to fall into that category.--RadioFan (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Popmatters review also appears to qualify as an RS, unless someone can persuade me otherwise. Nerfari (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was wrong section. Categories go in WP:CfD; take it there. Tavix : Chat 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs written by Darrell Scott[edit]

If he only has one song, why is it on Wikipedia? gordonrox24 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just created it. I don't know why. I don't even know about the guy myself, just the one song. So go ahead and delete it, it doesn't matter to me anyway. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Category deletion nominations normally go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. However, in this case, ((db-author)) seems appropriate given Ryanbstevens' comment, so I have tagged it as such. cab (talk) 01:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Richardson[edit]

Minor league baseball player who has only made it to AA level. Good faith gsearch and gnews search only coming up with passing mentions and stat pages in the independent reliable sources. So notability will come down to whether AA is "fully professional", as required by WP:ATHLETE. (The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says not, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, other minor leaguers are typically deleted for the reasons presented by the nom and by Kelapstick; why treat him any differently? Nyttend (talk) 14:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and reasoning of Kelapstick. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's been fluctuating in and out of AA, I don't see him making it to the majors. Wizardman 00:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He passes WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia is not paper, he has about 200 "mentions" (not sure what they all are) in Google news under ""Juan Richardson" +baseball". I'm sure there must be sources in spanish somewhere as well as this guy is from the Dominican Republic. Borgarde (talk) 08:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league players often get a lot Gnews hits because of brief mentions in articles about individual games or minor league teams. If you can demonstrate that a couple of those articles provide signitificant, in-depth coverage of this guy, I'd be willing to change my vote to "keep." BRMo (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through a random sampling of these gnews hits before nominating this one. Typical of the hits is this ESPN hit: "November 21, 2002 Purchased the contracts of pitchers Ryan Madson, Franklin Perez and Jeremy Wedel, third basemen Juan Richardson and Chase Utley." The line before and after are about different transactions, so I call this a passing mention. Same for this one from Our Sports Central: "Juan Richardson followed with a double to put runners at second and third."... "The Naturals added the go-ahead run in the fifth, when Juan Richardson hit a bomb to left." These two sentences are the sum total about Richardson in the article. Again, I see this as a passing mention.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was my understanding that minor league all-stars were notable per compromises made this past year. Those of us who feel that all minor league players are notable per WP:ATHLETE agreed to back off when those who feel that the minor leagues are beneath their lofty WikiProject agreed to allow minor league all-stars. If these compromises are no longer in place I see no reason why I and others shouldn't start adding dozens of new minor league articles each and every day. Kinston eagle (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. I think you may be misremembering last year's discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines, which reached a consensus (reflected in the revised notability guidelines) that notability for minor league players should be based on significant coverage in reliable sources (that is, Wikipedia's general notability guideline). If you disagree with this criterion, you're of course welcome to reopen the discussion there. BRMo (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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)} 12:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Gottesman[edit]

Finishing nomination procedure started by User:DreamGuy. Unsure of reason for nomination. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete maybe even snowball, no google hits to speak of. Although it throws up quite a few for Ann Gottesman, alawyer,maybe we should be including her? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete self-published author, books not even in worldCat. DGG (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or even snowball. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supastition[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Could not find reliable sources to establish notability. (sources found were local or only contained passing mention). AMG's entry is nearly blank. best album did not chart. tedder (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note nothing has changed since the previous AFD. If an admin wants to close this, go ahead- I didn't see that one. tedder (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of 3rd party coverage if you look for it. [58] [59] [60] JulesH (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reposting my comment from the last nom just in case: This supastition.com graphic displays multiple non-trivial mentions, there's no good reason to doubt it, the "Chairman's Choice" piece is from XXL, October 2005. This is by no means exhaustive: here's another piece in Stylus, here allmusic, and so on. 86.44.20.2 (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable given the Jive, Stylus and Allmusic coverage.--Michig (talk) 08:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sowelu. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SWEET BRIDGE[edit]

Non-notable album. Google returns very few hits, most of those are from CD selling sites. Fails WP:N. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searched through the first 100 or so Google hits - no reviews or reliable references - some promo stuff about one of the songs being on a Nescafe ad, and hey it did reach number 5 in Japan. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a verifiable reference from a reliable source can be found showing its chart success. Without that, fails WP:NSONGS/WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with caveats These sources: [61] [62] [63] [64] appear at first glance to be reliable and to cover this album in depth. Unfortunately I cannot read Japanese so am not 100% certain about their content, but my opinion is we should assume they are reliable and relevant unless a Japanese speaker tells us they aren't. JulesH (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't read Japanese but I can tell that none of it is in-depth coverage. With the help of Google I can see that the first and the second (both from the same site) appear to be announcements that there will be video content of the singer on her own website. The third is a pretty short interview with the singer about the album (although brief, this one would pass for coverage, I think). The fourth looks like it's just a site to drive traffic to Amazon (it's just a track list, customer reviews and it all links to amazon.co.jp).
Merge to Sowelu. WP:ALBUM would actually let this exist as a standalone if we could do anything beyond a tracklisting. The hits listed aren't enough to establish this as a separate article, and I don't see anything helpful. However, Sowelu is a notable artist, so it wouldn't appropriate to delete the album outright. N.B. I see that she also has a discography article, that also works as a merge target. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Weak consensus to merge but no consensus for a target (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Beach bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major and notable bike route. Even if it wasnt' independently notable it could be merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I think there may not really be independent notability here, and a merge with the other bike trails may be a better way to deal with these articles. 05:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Is the very in-depth subject of reliable independent sources. [65][66]--Oakshade (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ChildofM, if you can save this, go ahead--I couldn't find anything that suggested notability, but I'm willing to be directed. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and my googling suggests that there isn't even a unique trail with this name, but rather several Long beach bicycle trails. Looie496 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a 4 mile bike path that runs along the beach where Long Beach meets the Pacific Ocean. I would say it's notable, but indeed there isn't a lot of news coverage of it. Seems a pity to lose it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A 4-mile bike path along the ocean is definitely notable in my opinion, assuming it's paved, but I'm surprised not to find more coverage. Here in the Bay Area I have no trouble finding net descriptions of bike paths that are a lot less interesting. Looie496 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange indeed. Here's a video of it if that helps [67]. LA, and Long Beach in particular, isn't S.F. I guess. Sad to think there's such a substantial amenity and it doesn't get covered more. It also points out the limitations of google news searches. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any worthy content to an article about the place where it is per WP:LOCAL, or if there's a general outdoor-recreation or similar article for that region. One sentence in Long Beach, California and/or a sentence or two in Belmont Shore, Long Beach, California stating that this trail is a popular ped/bike/whatever path would cover it. I agree with nom and others that the content that is there is mostly not up to encyc standards, so there's not really anything much to merge beyond facts of its existence. Doesn't seem notable and doesn't seem likely to become notable or be able to be expanded into an actual article. DMacks (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travon Patterson[edit]

College football player that doesnt meet WP:Athlete Yankees10 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly notable yet. Delete, but restore if he becomes an established starter, or gets some significant NFL notice. I'll always have the photo ready to go. --Bobak (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bobak. Not notable as of now so doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, but if he ever plays professionally, then definetely recreate.--Giants27 ^T/C 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 ^T/C 22:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say speedily. No indication of notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE yet, and the article can be restored if he ever plays a top level game. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete slowly Doesn't pass the A7 guidelines, but clearly doesn't pass the notability standards either. Nyttend (talk) 14:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Clarification -- It has been recognized that a college football player does not need to play in the NFL to meet the notability requirements. College football isn't like baseball, basketball, soccer or hockey in that it has no minor leagues (and it much larger than CFL or Arena). Using any non-NFL league (like CFL or Arena) as an analogue is flawed. With high school players required to wait three years before they can enter the NFL, a rule only recently lightly emulated with the NBA's one year rule, the current state of WP:Athlete is flawed for a sport that has no Olympics --There is an American Football World Cup, but nobody major plays in it because of the restrictions on professionals. Just compare the revenues: The 44 schools from BCS conferences that played in a bowl game in 2007 had combined revenue of $1.3 billion.^[1], Bundesliga, had 2006–07 revenues of €1.3 billion ($1.7 billion).^[2], UK's Championship league 2005–06 revenues were £318 million ($470 million) (an average of £13 million ($20 million) per club)^[3], and the Euroleague basketball organization has a combined annual revenue of less than $100 million.^[4] Should we then assume no one starting in those leagues are as relevant? Of course not. --Bobak (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Patterson passes WP:ATHLETE: highest amateur level of a sport. NCAA Division I football is the highest-level of amateur American football. Grsz¹¹ 19:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's snowing people. Mgm|^(talk) 09:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 3 walkthrough[edit]

Contested prod; Wikipedia is not a game guide. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Transwiki &~~ Delete ~~to Fallout wikia],~~ per WP:GAMEGUIDE. MLauba (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MLauba (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a textbook example of violating WP:GAMEGUIDE. Also unsourced, no indications of notability. TJ Spyke 00:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki and delete per MLauba and WP:SNOW. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can see, there is nothing worth transwiking. What little content this article has is total crap and the Fallout Wikia already has detailed guides for the game. TJ Spyke 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant game-guide content, and so little of it that it's not worth moving elsewhere. (This "walkthrough" describes perhaps the first 5 to 10 minutes of a game that's easily over 40 hours in length.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's a gameguide, and Wikipedia doesn't "do" those. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rīga-Herson-Astrakhan[edit]

Delete

Lack of notability. According to the referenced source, a relatively short notice dated 2009.03.27 at the Dienas Business internet portal (db.lv), the company was only registered this week with a founding capital of 700,000 Latvian lats.
The project lacks legal status in the countries mentioned: "Tiesa, biedrībai ir jācenšas panākt atbalsts referendumā, lai šādu projektu virzītu. Pie tam, ne vien Latvijā, bet arī Ukrainā, Krievijā un Baltkrievijā. Tā ir viens no daudzajiem iemesliem, kas liek nozares ekspertiem skatīties uz šo projektu ar neticību." Translation: "For certain, the company must work hard for (governmental) referendum support, to bring this project on track. Furthermore, not only in Latvia, but also in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus. This is one of many reasons, that makes experts within the field look at this project in disbelief."

^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.

Delete It lacks indepth coverage from sources not related to the subject. In short, it lacks notability as per nom. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This project is not started yet. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.DonaldDuck (talk) 09:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacking independent WP:RS, and to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. If/when it actually gets built, it would probably be notable. Rd232 ^talk 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Soft Drugs. MBisanz ^talk 00:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Murray (rock musician)[edit]

Very little content, dodgy notability - at most should be incorporated into The Soft Drugs article, at least until more information is available. Colds7ream (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to The Soft Drugs. If the info on him is expanded with reliable soruces on notable stuff, then he can be unmerged as necessary. As it stands, it fails WP:MUSICBIO. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail WP:MUSICBIO. It satisfied criteria #1 with multiple reliable sources. It does not pass by a lot, but it satisfies the standard. That is the measure. Beyond that we are in to each individual's belief of how many standards should be met and to what degree, but that defeats the point of having standards. It meets the standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstevens479 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged with The Soft Drugs - I've tried to find more info on the net to provide more references, but there's just nothing out there. On the point of reliable sourced references, one of the links is to a foreign-language website, is this appropriate for english language wikipedia? (Fair enough if thats OK, I'm not sure though). For such a small article, it'd be better served with a merge, then if/when the subject becomes more notable, or more sources found, then it can be unmerged.... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is, it really doesn't have much to do with the Soft Drugs. Yes, he was in the final lineup, and that is an interesting connection. But his music does not belong under a Soft Drugs umbrella. His discography both precedes and exceeds the life of the Soft Drugs. As far as the foreign language review, I haven't seen anything suggesting that language of a source is a factor to be considered.

Hmmm, but it should at least say in the references that the reference isn't in english? Especially considering it's one of only two references. And if he doesn't have much to do with Soft Drugs, then it might just mean that he isn't notable enough. A four year stint in a pub doesn't make anyone notable I'm afraid Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. He has a lot to do with the Soft Drugs. But his career outside of the Soft Drugs is longer and more prolific, though it can be agreed it has achieved less notoriety. I'm fine with noting that the reference is in Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackstevens479 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and start a merge discussion on the talk page. Per WP:PRESERVE the information on this page should not be deleted; the question of where it is best to present it can be decided without an AFD discussion. JulesH (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 CD reviews does not meet WP:MUSIC. Nothing worth merging in Soft Drugs, which is of dubious notability itself. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Better Place (David Campbell Album)[edit]

Unsourced article for a non-notable, unreleased album (article's title also formatted wrong). - eo (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable;". Nsaa (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:22, 30 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 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Tavix : Chat 02:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NALBUMS. Can't even locate it at Allmusic.com, and they cover everything. Untick (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox Festival[edit]

This article is about a festival that has yet to take place. A search for coverage about the festival turns up a couple of mentions [68], [69] but those are just mentions. There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish this festival's notability. Whpq (talk) 12:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant reliable information seems to be available. At the present, this is perhaps a G11 speedy for promotional. DGG (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I am not sure if this is the appropriate place to put the discussion of this page's deletion or not but it appears from the above text that it is.

Although the Equinox Festival has yet to take place it has generated a great deal of both major press publication and public online discussion. Forums such as Lashtal, Brainwashed, AllAboutJazz, Fortean Times, and many other have long, very extended reviews and discussions about the artists involved in the upcoming Equinox Festival. It has been previewed in Jazzwise magazine, Wire magazine, the Guardian, Time Out London, Strange Attractor, Decider, Evolver, Reality Sandwich and many others. Even a cursory google search indicates a massive amount of public awareness to the festival.

Not sure why the page was deleted. Even as of the deletion date a google search revealed hundreds of websites listing discussions and previews of the festival. Several UK based print magazines have run articles on the festival, as well as the London cities Camden Council site that sponsors the festival. How much more coverave is needed to make the festival "notable"?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.191.253 (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saifullah Khan[edit]

I can't find any evidence of notability or even existence. I stumbled onto this article from Qilla Saifullah District which was mainly about him (and the common spelling is Quila with one 'l'), and have found that his 'biography' is the main content of several articles eg Mirdadzai, Qilla Saifullah and possibly others. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless WP:RS are provided before end of AFD period. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anonymous (group). MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Anonymous[edit]

Organisation that has not been mentioned in reliable 3-rd party sources. Does not seem notable enough for inclusion. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No notable sources found, so I have to say Delete. Thanks, Genius 101^Guestbook 20:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Anonymous (group). I cannot justify a stand-alone article, for lack of notability and verification in reliable sources. Perhaps a mention in Anonymous (group) is appropriate. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Perhaps redirect it to the parent organization. Them From Space 00:29, 30 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 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per LinguistAtLarge. tedder (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No merge, no redirect. No third party coverage, no notability whatsoever, either on its own or in relation to parent organisation. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Let relevant Editors decide what to keep and what to toss. Relevant Editors would know where to acquire sourcing better that us. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roses (Kanye West song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A non-notable song - no charts, no covers, no awards. JamesBurns (talk) 09:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reason above --Darth NormaN (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NSONGS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete G4. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is just a song, no substantial coverage nor a single. Tavix : Chat 02:22, 3 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" 02:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Poulin[edit]

The subject of this article does not meet the notability criteria of WP:BIO. To the extent that he is at all known, he is known only for having submitted a complaint to the Canadian military ombudsman in the 1990s, and for subsequently being able to garner a small amount of media interest in the (later determined to be groundless) accusations he made. His subsequent political career is limited to some participation as a councilor at the municipal level, and one unsuccessful bid for election to the provincial legislature. The article is written as a self-aggrandizing resume of sorts; when stripped of "fluff", nothing of significance per WP:BIO remains. Geoff NoNick (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability is pretty marginal; the whiffs of WP:BLP1E re the 1998 incident are enough to suggest deletion. Rd232 ^talk 15:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Cuts[edit]

Article about an album, not sure it is notable? Google comes up with practically no relevant hits. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only ghits are eBay, Amazon and the like, no significant coverage no RS LetsdrinkTea 02:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not a notable compilation, per WP:MUSIC broadly read. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Article possibly plagiarized as well. Doesn't appear to have been written from scratch.Bildstit (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Striking out !vote of a sockpuppet of a banned editor. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As unremarkable album, per WP:MUSIC#Albums. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, non-charting compilation album that does not even have a listing on allmusic.com. Untick (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sepulveda Dam. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sepulveda Dam bicycle path[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge Worth including in the encyclopedia. Might be appropriate to merge to a bike paths of LA or So Cal. type article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sepulveda Dam. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:58, 30 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 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sepulveda Dam to put it in context (provided someone drops in some references; there is no evidence the episode listed in the refs covers this topic or is even available to check for other editors and the link doesn't help either). - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haunted Tonk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article fails the Notability Test. Its one source is IMDB, which isn't reliable, because it can be edited by its users. The article even admits it. There's no reason why Wikipedia should have articles on Xavier episodes. Te question isn't if this will be deleted, but when. TBone777 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes as a plausible search term (and merge a properly sourced summary for the episode if possible). In general, it is a bad idea to have an episode article if nothing more can be said about it besides its plot and general details. For a good episode article you also need info about production and reception which don't seem to be verifiable. IMDB is not unreliable because users can edit it. Last time I tried to submit something, they had an editorial team with standards. Unfortunately, they're fallible and get it wrong quite often; that's why the site is not reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes per WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:N (not surprising for a newly aired episode per Google News/Books/Scholar, but even the pilot episode's article doesn't establish any notability). – sgeureka ^t•c 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "plot and general details" are important because they are intricate and difficult to catch when watching the episodes (which are in themselves rare and hard to catch). Production and reception sections will always come later, when the details actually have time to surface. If this article gets deleted, another will take its place in the future and you all will have forgotten about this. I hope. Anexperimat (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, they're not important. There's no plot; there's no story. There's a reason the episodes are rare; it won't make it past 20 episodes. If there was any notable reception, it would be negative. Citing production is impossible with Xavier because, not only is the only site that even talks about it IMDB, there's literally no credit sequence. There aren't full episode guides for Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Space Ghost: Coast To Coast, Harvey Birdman: Attorney At Law, Drawn Together, Death Note, Home Movies, or Robot Chicken. What makes Xavier better than them? At lest those shows actually make sense. Once this gets deleted, no one will be stupid enough to make full episode pages for Xavier. If no reliable Sources can be cited, Wikipedia has no place for it. That's their official policy; take it up with the Administrators (who obviously don't know that this Debate is going on, as they would delete all of the episodes in a heartbeat). I'm surprised we even have to have this Debate. There's nothing "intricate" about Xavier; it's on drugs, racist, & retarded, and Wikipedia has no room for it.70.169.147.233 (talk) 07:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually List_of_Aqua_Teen_Hunger_Force_episodes does list some of its episodes have their own page. Not that its relevant. With articles dedicated to episodes of a series, it doesn't matter if it has any references or not. If there are enough fans around to protest, it doesn't get deleted, otherwise it usually doesn't have a chance. There is no shortage of room on wikipedia, so no reason not to have an episode page for every single episode of all notable series. What are the ratings for this series though? Does anyone actually watch it? Dream Focus 10:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, even with enough fans, articles get deleted. Although there are some articles for Aqua Teen Hunger Force, they're hard to find & not linked to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. Wikipedia says that it won't accept any article for an episode without real-world information. The extremely low ratings for Xavier are unknown; Adult Swim only publisches them for Saturday & Sunday.TBone777 (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as plausible search term for series. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete non notable, unsourced, fan-cruft. No reliable sources means no encyclopedia article. It's also an awful piece of writing on its own.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the episode list, fails WP:N by itself. RenegadeMonster (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Redirect: This is just plot. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect, it has been said already. --candle•wicke 23:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cashmere Agency[edit]

Non notable company, page appears to be spam Jezhotwells (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam by a COI editor, see their talk page LetsdrinkTea 02:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another non-notable PR/marketing company trying to use Wikipedia to promote themselves. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It obviously needs some editing to get rid of less than stellar language, but so far everyone has ignored the references. One is a passing mention to establish a fact, one is not dependent. The rest appears to be fully reliable and meeting WP:GNG. Also, articles shouldn't be deleted based on who created them. They should be judged on their own merit or lack thereof. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To the extent that this non-consumer publicity business has been mentioned in reliable sources, all of them stem from its relationship with the pop star Snoop Dogg, without which they would have received no mainstream attention. And notability is not inherited. At least, a publicity firm needs more going for it than a relationship with a pop star to overcome the odor of spam caused by conflict of interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 California Aqueduct with no prejudice against keeping if sourced and notability can be established (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Aqueduct bikeway[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Aqueduct. As far as I can tell, this is quite simply no longer a bike path, due to post-9/11 concerns about the security of the water supply. If merged (or deleted, which I would oppose per WP:PRESERVE) seems to me it should be pulled from the LA bike paths template, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Aqueduct. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:57, 30 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 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since it is notable. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to California Aqueduct. There's not enough information to support a separate article, but a previously existing bikeway that was the longest in the area clearly needs to be covered for historic purposes. Drmies' search prove it's verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TNSTC Quarters, Kanchipuram[edit]

Doesn't seem notable. According to the Wikimapia link provided, it looks like a tiny village. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 10:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable residential quarters. Salih (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like what would be called a subdivision in a developed country. A village by itself is notable, but not little neighborhoods. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bolsa Chica State Beach. It's already been done so let's close it that way (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsa Chica bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to be as independently notable as some other of the other trails now Afd'ed. Merge to Bolsa Chica State Beach if no RS can be found. Under no circumstances should it simply be deleted, IMO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to Bolsa Chica State Beach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:56, 30 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 00:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not independently notable. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved? I boldly merged and redirected. I believe this satisfies all concerned? I hope so anyway. Have a nice day... ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same to you! Drmies (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete, merging would make sense in this case but there's no consensus for a merge target (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Los Angeles Veloway[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to broader article on bike paths. SOme notability for this trail and it's worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West_Los_Angeles,_Los_Angeles,_California#Geography_and_transportation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a combinationa article on these trails. Best solution, in practice.DGG (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this track seems notable enough. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lario bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this should be a candidate for speedy deletion as it has almost zero content. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Perhaps a CSD A3? PerfectProposal 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since not independently notable. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Clara River Trail[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable urban bike trail, any WP:NOTTRAVEL concerns should be addressed by removing inappropriate content, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a travel guide for the trail. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then improve it. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 3 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) 23:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since this trail is highly notable. Seriously, 37 hits over two decades in reliable sources for the phrase in quotes, that's notability. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article looks like a reasonable description of the trail, and not unduly travelbook like. Clearly, a travel guide has been used to source the bulk of the article but WP:NOTTRAVEL means that our articles should avoid being travel guides, not that we should avoid using travel guides as sources. The trail is covered in plenty of media on numerous occasions as established by Drmies, so it is not a hopeless cause and it should pass notability guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Logic puzzle. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unisol[edit]

Non-notable logic puzzle that is only printed in one newspaper; I could find exceedingly few mentions of this on Google, and most of those are WP mirrors. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article about the paper. Recognizance (talk) 23:06, 29 March 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) 23:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge as above or to Logic puzzle . JJL (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No proof of notability outside of the originating newspaper. tedder (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unisol is a type of logic puzzle and a specific version happens to be printed in the Sydney Morning Herald. RS are easily located with a refined Google search to exclude all the other uses of the word "Unisol". Redirecting this to the newspaper makes no sense because the paper isn't about logic puzzles, they just publish one version of this type of puzzle; the newspaper itself is a RS in this regard. This article needs to be expanded and clarified, not deleted outright. Tothwolf (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clarify: Versions of this puzzle are published in multiple papers, not just the Sydney Morning Herald. The article itself mentions the Tele Sept Jeux as well. Someone should add citations for these, but they do verify with Google so WP:RS and WP:N are covered. Tothwolf (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 head shot. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headshot[edit]

A rather pointless article with no sources and chances are there are none out there. It's more of a term or a definition then an actual article. It also fails WP:N Skater (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Head shot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Starblind. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "rather pointless article" — this seems very close to an I don't like it argument, and not a valid reason for deletion. "no sources and chances are there are none out there" — actually, chances are there are sources out there. "more of a term or a definition then an actual article" — I just read the article, which is 6,233 bytes, and it sure looks like a lot more than a definition to me. "It also fails WP:N" — I think there are enough sources to show notability (see above link). In fact, it is such a notable concept in gaming that it is used as the name of an energy bar marketed to gamers. In conclusion, I am convinced this is a notable concept in terms of video gaming, and that there are reliable sources to show notability and support the statements in the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Head shot. Linguist's WP:GOOGLE is useless in itself. I waded through several sources which gave only trivial coverage. Many of them are mentions of Head shot. This situation is reflected in the article. It is merely a collection of commentaries on games in which it is possible to shoot someone in the head. All of it seems to violate WP:OR and WP:GAMEGUIDE. I agree that the article cannot be improved beyond a a jargon guide entry. bridies (talk) 18:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per LinguistAtLarge. A notable concept in the field of computer game design, implemented by a wide variety of games. Not a game guide, and quite plausible to source per the links Linguist provides. Loads of potential to expand with sourced information. For instance we learn that Quake's lack of support for headshots disqualifies it from being useful training for mass murderers [70], and that the popularity of the term is due to its use in Unreal Tournament [71], and that the head shot is an important part of the realism of CounterStrike (also at [[72]]). JulesH (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but it can't exactly survive on these three sources alone. Google results are massively subjective and it takes extraction of the results and proof that they're reliable to justify their use on Wikipedia. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Haipa Doragon said, those aren't enough to write a passable article. That information belongs in the respective game articles and in the case of the ABC source, the First person shooter article. If "headshot" is indeed "a notable concept in the field of computer game design", then someone must surely have published an article that is actually about the headshot as a concept. bridies (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to head shot. I particularly don't buy the "there is some pseudo-information out there" argument, especially when many users (including myself after sifting through the first several pages sans false positives) have already tried searching. MuZemike 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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