The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. tedder (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads alarmingly like advertisement copy, and concerns a product that is by all evidence simply a brand-name iteration of a standard form of binding adequately covered by the articles about bookbinding methods. Guy Ruffian (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leona: Dreams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable autobiography, fails WP:BK. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – NN book, lacking GHits of substance and with only a couple of GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BK. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: major release. Appealed to Leona official forum to help expand article. josh_odonnell (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication that this book which not yet been released is so anticipated that it is notable before it even out. As per ttonyb1, there is very little in the way of coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Lives Refugee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of this book is not proved. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Normally a google search yields a morass of entries to sort through. Not this time. Three entries, all of them from wikipedias. Unschool 23:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable or a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Worldcat doesn't even recognize the ISBN -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I believe that reasons for deletion have prevailed in this debate. The content is already covered in other articles, if anything else needs to be merged, notify me on my talkpage and I can provide the content. Tone 11:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While I commend the people who have worked on this list, and have cited nearly 1000 references, I believe that the list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as Wikipedia is not just a collection of information, and this list isn't really what I would call "encylcopedic". A related AfD to this that I just initiated is here. Killiondude (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, words cannot express how much this nomination bothers me. This is not a "List of times the word "Toaster" is used in The Simpsons", it is a list of fatalities in a war (not even named, so zero risk of WP:MEMORIAL) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I fail to see how this is "indiscriminate" given the title of the article. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a bit too much raw data to be informative. I am sure there are plenty of graphs and general statistics in Iraq War. — Jake Wartenberg 23:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and we have a more suitable article - Casualties of the Iraq War. I suggest we delete this one. DS (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom - raw data like this isn't encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, I am sorry Jake Wartenberg and DS, but you are wrong. You said I am sure there are plenty of graphs and general statistics in Iraq War. and Indeed, and we have a more suitable article - Casualties of the Iraq War. Those articles do not have any definite numbers on insurgent casualties in the war. The Iraq war article doesn't have any graphs and general statistics and, actualy, the article Casualties of the Iraq War mentiones the number of dead insurgents only in one small paragraph and the number used had been taken from this very article. Except for this one article on the Net there is no one who has any publicly available verifiable number of insurgent casualties. The list may be a valuable information source under WP:LISTPURP. Also, Killiondude, you nominated this article for deletion and ignored the fact that the article had been already TWO times nominated for deletion in the previous three years, and both times the results of those discussions were to keep. I did some research on the article and found the article was nominated for deletion previously and the nominations were rejected. This all has already been discussed, the basis for the previous two nominations for deletion were similar to yours. And both times the nominations were rejected. For any editors who join in on this discussion please read the previous two discussion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Insurgents killed in Iraq and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of insurgents killed in Iraq. In addition, Sherurcij has made a valid point that this is not in violation of WP:MEMORIAL since no names are listed and I also see no indiscrimination with this article.MidnightBomber (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "ignore" any facts. You can keep your assumptions of my actions to yourself. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No insult intended, there is no reason to get agitated. It's just that your actions were completely illogical to me since I read the previous two discussions and I thought you didn't read them since they made valid points on keaping the article. In any case I agree with all of the previous editors who voiced their keep opinions in the previous discussions and I am all for keep now. In addition, three editors in one previous discussion stated that it would be a total waste to have all the work that went into this article lost. And I would agree. If it bothers you that much why not simply change the structure of the article somehow, not delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightBomber (talk • contribs) 05:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please note that this editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of permanently blocked editor User:Top Gun and been blocked. I have struck this vote as it was made in violation of a block. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This list is useful and is modeled as many others we have in the project. --Againme (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- For the first years of the Iraq war Bremer and Sanchez did everything they could to obfuscate the number of Iraqi civilian casualties. That pretty young American woman, who the US military claimed had been killed by an IED, went there to use Iraqi sources to try to document the scale of Iraqi civilian casualties. It is a very important topic. It is encyclopedic. We have lots of other encyclopedic articles that have the same ratio of text and statistics. Text articles have their place in an encyclopedia. And articles that contain a higher proportion of statistics also have their place in an encyclopedia. We have articles on Olympic records, and other lesser sports scores, which are similarly statistics rich. This is not an argument WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is the nature of an encyclopedia -- people want to look stuff up -- like casualty statistics. Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this sort of information is what "External links" sections are for. I too appreciate the hard work that's gone into this, but quite apart from its dubious encyclopaedic value, I'm concerned about the borderline WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR that seems to be going on by collating numbers from different sources. The article has no value as a research tool (ignoring the fact that this isn't what we're supposed to writing anyway; no self-respecting researcher would rely on someone else's data... especially on Wikipedia!), and its other suggested uses ("It also allows readers and researchers to investigate patterns in the type of tactics by insurgents and the coalition") would be better served by writing proper articles to cover these subjects. The heavy reliance on a single non-neutral source - antiwar.com - is also concerning. EyeSerene^talk 10:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I have concerns of Synthesis/OR. (Aggregate information, eg monthly totals, would be more useful and possibly worth having but day to day reports: no) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Apart from being unreadable because of the number of citations it does really add any value to the encyclopedia that could not be done with a summary in an article like Casualties of the Iraq War. Also support previous comments about OR and the like. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Again, this doesn't seem to have any purpose, being far too detailed, and as several people have highlighted above, the possible Original Research problems that the article appears to possess are also worrying. Skinny87 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I fail to understand. How is it original research? As far as I see it it's not. It has sourced info from reliable resources verified with citation/reference links. You said that the article has a heavy reliance on a single non-neutral source - antiwar.com. I checked out that web-site. All of the reports on antiwar.com, which the references are based on, are themselves referenced by a large number of well-notable and neutral sources, like CNN, BBC news, AP, AFP, Reuters, Guardian UK, Al-Jazeera, China Post etc. Everybody should check that out. In addition, I also took a look at the previous two discussions on the deletion and one user said I do not believe that adding up claims by troop commanders constitutes original research or synthesis. I would agree with this. I fail to see how a summary in the article Casualties of the Iraq War could be done without the support of this article, it's simple impossible, there already is a summary, but it is based on this article. The importance of this article is too much. LiquidOcelot24 (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of permanently blocked editor User:Top Gun and been blocked. I have struck this vote as it was made in violation of a block. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - raw data, synthesis. Buckshot06(prof) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTPURP and EyeSerene. Just a dumping or raw data that holds little to no encylcopedic value, and has OR concerns. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Proposition on restructuring I have been looking over this article and, while I'm still for a strong keep, have been looking for a way to restructure the article (like I proposed before), to at least keep the most important information if the majority of editors are in the end for deleting. I myself think that a little bit too much references and raw information has been put into this, but again I think that too much important information is here as well. I think I found a way. Somebody (who is in the deleting votes) had proposed to do only a year-by-year, or at least month-by-month brakedown and not day-by-day. There is one reference (which is an exclusive U.S. military claim I mind you) that brakes down the deaths of insurgents by year up until September 22, 2007. We could use only this one reference for up to that date, my only concern is that there are 5,500 deaths more in the US military toll than in the researched data. Which I think we should, at least even un-referenced, mention to warn readers. As for 2008, I have been looking around on the Net and found one reference that states the exact number of insurgent deaths in 2008. And as for 2009, the Iraqi MoD has been sporadicly giving monthly tolls of insurgents this year. We could use that. As for all of the other references/links of various incidents, we delete them since we would have totals for specific years. Structured like this the article would be substantialy shortened. No disrispect to the editors that have done great work for this article but I think this is the best way so it is not in violation of the OR rule to which most deleting editors point out to. Any opinions on this? MidnightBomber (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that restructuring this list would calm other users' thoughts that this article violates WP:NOT. I'm don't think your suggestion would makes me change my mind that this article violates WP:NOT. I would like to point you, or anyone interested, in Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. It lists other wikis that would probably accept this, or any other article that en.wiki deems a violation of WP:NOT. Killiondude (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Than please explain to me how it would be in violation of WP:NOT? In this form the article wouldn't be in violation of the OR or Synthesis rule and wouldn't contain the massive raw data anymore, and those three things are the bigest reason why everybody who voted for delete voted for delete. We would delete all of the individual reports of deaths and save only the yearly totals, plus the yearly totals of suicide bombers killed. I'm not trying to change your mind, what I'm trying is to change the article so it would be within Wikipedia standards. Like this the article wouldn't be even a list anymore. We would change the name of the article even. It would be in essence an overview of year-by-year deaths of insurgents in Iraq, just like we have the articles of Coalition casualties in Afghanistan, which is an overviw of their deaths as well. As well as the British casualties in Afghanistan article, the Canadian, and the German. We would just call this article Insurgent casualties in Iraq (without the list, since it wouldn't be a list anymore). The purpose of a deletion nomination is not just to decide eather to keep or delete an article, but, if need be, to also change the article so the problems that existed and called for deletion be rectified. MidnightBomber (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment Please note that User:MidnightBomber has been confirmed as another of User:Top Gun's sock puppets and has been blocked. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a useful list. Maybe cited by media outlets. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYN. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A glob of statistics does not an encyclopedia article make. This is not a list as defined at Wikipedia:Lists#List articles: "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area, and may include additional information about the listed items." That said, WP:SYN does not apply here because it's just a bunch of stats without interpretation. Evil saltine (talk) 09:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The first set of total casualties were calculated by adding up the figures in the casualty reports, which seems to be synthesis (and wrong given that it's inevitable that there will be double counting in the reports and some casualties won't be in the reports). Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Routine calculations aren't considered synthesis. There would have to be some margin of error on those numbers though. Evil saltine (talk) 10:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As the consensus shows, it is not appropriate to have the whole list as the article. Tone 11:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coalition forces killed in Iraq in 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article seems seems to be unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a memorial ground. While I respect the people who sacrificed their lives for our country, I do not believe that Wikipedia should have this list about each person who died in Iraq. Killiondude (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that this recently closed AfD should give some precedence to these types of articles, too. Killiondude (talk) 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Note that this is likewise up for deletion. Very sad, very well-referenced, totally inappropriate. DS (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is not a "memorial", it is a listing of names. (A memorial would say "A devoted father of three...", etc) Lists of names like this, especially well-referenced ones, are vital to history as they solidify claims that "X people died"; if we had the names, ages and hometowns of every Jew killed in the Holocaust, we wouldn't see Holocaust denial. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 03:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This information is properly preserved on other websites. And even if we did have proper names/ages/hometowns of every Holocaust victim, there would still be deniers. The names/ages etc of the people who died in the attack on the Pentagon are all known... and there are already people who claim it didn't happen. And bear in mind, we (that is, WP) don't have lists of everyone who died in those attacks. I believe we did, but they were removed. Similarly, we don't have lists of every US soldier who died in Vietnam (even though such information has been recorded), or of every innocent victim of the Mumbai attacks, or etc etc. An itemized list of every soldier to have died in the Iraq war does not meet criteria for inclusion. DS (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its properly sourced.67.33.110.79 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have nothing but the greatest respect for these people. That said, I don't find it to be particularly appropriate to an encyclopedia. It is more of a memorial to those people that died that something with any informational value. How about a list of names of everyone who has died of cancer? — Jake Wartenberg 23:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete undue recentism, developed-world bias, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Buckshot06(prof) 00:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom - raw data like this isn't encyclopedic. Other websites and books record the names of those who have died in this war, and there's no reason for Wikipedia to have articles such as these. Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to me that "The list may be a valuable information source." (WP:LISTPURP) For example, if I wanted to figure out how many coalition troops were killed in a particular city, or how troop deaths correlate with age or location or rank, or any number of other questions, a list like this would be very useful. While other lists do exist, my (brief) search didn't find any containing as much data as this one. Gruntler (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory, and not a memorial. Fences&Windows 01:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTMEMORIAL etc as above. This sort of information is what the "external links" section of articles is for. EyeSerene^talk 09:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per NOT:Memorial (even if effort had been made to bring this article to a higher standard: wikilinking, table sort function, referencing) it would still fail on that criteria. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not appear to add any value to the encyclopedia and could be replaced by a simple link to an external list in the relevant overview article. MilborneOne (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - With all due respect to those on the list, this sort of thing can be found on external websites; but perhaps more importantly, it doesn't really serve any purpose here. Knowing how many were killed, indeed, but their names and other details seem too...wellm detailed for wikipedia. Skinny87 (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT. We use lists as a way of guiding readers to Wikipedia articles with something in common, not as a way of collecting bits and pieces of information from hundreds or thousands of newspaper articles. There are lots and lots of other wikis on the Web; anyone willing to collect and post this information elsewhere is welcome to do so. But keeping this list at Wikipedia would be a very bad precedent: List of U.S. state legislators in 2008; List of Chief Financial Officers of major corporations in 2007; List of restaurants reviewed by the New York Times in 2009; List of bills signed into law in 2005 by the Virginia state governor. All of these would be totally supportable by reliable sources, and all of them would be clear violations of WP:NOT - Wikipedia isn't a guide, and it isn't a place to collect bits of related information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 15:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians says that every person who ever served in a U.S. state legislature or its equivalent in other countries, is presumed to be notable, even if only one time for 8 weeks . So a list of a subset of them, like for one state in one year, is not so clearly nonnotable as you appear to believe. Edison (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Western bias and recentism. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and most of those above. This is a true violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL, is insensitive and unencyclopedic. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to Wikisource, where lists of every person killed in every historical war could be maintained. With all respect for those who fought and died for their countries in a good war, Wikipedia is not a memorial or a directory. This war is not more encyclopedic than the World Wars or various other historic wars. Edison (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NOTMEMORIAL. Wish it could be transwikied somewhere, but a cursory glance at Wikisource's criterion suggests it's a no-go. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Gates Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable record label that hasn't produced anything notable. Small label founded by the brother of a notable rapper. Everything the rapper has done that charted was done under other labels. A short list of non-notable artists in their stable. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (usually just a passing mention when talking about the rapper who is no longer with the label). Has been tagged for notability since Nov. 2008. Article contains no reliable sources. Written by a WP:SPA (Biggatesfan) who has done nothing but edit to promote Big Gates or his brother. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree on CORP reason. Also lack of reliable sources causes it to fail WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A merge/redirect would be an option if a targed article existed. Since it does not, it's a delete. If the content is needed alter, let me know. Tone 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morganville, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. This is a fictional location with no assertion of notability. Yes, I realize notability is not inherited, but surely non-notability is: the parent article about the book series that takes place in this location doesn't even exist! No prejudice against creating a sourced, well-written series article in compliance with WP:WAF, but that hypothetical article should not borrow from this in-universe treatment. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason? B.Wind (talk) 02:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge with The Morganville Vampires article or Rachel Caine entry. There's no separate Wikipedia entry for Pencey Prep, the fictional school Holden Caulfield went to in The Catcher In The Rye. If that fictional place isn't famous enough for its own Wikipedia article, then Morganville, Texas definitely isn't either. TruthGal (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Kind of odd that the author considered the fictional town to be more worthy of an article than the series of books that are set in the town. An article called The Morganville Vampires (book series) would be more likely to survive, with some real world information to go with the fantasy. The town itself is not notable independently of the book series. Mandsford (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to The Morganville Vampires as the article has strayed far from my original intent to describe the fictional setting for this series of books. That would also allow a lot of the detail repeated (improperly) in the Rachel Caine article to be merged to the renamed article. I reject the notion that no fictional place could have an article because nobody has gotten around to creating another unrelated article, especially when it's the setting for a New York Times best-selling series of novels, but must agree that this article needs more cleanup effort than I can provide at the moment. - Dravecky (talk) 06:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; non-notable, in-universe fancruft. We don't need articles on fictional towns that kids' books are set in. The author may be notable; the book series may be, too. This is not. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above per WP:NOT. Non-notable trivia. Eusebeus (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteWeak keep. The label has some notable artists and releases, but I found no significant coverage to suggest that this meets our notability criteria. --Michig (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The label has some notable artists and releases. 3 references on google news Ikip (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't meet WP:CORP or any other guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think those sources are referring to this label. And it doesn't look to me like the artists are notable. Cinnamon is a bluelink to the spice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree. Just as a movie studio is notable for making hit films, so is a record company notable for having hit artists. Dream Focus 16:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily say "hit artists" is justified here. Edan is clearly notable, Andrew Thompson probably so, Mighty Casey doubtful, others probably not. There's a fair amount of coverage of Edan's releases, but the coverage says little or nothing about the label. If any significant coverage can be found please add it. Perhaps against my better judgment, I'm changing my view to a very weak keep as while our guidelines suggest deletion, this article adds information that could be of benefit to the reader - the information is verifiable via reliable sources and it would be ok as a stub. There is some coverage in the Chicago Tribune (5 May 2006) which mentions Mike Lewis starting the label to release Edan's music, so there's at least one source available.--Michig (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I have added references and better categories. Some of the artists listed have Wikipedia articles already. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no significant coverage in independent reliable sources Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I can userfy the conetnt if the author wishes so. Let me know. Tone 11:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2015 hurricane season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:CRYSTAL, no article for 2014 season etc. Also same info included in the 2009 Atlantic Hurricane Season. AtheWeatherman 22:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Utterly non-notable future trivia. Hairhorn (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Might be notable, but appears to be unverifiable. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable non-notable WP:CRYSTAL. This does not take into account that hurricane names may be retired, such as Katrina is. talkingbirds 23:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per User:Talkingbirds, who put it better than I was going to. Unschool 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will update it when I learn of any retired names so please don't delete it. This is my first article and it took a long time to make it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecookmiester8 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm fairly certain that there's an article that has the names that are reserved for hurricanes for 2010, etc., although I don't know where it is. And as the old saying goes, if there ain't, there oughta be. This would be a logical redirect to that article. Since, as I understand it, the 2009 names will be the 2015 names (with the exception of the ones that get retired and replaced), the list of future names would be edited the same way as this article. Mandsford (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I wonder why wasn't it speedily deleted as nonsense-equivalent (can't talk about unpredictable factual event which will happen 6 yrs ahead). Materialscientist (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, the author wasn't making predictions about what the weather would be like in 2015, regardless of the title. Essentially, this was an attempt to list the names reserved for the 2015 Atlantic hurricane season. Although I think that this information is available elsewhere, and that this article is unnecessary, it's not unverifiable and it most certainly is not "nonsense". Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – According the the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, "...names [are] utilized in [a] six-year cycle of names. Except for any retired names, in 2015 the 2009 list will be repeated." See [1]. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This information, and that for the years 2010 through 2014, is in Lists of tropical cyclone names and should continue to be maintained there. To Thecookmiester8: You have my sympathy! Writing part of all of an article before discovering it is redundant happens to everyone who edits here long enough. Congratulations on getting it on your first try! Please help maintain the Lists of tropical cyclone names. Peter Chastain (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy or delete per all, and since the original author appears to care. Thinboy00 @227, i.e. 04:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy is perhaps the best option here. That way the creator won't feel their work has been completely wasted.. Mjroots (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

suggest deleting page under WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICT and WP:MADEUP. Basically, it's a pure dicdef, with no substantial prose except the definition. It's about a word that does not yet appear in dictionaries, and therefore possibly made up Kingpin¹³ (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, nonsense, the creator of the article removed Kingpin's PROD and my PROD2. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. Possible speedy delete as a hoax, but not as "nonsense". Hairhorn (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFT is nonsense. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I wish it were. I have already moaned about this matter several times. Some of the readings of G1 are insanely broad, to me "nonsense" means a string of words or letters with no meaning, not the perjorative, eg "that's nonsense" which means something like "foolishness". Hairhorn (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:MADEUP. Salih (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. May well be an attack on someone called Mandal. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... I'm pretty sure it's a play on "vandalism" and "man".... Hairhorn (talk) 00:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• snowball We could transwiki it to wiktionary and then delete it there, but this is faster. Thinboy00 @229, i.e. 04:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Henry (New Zealand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a challenged speedy-- checking it, I consider the person non-notable, but there are references, though not very satisfactory ones, and only to what appears a rather routine career as a lawyer. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Henry Family of New Zealand, which itself could benefit from a massive cleanup. Unschool 00:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, easily meets WP:N, country's largest newspaper The New Zealand Herald has 161 exact matches, many of which involve his client, former foreign minister Winston Peters. XLerate (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:N in my opionion. Article could do with a good cleanup. It's always nice when notability is obvious from reading the article!Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Probable Keep - While being Winston's lawyer doesn't confer notability in itself, it has resulted in a lot of news coverage and I'm sure I've seen an extended profile of him somewhere in the past. Article needs cleanup and inline citations. dramatic (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Henry was a key player in the biggest political controversy in New Zealand last year, around NZ First donations and his involvement in the Winebox inquiry was extensive. The article clearly needs improvement, but I can assure DGG his legal career has been anything but "routine". Dean B (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He's had a lot of press coverage over at least two issues (one of them very protracted). As Dean B says, the article clearly needs improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missing prisoners of Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose this list for deletion per WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:IINFO. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of MIR (Chile) members assassinated by the Pinochet regime, a similar case just decided as delete; no doubt many of the same arguments will be raised here, I hope more concisely. See also a discussion taking place at WT:NOT#Requested clarification of meaning of Not:Memorial. An additional reason for not establishing a precedent for lists of this kind is the danger that they will be posted for partisan purposes contrary to WP:SOAPBOX; I do not suggest that is the case here, but we should consider the possibility that lists of the dead will be posted competitively by supporters of the different sides in current and past conflicts. JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may be a Speedy A7 - and it may be a violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. It is an unverified list of names that are claimed to be missing prisoners of Chile. There are ethical and political considerations here. SilkTork *^YES! 22:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This type of list is not useful in an encyclopedic context. particularly when the list has no further information and no context. Wikipeterproject (talk) 18:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list that serves no purpose on Wikipedia. I can see an article talking about the missing prisoners, prisoner conditions, executions, false claims, etc. but, not a questionable list of people. Plus, like others have said, WP:NOTMEMORIAL. --Kimon^talk 20:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal international language center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline advert has been marked for questionable notability since October 2007. There have been no substantive additions since then. The page is unreferenced; the only references I find that are not related to the center itself are lists of language schools. Cnilep (talk) 21:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments. Note that the Canadian spelling for center is normally centre. For a company based in Montreal, it is worth searching under the company's French name, Centre international de langues de Montreal This reference might be enough to save the article if http://www.qctop.com (which claims 2.5 million visitors) is regarded as a reliable source. There does not appear to be an article on this company in the French Wikipedia. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is real enough, more often called "Centre international de langues de Montréal". English home page here Should be Centre, not Center. Part of LaSalle college. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A search show plenty of references in lists of language schools, as stated by nominator, but nothing else. I don't see this as significant coverage. The QCTop source looks like a paid listing to me. It is a school, not a college or university, so not automatically notable. It would be incorrect to redirect to the sister organization LaSalle College, and the owner LaSalle College Group does not have an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. It should at least be purged of fluff like "where students are in the centre of the action" and "for those looking to climb the educational, the corporate ladder" – and moved to a more correct title. —Tamfang (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to LaSalle College. Hairhorn (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a section to the article on LaSalle College giving "LaSalle College Group" subsidiaries including this school. The result looks like an ad - don't like it. This article could now be redirected to LaSalle College, I suppose. Is it any more notable than a driving school? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent reliable sources to create a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lodestar (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been marked for questionable notability since October 2007. Few significant additions have been made since, and there are no sources. A search of news archives finds two mentions of a band called Lodestar in the US and one in Singapore, but these appear to be different bands from the one described here. Fails WP:Notability (music). Cnilep (talk) 21:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: It needs sources. If none are forthcoming, it should be deleted for lack of verifiability, but it does pass notability based on the Senser connection, if that can be proven. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Contrary to my nomination, the band meets WP:Notability (music), as they released two records with A&M Records. I'll edit the discography on the page. Cnilep (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes MUSIC#5 - AfD is not for cleanup. An article should not be deleted if it has no sources! Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I believe that Cnilep was alluding to Music#5 in his comment above yours. The problem, I think, is that the claim to having two albums released on a major lablel has to date only been asserted, not verified. Unschool 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref from Discogs and an article from Kerrang! magazine from when they supported Tool. Hope this helps! Lugnuts (talk) 07:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - two CDs on a major label. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources to prove that claim? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one I added to the article a few days ago. Lugnuts (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Ryan Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP; no notable roles. SummerPhD (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable sources (significant or otherwise) as required by the general notability guideline and the specific guideline for people. The article claims he is best known for being in Hannah Montana but his IMDb profile says he was only in five episodes and the role doesn't seem to have received any coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ENT and roles in unreleased movies do't get him past it. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf^(talk) 14:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alis Peña Payan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notability asserted. Ghits are mostly wiki links. Possible hoax. All content was created by the creator, then the speedy tag was removed by an IP. So, I have to AfD it. The IP may be related to this. This was Afd'ed on Aug 11, and the results was a speedy delete. I would also like to WP:SALT.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alis Payan

possible hoaxes discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joanna_Stands_Strong and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joanne_(novel) Clubmarx (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: No more notable than the last time around. Favonian (talk) 23:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete As recreation of previously deleted material. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Agree on the SALTing. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4, and salt. Still non-notable. talkingbirds 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Probably speedy. No assertion of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Classic case of WP:CSD#G4, so tagged. Unlike a WP:PROD, you are allowed to replace a speedy tag that's been removed by someone else. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was tempted to tag this ((db-hoax)) but I think it may have some basis in reality. However no reliable sources are quoted. It is non-notable, used only in Quadel InfoCenter which I am also nominating for deletion. (It is a stupid idea anyway: a browser which fails to load 100% of a page is simply a not-work browser.) — Sgroupace (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete It's a spam article redirecting users to the authors personal webpage apparently the author himself created these apps Coi+non notable+spam--Notedgrant (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete invented Neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quadel InfoCenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly non-notable and possibly not yet released browser. No references provided. The author, user:Ravenperch provides a link to his website which is still under construction. I am also nominating PLPI by the same author for deletion. Sgroupace (talk) 20:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE This is a non notable article and does not deserve being here --Notedgrant (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no assertion of notability etc. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero WP:GHITS. That's pretty damning for a piece of software. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both: Zero hits for both. Joe Chill (talk) 15:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - totally non-notable and unsourced to boot. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All My Children. That is the best solution here. No need to delete before redirecting. Tone 11:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brot Monroe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no sources at all not enough story to sustain its own article and really a non notable charecter if it wasent for the military thing i nominate we delete this page and move the info to the all my children recruing page BigPadresDUDE (talk) 20:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, non-notable is not a valid reason for deletion for a subject that is verifiable in multiple reliable sources and if you are suggesting we move the information elsewhere then we cannot delete this page per the GFDL. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 12:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, unsourced fictional character bio. We doing AfD discussions on ((prod))s^oldid now? Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and reference better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to List of All My Children characters which is the appropriate place for mere plot summary. Eusebeus (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That which is redirectable need not be deleted first. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 13:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect as desired. The name is a likely search term but we don't really have enough sourcing to support a standalone article. Protonk (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids Remodelling Sets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a trivial list of toy sets that doesn't have anything to assert any sort of notability or importance. TTN (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Users edit history is mostly creating articles on these toys, all of it unreferenced and promotional Francium12 (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research. Abductive (reasoning) 04:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 20:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, non-sourced Intelligentsium 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable and probably original research. -- nips (talk) 11:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I haven't been able to find any sources that attest to the importance or significance of this software; fails WP:N. Incidentally, it isn't mentioned in the three 'see also' pages. News results here don't help. Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Minor product - Never seen anything of possible use as WP:RS, doubtful that more is coming given intervening improvements in Sharepoint. MrZaius^talk 03:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no reliable source coverage. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Street (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO and an unsuccessful election campaign doesn't make a politician notable. I have not been able to find good sources that would help article development. Delete.Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not appear notable enough for encyclopedic entry. Perhaps if he makes a few more runs for office. Crockspot (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:POLITICIAN. Not sure even more unsuccessful runs would help him, unless he becomes something of a media story for his perenial runs. Unschool 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally fails WP:POLITICIAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSIC, at least as far as the article currently stands, and as far as web searches go.

Article was PRODded, removed by anon IP without explanation. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Crockspot (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Jimmy Valentine is notable and influencial in sub culture if for no other reason than he worked with Sky Saxon and is the only artist Sky ever produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.44.155 (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Jimmy Valentine is worthy of a wiki entry...though he may not have any chart topping hits he does have a significant number of fans as well as widespread notoriety. His work with Sky Saxon and Aaron Peirsol as well as an organizer of the Michigan Peace Fest, the Chicago Peace fest and Hoodilidoo festivals alone should earn him this. He is well known amongst musicians famous and otherwise from coast to coast. I met him and he seems a little crazy but in a good way. I saw him at Hoodilidoo in Herod Illinois and there was not a single person out of over a thousand attendees who did not know who Jimmy Valentine is. He's not Joe Rockstar. He's just a wild musician mad poet type and very accessible and friendly. Thegrubwich (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— Thegrubwich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Please see WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. If any of the criteria listed can be met, then you may be on to something. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 09:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok Jimmy has without a doubt worked with Sky Saxon on a few occasions...ie GOODSTOCK 2007 AND THE PISCES RISING ALBUM...He did music for Aaron Peirsol..Alice Cooper has played his music on his radio show multiple times. He gets radio play from a lot of NPR stations. Just because he is an underground artist he should not be treated as if he does not exist. In the psychedelic subculture he is both widely known and respected. Sky was a rock and roll icon and referred to Jimmy as his protege. Let the man be in wikipedia and please give him the respect he deserves.76.16.44.155 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • We need reliable sources that establish notability. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 15:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well the Goodstock thing has been on wiki for a while. there are pictures of Jimmy and Sky together. and here is a link to a video of Aaron Peirsol bodysurfing with Jimmy Valentine's name at the beginning on the credits posted by the company that produced it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtMwtXrkLHM His known association with these people makes him not just your average joe.76.16.44.155 (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      In addition here is a link to Psychedelic central with memorial statements his is right under the Electric Prunes statement. http://www.psychedeliccentral.com/inmemoryofthelegends/skysaxontribute.html Jimmy holds a lot of weight in the psychedelic community. Psychedelic central normally has tougher rules of acceptance than wikipedia and they published his statement and the now famous pic of him and Sky because they KNEW sky and they know that Sky and Jimmy were friends and worked together. It's common knowledge in the street. Let it be known to the rest of the world.76.16.44.155 (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      TIME 1:54 to 2:08 Clearly shows J.V. on stage with Sky at GOODSTOCK 2007 playing no escape. Jimmy is playing a gibson l6 instead of his trade mark G&L sc2 or strat, which is rare. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-D61LhLs0c&feature=channel_page 76.16.44.155 (talk) 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      Jimmy live at goodstock doing an early acoustic sound check set http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9to0Hn4dvIQ&feature=channel_page76.16.44.155 (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Clips from Youtube don't establish notability. What we need is something like news articles, magazine articles or books that discuss the subject in a "non-trivial" manner. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you are splitting hairs. This is the 21st century and only major label people get any physical print anymore the youtube clips are from third parties. Like Goswim and the organizers of GOODSTOCK and Psychedelic Central.com. If this was a court of law, which in many ways it is Jimmy would be guilty as charged without a shadow of doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.44.155 (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC) — 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
          as well as Sky mentioning Jimmy in his last interview in regards to a song they were working on together http://strangedaveshow.podomatic.com/entry/2009-07-03T17_31_23-07_00 76.16.44.155 (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
          • It doesn't have to be hard copy. If the only available coverage is youtube clips, then the subject isn't notable! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sky mentions him by name in his last interview! The goswim thing is just for promo on youtube.. His music is on the actual dvd by Aaron Piersol. I own it give me an address and I will send you a copy. Aaron is a 5 time olympic medalist and used Jimmy's work on his dvd which has global distribution.76.16.44.155 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
              The case for Jimmy is way more than just youtube clips. Check the links and do the research like I have. You may not be a fan like me but don't begrudge him on petty things.
              • If there aren't any suitable sources, then a Wikipedia article isn't appropriate. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • How is the physical DVD by Aaron Peirsol not suitable or the Sky interview? Or his high rankings on sites like reberbnation? Or the documeted footage of him and Sky at Goodstock.76.16.44.155 (talk) 17:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
                  • because Wikipedia requires better than that. We need multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial manner. None of the things you've suggested so far meet that bar. Can you find any journalistic coverage, for instance? Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 17:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • all I can say is if Mr.Blotto is in wiki then he should be. under the WikiProject jam bands and WikiProject Chicago. They have no references and I have given you a half a dozen third party references on Jimmy. It's a shame you want to delete such an important artist, but whatever I give you win! yay! LONG LIVE JIMMY VALENTINE!76.16.44.155 (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
                      And don't forget that he is referenced on Sky's own website under Seeds 2007 http://skysaxon.com/Biography.html76.16.44.155 (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
                      As well as in the Sanfrancisco Daily Chron http://www.beyondchron.org/depts/index.php?itemid=7125&catid=376.16.44.155 (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
                      And http://sixties-l.blogspot.com/2009/07/sky-sunlight-saxon-of-seeds-1937-2009.html76.16.44.155 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)— 76.16.44.155 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete Notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:00, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok I'm tired of this. Let's be reasonable people and just take a step back for a second. What needs to be done to make this right? Jimmy is deserving of some mention, more than just a line on Sky Saxon's page. What do we need to do to make this a sound Wiki article. Jimmy has more traces of a notable career than some other artists on Wikipedia. Amie Street is a well known Indie Label. Also YouTube is to journalism as what Wikipedia is to information, so saying youtube clips are sub-par is hypocritical. Please stop the petty bickering and use that thing between your ears thats called a brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegrubwich (talk • contribs) 03:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ((spa|Thegrubwich[reply]

• Delete - Notability not established to meet general notability guidelines or music notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to changing vote if sources become available as per the notability guidelines for musicians. Out of the four references given in the article, two are for the record company so are not relaible sources; one is a link to a chart archive site which I suspect is not a reliable source, and produces no hits for "Jimmy Valentine" in any case; the fourth is a link to a swimming website. This is not the standard of sources that are necessary to verify notability. My good-faith search both on the net and in books (I edit wikipedia while in a public library) produces no significant coverage in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and the the SPA's WP:ILIKEIT reasoning isn't helping it pass. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Stewart (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Pointless article about a drummer who is only notable for being a member of The Feeling, in which article the little that there is to say about him can be better covered. The prod was removed with "subject is most likely independently notable (see http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Paul+Stewart%22+drummer+%22the+feeling%22&btnG=Search&um=1&ned=us&hl=en) - if not he should be redirected to the band's page, not deleted" - I don't see anything in the news results that suggests independent notability via either the general or subject specific (WP:MUSIC) criteria, and I don't see "Paul Stewart (musician)" as a likely search term, so it is unlikely the redirect would be useful - an entry on the Paul Stewart disambiguation page pointing to The Feeling would suffice. Michig (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Like I said it the deprod, he is most likely notable. Being independently notable doesn't mean he has to have produced music outside the band or anything like that - it means he has to have been the subject of multiple RS. If those RS about talking about him within the context of the band, they still count as long as they are talking about him specifically. That appears to be the case here. His generic name makes it harder to find sources, but said sources do appear to exist.

The article isn't "pointless" as it is the correct place to house biographical information about Paul Stewart - such information is not appropriate in the band's article.

However, if the nom felt strongly about it he could have just redirected and I wouldn't have objected. The page has over 20 incoming links and deleting the page would simply break those links for no reason. It would be a waste of time and effort to go and change all those links to point to the band, when a simply redirect can do the job. Additionally, the redirect would serve as a place holder in case he gained (more) notability in the future. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the incoming links are related to either The Feeling or his wife. Why is biographical information about band members not appropriate in the band's article? If we had a significant amount of relevant information that has nothing to do with the band, then that would be better in a separate article. If all we have to say about him is where he went to school, who he's married to and who his influences are, I don't see any convincing argument for keeping this - the links could be redirected in a couple of minutes, and I'm yet to see any reliable sources that give significant coverage to this person rather than the band he is a member of. If you can come up with reliable sources that discuss Paul Stewart beyond his involvement in The Feeling or even specifically about what he has done as a member of The Feeling then we have a case for an article. Otherwise, I don't see why we should keep this just in case someone writes such coverage about him in the future.--Michig (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we disagree about whether there is enough coverage for an article or not. However, redirects are extremely cheap. We normally don't delete them without good reason to do so. You could have saved yourself a lot of time by just agreeing a redirect was acceptable rather than forcing an AfD. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article was at Paul Stewart and there are no other 'Paul Stewart's then I agree a redirect would be in order, as anyone searching for Paul Stewart would have arrived at the appropriate article, but given that the links to the article are already from other articles about the band or their releases, links back to the band in those isn't going to be useful, and nobody is realistically going to search for Paul Stewart (musician) in order to arrive at The Feeling's article, so what purpose would a redirect serve? You could have saved me and yourself a lot of time by just allowing the prod that had already been on the article for the requisite 7 days to reach its logical conclusion and allowing this article with minimal content to be deleted, but if you didn't agree with that then fair enough. I would not object to this being moved to Paul Stewart (drummer) or Paul Stewart (The Feeling) and then redirected to The Feeling if that is acceptable to you. If you would object to the article being redirected because you believe the content merits a separate article then we disagree on this and the discussion needs to continue.--Michig (talk) 17:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, it is best to let the community decide. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. His work with his wife Sinead Quinn is separate from The Feeling, so he now has a profile independent of The Feeling and this justifies his own article. Cjc13 (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lacks valid sources and says nothing that couldn't be said in The Feeling. Not notable as an independent artist.--Sabrebd (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. ThaddeusBs arguments better reflect applicable policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to band page, per nom and Sabrebd. Crockspot (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as an unlikely redirect term. Reliable, third-party, sources don't show any stand alone notability outside of the band per WP:MUSICBIO.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Not a pointless article, but about a drummer who is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Herbal Pharmacopoeia and Therapeutic Compendium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I declined the speedy delete because a Google Book search turned up evidence of notability: [2]. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Although this Compendium is found in many books (listed in Pastor Theo's link), they all appear to be references/footnotes for various herbs. What is required is a source that says the Compendium is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google books indicates it's a notable reference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Google Books link turns up a lot of coverage. If so many books are using this Compendium as a source, that should say something about its value. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Must be a notable organization if 117 books use it as a reference. Dream Focus 02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The American Herbal Pharmacopoeia's website says it was founded in 1994 (see Overview), but has produced just 17 monographs (see Titles), the prime way the organization says it fulfills its mission (see also Overview page). The total is quite short of the organization's goal of 300 (see also Overview page). The organization has a post office box address, and the email contact address is not the same domain as its web site. The two address that turn up on a Google Maps search, one of which is given as the shipping address on the organization's website (see Contact), appear to be private residences.
  Only one reference in the first 100 hits of a Google Search comments on the organization, as opposed to its products, or is not a listing. The reference is from the blog of a company called Blue Poppy, who are a publisher and merchant selling books, herbs, and Chinese medicine products (see Blue Poppy History). The comments do give effusive praise. On balance, the evidence is does not seem to meet the test at WP:GNG of that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --papageno (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Can't say it fails "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." -MBHiii (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage? It's been cited, not covered. It's a major difference. Abductive (reasoning) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken, but here's just one -MBHiii (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. The reference says the organization "lacks government recognition", then asserts that their works (as opposed to the organization) are accepted as standards by many organizations, without naming any, or providing any references. --papageno (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and papageno. Fails WP:ORG, while it may be cited, it lacks coverage by reliable secondary sources. - Crockspot (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per iron holds fails wp:org--Notedgrant (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Google books indicates it's a notable reference. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No rationale for deletion here, so I am redirecting without deletion as a compromise between "merge" (no can do, no sourced content) and "delete and redirect" (violates WP:PRESERVE, no benefit in deleting potentiall useful revisions).  Skomorokh  12:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra von Engelhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

completely non-notable. Articles that contain nothing more than "born, got married, popped a sprog or two and died" do not warrant inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have seen a couple of these start to pop up at AfD over the past week or so. Has there been a larger community discussion about the notability of...nobility? NW (Talk) 12:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  General consensus is that members of the nobility are not notable by default, which (I assume) has its basis in "notability is not inherited". Exceptions are made for Royal families and members of the British peerage pre-1999, who were members of the House of Lords and so fall under WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Franciszek Ksawery Branicki. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Franciszek Ksawery Branicki. Nothing sourced that can be merged. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per bridgeplayer. Not notable enough for standalone article, and lacks sources. Crockspot (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 07:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Franciszek Ksawery Branicki. She had a portrait painted of her. That tells us that she was once considered important, even it she isn't today.--Auric (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it means her husband had money. Lord Mansfield's wife had a portrait painted of her, and she did nothing but get married and die. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odysseus (e-mail client) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Needs to be an Unremarkable Product CSD. Does not assert notability, and is improperly named anyway. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable and no assertion of notability. The only outside reference I found to it was this article, which doesn't really establish notability. The company that produced the product, Infinity Data Systems, doesn't appear to be notable either, so there's no indication of notability from that. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, NN. - Crockspot (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close as bad-faith nomination by a user blocked as a vandal. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 17:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein (adventure game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources Cowboy! (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak conditional keep if some sources can be found before closure. May have some notability in a historical sense. Otherwise, delete. Crockspot (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why was this flagged? There are three sources listed in the External References section, each of which leads to further magazine scans and articles. 2fort5r (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources seem legitimate and notable. Ikip (talk) 13:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner Witch (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Article was created 8 August 2009 by its only contributor, and this is his/her only article. Google search for "Stoner Witch" brings up 20,800 hits, but it is clear that most of these refer to an unrelated album of that name by the Melvins; others relate to pages on Facebook etc by people using 'Stone Witch' as a log-in name. The most useful link is to the band's own self-written page at Encyclopedia Metallum [3] which reveals the information that this band has recorded three demos - hardly notable. Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should have said that this outfit seems to fail WP:BAND, at least from the info given in the article. Emeraude (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I was in a band that self released two full-length albums and an ep, and was written up in the local press a few times. Unfortunately for us, that's as far as we ever got, so I've never tried to construct an article. We were/are below the radar, and this band is too. Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Epically fails WP:BAND. - Crockspot (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students for Peace and International Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable organization. No ghits. A person other than the creator removed the db tag. However, the article has been deleted twice in the last couple of days per A7. The person who removed the tag also has a speedy deletion notice on their talk page. So, this seems like a speedy delete to me but I wanted to follow the delete rules per the current version. Clubmarx (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Editor that removed the speedy tag appears to be the creator of the original article that was speedy deleted earlier. It was then re-created by another editor and was speedy deleted. 2nd editor recreated, the article was tagged and the first editor removed the tag. Talk page claims it to be a national organisation but supplies no references. noq (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The organization seems to be legitimate with noble goals. User promised to expended it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin morocco (talk • contribs) 19:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — Jasmin morocco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: The organisation does not appear to exist outside of Wikipedia. Where do you find it "seems to be legitimate"? noq (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It was published in Arabic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasmin morocco (talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would an organization with an English name, from an American university, publish in Arabic? If you can give us the Arabic transliteration, we might be able to find some Arabic hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep- the organization is affiliated with several universities located in EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Wolinsky (talk • contribs) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — Peter Wolinsky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: If it is so well known, I would expect something on google. It seems funny that both keeps are by users who have not edited before. Are you aware WP:SOCKPUPPET? noq (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • DePaul University is not in the EU. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. NN organization. - Crockspot (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article created too much controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by White skyconnection (talk • contribs) 20:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — White skyconnection (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete (from the author of this article) thanks to all of you. Indeed, the article created too much controversy. I think most of the people do not like to hear about peace and tolerance--it is too boring. Instead, they like to read about violence, and sectarian wars. Please delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Bernet (talk • contribs) 20:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC) — Lee Bernet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The discussion is about notability and references, not the intent of the organization. I don't think anyone has said anything negative about the aims of this group. Clubmarx (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear user, it is easy to kill every project if somebody desires to do so. I wrote in the discussion board that I will provide the necessary reference within the next three days or so. Regardless of that, you and one more user constantly opposed the article and nominated it for deletion. After all, it is comfortable to sit in front of the PC 24/7 and criticize projects created by others, and it is difficult to create something by yourself. A bit of good will would be here more helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Bernet (talk • contribs)

• Speedy Delete – No Ghits, GNEWS, or references to support article. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, there are zero Ghits outside of Wikipedia and a mirror. Bad Faith socks notwithstanding. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I already speedy deleted this yesterday as not a claim of importance in it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 7th Studio Album (Faith Hill Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Untitled, unrelease, unreferenced album. Fails WP:HAMMER. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it's way too soon for this article. There are no reliable, third party sources claiming notability. No title, no tracklist, no release date. All of this can be mentioned in the artist's article, which it is. talkingbirds 21:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 23:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Reiss (fashion retailer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person with biographical references. Article and references does not indicate notability. Preferably redirect to Reiss (brand) if possible. E Wing (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Definitely notable as shown in the article as this cited statement shows; the last big owner-founder entrepreneur left in British retail. I have converted the inline html references to inline citations. There are plenty more references to be found using Google News or Nexis that assert his notability from RS such as the Times, Telegraph, Independent and industry magazines. The blog by his nephew is a dubious source but as it is used for non controversial family history probably acceptable. I cam across this on new article patrol and am frankly baffled as to why it has been nominated here as the sources were already in the article. It could do with more work to improve the style but there should be no question of deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems to be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not sure why this was even relisted. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 11:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Krause (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actress, fails WP:BLP. Frmatt (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was on the fence regarding this one until I checked out the prior AfD which made mention of her filmography, which I checked on IMDB. Over 70 films certainly seems notable to me. I'm also unclear how it fails WP:BLP. Qinael (talk) 17:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source, and considering the rampant meat/sockpuppetry going on in the related AfD, it seems far more likely the IMDB entries are either invalid or nothing but low-budget films. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're referring to here; I didn't see any indication of improper action in the previous AfD on this article. The conclusion of that was that "a prolific actor is notable." I'm not aware of anything that has changed her status as that, or what evidence the claim that the IMDB filmography is "more likely either invalid or nothing but low-budget films" is based upon. I'm not comfortable deleting an article on a "probably not important." In any event, WP:PEOPLE stipulates "2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." There's really no question that she's prolific, low-budget or not, and the inclusion of "cult following" in point 2 would to me indicate that B-rated films are not automatically discarded for this criteria. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said related (as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Drunken Dead Guy) not previous. There is no reliable sources showing she has a significant "cult" following nor that she has made prolific contributions to the field purely based on IMDB listings (which, again, is not a reliable source). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alright. I'm not sure that AfD is related, myself, other than the fact that she did appear in that film. I think that you're misunderstanding the general principle stated in WP:MOVIE that notability (not reliability - important difference) is not implied by a film's (not an actor's) inclusion in such "comprehensive film guides" for the reason that everything, notable or not, is listed due to their comprehensive nature. As the Note expounding on the point states, "Many of these sources can provide valuable information, and point to other sources, but in themselves do not indicate a notable subject." While a movie being listed in IMDB does not make it notable, an actresses filmography is something that can be used to define prolific contributions. IMDB is most certainly a reliable source, and virtually the definition of it regarding statistics such as filmographies. The rule simply says that it does not automatically confer notability by inclusion therein. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 16:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not misunderstanding it at all and sorry, but no, IMDB is NOT reliable source per community consensus. And no, its filmography can not be used to define "prolific contributions" - beyond not being reliable, the roles have no context and could, for all you know, be nothing but extra roles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link or reference, please? - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS, WP:FILMS, WP:MOSFILMS, Wiki search in the Wiki realm and you'll find TONS of discussion at the films project, the RSN, RS itself, etc all upholding this consensus - IMDB is a user-edited site and not a reliable source. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All discusssions about the very narrow margin of consensus to not accept IMDB as a source aside... it specifically is NOT user-edited. As for her list of credits, it is not neccessary to argue about IMDB and citing... consensus at Project Films has accepted that the credits roll of each of the 70+ films is acceptable verification that she has been in them. As for "prolific"... it would be up to individual editor's to themselves determine if 78 feature films in 15 years is prolific or not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the first two of those make no mention of IMDB whatsoever. The third one says in the discussion of Cast listings, and I quote, "The key is to provide plenty of added value "behind the scenes" background production information, without simply re-iterating IMDB." In other words, the only reference to IMDB in those links is one validating the content of the site as far as casting, with the note that more detail should be added to those basic statistics when forming an article on the cast. On top of that, I did some second-level browsing of the links on the second reference you gave and found exactly what I have been saying so far; IMDB, while unreliable for certain things, is a reliable source for establishing filmographies. Note this archived discussion and Wikipedia:Citing_IMDb, which, unlike the above, are actually discussing IMDB. A filmography is all that is being cited in this AfD to establish "prolific contributions," and that is well within the realm of IMDB's reliability. If it was being sourced for biographical information or other details, yes, there would be a problem as per the above references. Filmography is a hard fact, and that is the extent of IMDB's usage here. One, I might add, for which it had been agreed to be a reliable source - the only thing the community agreed on clearly, I should note. If you've got something else (specific, please) that says otherwise, please let me know. So far, my search has turned up what I've shown above. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The individual in question is fairly well known in the realms of horror movie and independent film making. Deletion would seem to be counter-productive. TVPowers (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely fails WP:BLP. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify some particular points in which it fails? Thanks, - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A lot of single name roles (read that as usually a small role) or roles as "White Trash Woman", "Snotty Socialite #1" or "Acid Woman in Black" in mostly straight to video films don't make someone look like they pass WP:ENT to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Certainly, like many actors, she has some roles in the beginning of her career that were simply descriptives... IE: as 'Victim' in Virgin Sacrifices (1996), or 'Woman in the forest' in Quicksand at Deadman's Creek (1999). But with respects... almost all her roles, including those many where she was the star, are 'single name' characters. For this genre, that'e not a strike, but an expectation. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:39, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:ENT, albeit it in a niche area where Wikipedia's general coverage is weak. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 06:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I consider 78 feature films in 15 years to be prolific. Further, she does receive postive response in horror genre-specific reviews about her films and her roles in them. Its a niche, certainly... but she has carved (no pun intended) a very solid place for herself in that niche. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per MichaelQSchmidt. Also, usage of IMDB for personal info is really bad. But I don't see anything wrong with using it for a filmography. Garion96 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Prior AfD already concluded that a prolific actor is notable. That didn't change. In 5 minutes of research I found and added another decent reference. She's well-known as a prolific b-movie horror/cheap movie actress. Article has improved since this AfD started. --Milowent (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]