The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 21:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere (film)[edit]

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

The notability of this film/filmmakers is highly questionable. Does not meet WP:NF guidelines. Xxcvii (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Xxcvii (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice as failing WP:NF. This short film screened at festivals n 2005, but beyond that there seems to be no coverage. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT delete This film is perfectly verifiable and is part of the films available to download on the new Mi Shorts site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diceman cometh (talk • contribs) 12:41, August 6, 2009
• Delete - Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for inclusion. There is no coverage about this short film. No indication of significant awards or anything else that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 10 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. (X! · talk)  · @736  ·  16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

London Business Conferences[edit]

London Business Conferences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

If this were a newer article I'd ((prod)) it, but it's been edited by numerous other editors over the last two years, none of whom have done so, so maybe I'm missing some notability. Looks as obvious a piece of corporate spam for a non-notable company as I ever saw.  – iridescent 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. No reason why anybody not interested in the subjects of these conferences would have ever heard of this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a major company. By working my way through their web site, I find they run only a dozen conferences a year. DGG (talk) 01:58, 10 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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nemesis Enforcer[edit]

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

Minor character, minor toy. No claim to, let alone evidence of, notability, nor citations to reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just started editing the page. Many of the charters are minor, but he had a major role in the original Movie and in the Comic he appeared. Many of the G.I. Joe pages being added have less information than this. I do not Support a delete. Sgetz (talk) 20:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sgetz. --Ridge Runner (formerly known as Flash176) (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge to some appropriate list of charcters in the franchise If there are similar pages with less information, merge them also. This should be the default solution for characters . DGG (talk) 08:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a decent article for the character in question. It has more information than many of the basic characters, and is a good starting point for others to build on. It has several references that show the character has some notability. 72.237.4.150 (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I said before, as I was the person that reinstate the article, I think there is enough material on it to keep it. Also, we have a Keep from Ridge Runner above. Sgetz (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough on this article for it to stay. 24.58.239.42 (talk) 22:27, 6 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 merge to School band. (X! · talk)  · @273  ·  05:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Band geek[edit]

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

it does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for naming articles, and its content may already be stated in the school band article. Burningview (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was reformatted to conform to AfD step 2. Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to school band. Little more than dicdef, but fairly well-written and I think it deserves a mention. --Merovingian (T, C) 22:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into School_band#'Band_geek'. This is not notable enough for its own article. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep yeah, it's short and maybe a definition, but it's got enough cultural impact to warrant a mention.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - this is not a standalone article. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to School_band#'Band_geek'. -- Whpq (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep A search in the Academic Search Premiere database brings up 38 articles with the term. Many are passing mentions, e.g. "'I was kind of a band geek in high school,'says Johnny Rockstar," but included among them are articles like "Adolescents' Expressed Meanings of Music in and out of School" in Journal of Research in Music Education Fall2007, and "Parents' Messages about the Role of Extracurricular and Unstructured Leisure Activities: Adolescents' Perceptions" in Journal of Leisure Research 3rd Qtr 2006 that I think demonstrate that there is potential for the article to grow into something substantial. That said, in its current form it's isn't much more than a dictionary definition with a lot of references (but no citations) Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 18:02, 11 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 redirect to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle#Sets and expansions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Shadowed Court[edit]

Blood Shadowed Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This product is a repackaging of earlier product, and is not notable. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Vampire: The Eternal Struggle#Sets and expansions. Most of the expansion sets for this game have pages, but I can find no evidence of notability for this one. I wouldn't object to the material being merged into a combination article with several other sets, but it certainly doesn't need a stand-alone article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @928  ·  21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't take any stand whether this article should be kept or not, but if it is changed into a redirect then it should point to Camarilla Edition, as this set reprints only crypt cards from that expansion. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I'm really not sure to where, but I think ThaddeusB's target makes a bit more sense. Hobit (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would redirect to the entire game, while within the Camarilla Edition article a sub-section for the Blood Shadowed Court could be easily added, without any strayings within the articles. With the BSC article redirecting there no actual information would be lost anywhere within the bitspace, while still cleaning the Wikipedia a bit. --Jhattara ^{(Talk · Contrib)} 07:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see what you are shooting for now. Agreed. Hobit (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per ThaddeusB. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 07:38, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student robotics society, Southampton University[edit]

Student robotics society, Southampton University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student club, doesn't win any robot competitions. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @928  ·  21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @928  ·  21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student Robotics doesn't enter robotics competitions - it is an organisation whose purpose is to encourage young engineers by organising competitions for the students who participate to enter. It is thus comparable to the RAEng's Engineering Education Scheme, though it differs significantly. Peter Law (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We do not collect every single student society there is on the planet. Nothing to suggest that this one is notable. Tim Song (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not remotely notable. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not quite notable enough Dr. Szląchski (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 16:59, 6 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) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary Performance[edit]

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

Nothing that indicates notability. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Contemporary is such a choice word that could indicate many forms of theatre and I agree it doesn't seem notable in this case. Seems abit like Physical theatreMark E (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unsourced original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:40, 5 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slide (software)[edit]

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

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, minimal content and no context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete nothing to show notability. Really nothing there at all. ^TheWeak_Willed 00:35, 6 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. JForget 01:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Fitzgerald[edit]

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

WP:NN. Redundant fancruft for a fictional character that only appears in 1 novel. Topic already covered in My Sister's Keeper and My Sister's Keeper (film). -- RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 04:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as would be my vote for any nominated article that does no more than recount the character's role in the plot. Pointless. Propaniac (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above; no reason for a separate article for this. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable. Alan16 (talk) 20:15, 8 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. and Transwikified to Wikitionary JForget 22:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]JForget 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo-edge[edit]

Pseudo-edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(1) The article does not provide sufficient context for the meaning or use of the term to be clear. (How and why is one colouring vertices? Why might one wish 2 non-adjacent vertices to be of different colours? etc...) (2) The article does not cite any sources, and there is no indication of notability. (3) Web searches do not indicate to me that this usage is common. I have searched through dozens of pages using the expression "pseudo-edge" and failed to find this one. My suspicion is that, if it exists at all, it is a nonce usage limited to a proof of one theorem, or something similar. It certainly does not seem to be notable enough for an article. (4) The article gives so little information as to be useless. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment 155 hits in Google books [[2]] Curtis (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, 344 hits in Google Scholar [3]. --13² 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is an excellent example of why uncritical use of "number of Google hits" as a measure of notability is an error. Yes, there are many hits for "pseudo-edge", but is there even one hit for the usage of "pseudo-edge" referred to in the article? If there is then please direct me to it: I can't find it. I said above that I had searched through dozens of pages and failed to find this usage. I can now add that hits from Google books and Google Scholar are included in those dozens of hits. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've done some searching as well and found nothing which looks relevant. If you add "different colo[u]r" or "graph-theory" AND "colo[u]r" to those Google searches above it cuts out most or all of the results; the few remaining ones which are actually in graph-theory publications aren't using the term in this fashion. James's theory about terminology in a single proof seems likely. I contacted an IP editor who said they'd add more material in case they know of something we're missing, though they've made only two edits so may be using a dynamic IP. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible WP:CSD#A1 speedy deletion as the article lacks enough context for me to tell what a pseudo-edge really is or what it's good for despite my experience with graph coloring. My guess is that most of the hits found by Curtis involve situations in which authors have defined pseudo-edges in different ways incompatible from each other and with whatever meaning is intended here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was, in fact, proposed for a speedy under CSD A1, and the speedy was rejected on the grounds "the context is clear: this is a graph theory concept". I agree with David Eppstein: "graph theory" is not enough context. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I think "graph theory, a field within mathematics", with a link to graph theory, gives enough "context". But the article is unsatisfactory in a crucial other respect: it never gets around to saying what a "pseudo-edge" is. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Both Google Scholar and Google Books clearly indicate that the term pseudo-edge is indeed used in graph theory. But the article does not say what a pseudo-edge is, let alone indicate why the concept matters. The items I found via Google Scholar that would tell us that were not actually viewable; only the abstracts could be read and didn't mention pseudo-edges (I haven't searched extensively; I've only looked at three or four). Similarly in Google Books I found just little snippets that could be viewed. So the solution would appear to be delete without prejudice; allow re-creation if the re-created article can be written in a satisfactory way. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a dictionary definition (implicit); the explicit form would be in graph-coloring theory, a pseudo-edge is a requirement that two non-adjacent vertices have different colors. Delete if no source for this meaning can be found; else transwiki to Wiktionary. In either case, not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is relatively easy to produce a plane graph with non-adjacent vertices A and B which cannot be 4-colored with A and B the same color. They may be said to have a "pseudo-edge" between them; it is not so clear that there are cases in which the graph plus a real edge AB would still be planar.
  • Draw a triangle DEF around A and connect all three vertices to A; place a point C exterior to DEF and connect it to DEF and B. Then A and C must be the same color, so A and B can't be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment

It is not clear to me why this has been relisted: 5 editors have said "delete", and nobody has said "keep"; to me this looks very much like consensus. However, since it has been relisted, here is a summary of what we have established:

Nobody has produced any evidence for any use of this meaning of the expression anywhere; if it does exist it certainly is not general enough to make it notable enough for an article. Also as Septentrionalis has pointed out, the "article" is more like a dictionary definition, so that if it belongs anywhere it is on Wictionary, not here.

All that seems very clear and unambiguous to me. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete without prejudice per JamesBWatson. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary as this information should be preserved but is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Byronwrites (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary and delete here (or redirect to a graph theory page). No matter the term is used or not, nobody seem to ever expand this tiny article. Materialscientist (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the given definition seems to be at worst a one-off useage and at best unreferenced and non-universal, I don't see that transwikiing would be appropriate. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:02, 10 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 merge to Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca ^talk 21:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flawless (novel)[edit]

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

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthony^Talk 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting repetitive: Merge indeed, since delete is not an option for me (the title is a viable search term). I don't see any potential for this acquiring content. Two hits on Google News, but nothing substantial. Drmies (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @890  ·  20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge fairly obvious merge. Not all the content, but perhaps abbreviated to one half,supplemented with information about the production and the reception of the book. The summaries in the main article are disgracefully insufficient, but there;s a middle ground. This is one time a group nomination could have helped. DGG (talk) 08:24, 6 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 merge to Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca ^talk 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect (novel)[edit]

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

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthony^Talk 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge indeed, since delete is not an option for me (the title is a viable search term). I don't see any potential for this acquiring content. A few hits here do not add up to any kind of significant coverage. Drmies (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @890  ·  20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge fairly obvious merge. Not all the content, but perhaps abbreviated to one half,supplemented with information about the production and the reception of the book. The summaries in the main article are disgracefully insufficient, but there;s a middle ground. This is one time a group nomination could have helped. DGG (talk) 08:25, 6 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 merge to Pretty Little Liars. ~ mazca ^talk 21:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable (novel)[edit]

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

This derivative stub is a redundant spin-off of Pretty Little Liars, a relatively short article which already covers the series. Its author has created six stubs for related novels which include only plot information, and has yet to expand this article significantly with real-world coverage to assert notability (and seems unlikely to). She has reverted my attempts to boldly redirect, so I'm seeking a consensus on merging/redirecting or deletion. — TAnthony^Talk 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge indeed, since delete is not an option for me (the title is a viable search term). I don't see any potential for this acquiring content. This is the best I could find, and it's not really anything--it certainly does not address the novel in depth.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @890  ·  20:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• merge fairly obvious merge. Not all the content, but perhaps abbreviated to one half,supplemented with information about the production and the reception of the book. The summaries in the main article are disgracefully insufficient, but there;s a middle ground. This is one time a group nomination could have helped. DGG (talk) 08:25, 6 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. (X! · talk)  · @736  ·  16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congruent Partitioning[edit]

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

It looks to me as if a decades-old tech report has been transferred to Wikipedia. Apart from the "document in the files at WPAFB" mentioned towards the end, there are no references regarding the method, in particular no secondary sources. Another point is that the author's name is "JRobertLogan", and the principal investigator was J. Robert Logan. This has been removed from the article, but may be found in the history. Favonian (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fundamental technology described in this article is relevant, and has been taught in the Electrical Engineering Department at Brigham Young University. The fact that this "tech report" is old does not invalidate the concepts in any way. In fact, the elegance and performance claims made in the article are proven, and verifiable by simple inspection and testing. This article was only submitted today, and already it's nominated for deletion? It seems unlikely that the nominee took any time to evaluate the technology and compare it to the "old tech" Karnaugh Map and Quine–McCluskey algorithms which actually predate the Congruent Partitioning work. It would seem reasonable to allow some time for the author and others to add references and make other improvements (including conforming to guidelines), then re-evaluate the value of this contribution. LifeOfLearning (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do indeed find it difficult to read this article, and so will most other readers, which is why I've added a call for technical expertise to the talk page. The age of the report is not the main problem, but I think there is a WP:OR issues. Another question which I need to ask is: are you the original author of this article? This list of contributions seems to indicate it. If so, I think you should mention it when commenting. Favonian (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not the original author, who I know and who is quite old. I learned about this in a university EE class lecture years ago, so I am familiar with the concepts of this and the related technologies. My contributions are simply those of an kindred spirit, wishing no more than to share a useful technology with others. The constructive criticism here is appreciated, thank you. LifeOfLearning (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs at the very least a complete rewrite. The lead does not even explain the topic to a general audience, and the rest of the article is no better. Hairhorn (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unintelligible text, close to patent nonsense:
  
  Congruent Partitioning is a completely different genre in the automatic synthesis of logic equations.
  
  The Quine-McCluskey algorithm produces its output by reducing a selected canonical set through iterative comparison and elimination of common bits. Where a function is made of a significant number of variables a computer is the only way of handling this task. The processing algorithm is simple but it can take significant time.
  
  After reading that, I am no wiser about what this is or does. The claim about being a "completely different genre" suggests that the author is blowing his own horn about the merits of his original research. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead has been re-written, but is still opaque to non-experts: "Congruent Partitioning is an algorithm for the automatic synthesis of logic equations..." Hairhorn (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Brilliant, much faster than Karnaugh Maps. Jjcondie (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion is not about the method per se, but whether the article is Wikipedia material. Favonian (talk) 10:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Jjcondie's argument is irrelevant to the issue at hand, as is LifeOfLearning's. Ihcoyc, the first part of your argument is, too. Deletion policy doesn't allow us to delete articles in fields that editors aren't competent in. Patent nonsense is text that one couldn't understand, not text that one simply doesn't understand.

  As a matter of fact, I do understand this content. Perhaps that makes me an "expert". I make no claims. As someone who understands what this article is attempting to discuss, I've looked for sources that document this, and not found any. The second part of Ihcoyc's argument thus applies. This subject as presented simply is not documented, in published works, outside of Wikipedia. It appears to be a novel invention, not heretofore documented in published works, being documented by its inventor directly in Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy.

  M. Logan, this is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. It is not a publisher of first instance. It's not a research journal, nor an advertising billboard, nor a free wiki hosting service. Please get your research, ideas, and inventions published via the proper outlets, with the proper peer review processes applied. Wikipedia is not a shortcut around those processes. Get your knowledge out into the general corpus of human knowledge, the right way, before coming to Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion seems to hinge on two points: 1) whether or not references exist, and 2) whether the topic "as presented" is formally documented.

  The original article section entitled "Congruent Partitioning by Machine"by M. Logan corresponds directly to the referenced two volume document at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, and the three other references. The Air Force document is reliable, available in the public domain, verifiable, and corroborates this section in every detail, but unfortunately not exposed by online/periodical searches. The claim that, "I've looked for sources that document this, and not found any", without any effort to obtain the referenced documents is a weak excuse. And then to claim that this subject "as presented" is not documented is simply not true, repetitive, and shows lack of due diligence. Please provide a reference to Wikipedia policy that requires references to be accessible online. The present introduction section and the section entitled "Congruent Partitioning by Machine" meet all of the Wikipedia requirements for encyclopedic content, although they could be improved of course.

  Wikipedia has no requirement for references to peer review processes or publications, only to "cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article", which this article does. This article cites published material that was originally produced under contract to the Air Force, including the original research that resulted in well defined algorithms that were also incorporated in a computer program. Military research contracts are not granted without prior careful analysis and review by qualified individuals - also a peer review process.

  A strict interpretation of "as presented" would require only direct quotes, and no paraphrasing, of published material - which would appear to invalidate most Wikipedia content. However, the claim that the original article could only be understood by an expert has merit, which is why I contributed the section on "Congruent Partitioning by Hand", based on classroom experience, to further introduce and simplify the concepts for non-experts. This section "as presented" is not formally documented out of the classroom, and I accept responsibility for violating the requirement to provide reliable references per se. However, this section does not represent original research, and is merely a simplification of the main concept, verifiable by simple inspection, and similar to an extended introduction that is common in the first section of Wikipedia articles. You are welcome to delete this section, as you please, to uphold the letter of the "as presented" law, so to speak.

  Jjcondie's argument is extremely relevant, as it lends credibility to the basic concept as being self evident, which also supports the requirement that Wikipedia content be verifiable.

  Keep. LifeOfLearning (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: You still seem to regard Wikipedia as a scientific journal and the editors as referees, who have to be convinced that your technical paper deserves to be published. Uncle G has told you clearly that this is not so. An encyclopedia article must be reference verifiable secondary sources. This article does not provide these references, and this is the main reason why our recommendation is to delete the article. Favonian (talk) 08:17, 12 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. JForget 22:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adéla Kolínská[edit]

Adéla Kolínská (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 claim to notability, no evidence of notability, no sourcing, potential BLP violation. Zero Google News hits, most substantive Google hits appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: looking up few available Czech sources (article about her, SFW photo) the information in the stub is about right. Whether it makes her notable I don't know. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:V. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. Bradybd (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per all the above. Kevin (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm not sure what the content of [4] is but it is clearly about her as the main subject. Aside from that, there is no other coverage. A check of the International Paralympic Committee site's athlete search turns up no record for her. As such there is no evidence for her meeting WP:ATHLETE as competing at the highest level of her sport. And with only a single article, she also fails to meet the general notability guidelines. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 10 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 no consensus. Sources have been added, but there is no consensus over whether they show notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin: LIVE[edit]

Shirley, Squirrely and Melvin: LIVE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable album. Completely fails WP:MUSIC and no real artist to record to. Almost unverifiable beyond seeing a few people mention it in random blog postings and fansites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, dramatis personae sourced from 2nd edition of Rolling Stone Album Guide and story of Chipmunk Punk is incomplete without it.--What about a squirrel? (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two published references to strengthen my point. Hope that helps. --What about a squirrel? (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you added one, and its an encyclopedia which is a tertiary source. Two or one, however, still does not really show notability if its such a brief mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what would? Also, must notability come before the technical aspect complete presentation of a group's discography in order for it to remain intact on the Wikipedia? --What about a squirrel? (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Notability does not preclude the album from being listed in their discography list, but notability is required for that album to have a standalone article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of the first mash-up albums to have been released (in terms of structure). Does that help?--What about a squirrel? (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean the Rolling Stone Album Guide or The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Editor has made major efforts to attempt to source this article. Sources now meet all guidelines. Ikip (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included at Talk:The Nutty Squirrels and Alvin and the Chipmunks Ikip (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources that have been provided do not appear to be sufficient to support the article. For example, George Gimarc's book Post Punk Diary: 1980-1982 has been cited as a reference on the ground that his entry about Chipmunk Punk identifies the personnel on this album. Gimarc's book is available on Google Books [5], and it does have an entry about Chipmunk Punk, but it doesn't mention this album or Shirley & Squirrely anywhere. Another reference is to an article in Billboard magazine, which merely states that Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin were a novelty act on Excelsior Records, but doesn't mention this album or any alleged use of Chipmunks tracks. There is also no source provided for the claim that the track "Love Lives On" is a cult favorite on Los Angeles R&B stations. The article also claims, via a piped link, that the Ramones provided instrumental backing for this album under the pseudonym "The Amazing Rodent Rhythm Machine", another statement for which no source is provided. I don't believe that the article's claims to notability have been established as accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Metropolitan90. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I look at the reference section, and it seems to prove notability. Even as a collaboration between two notable entities, it is notable. The Chipmunks are mega famous(their albums selling well, and they having a cartoon for many years), so they being involved in an album, makes it notable. Dream Focus 19:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that include the Gimarc book? I am going to see if I can track down the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll cited in this article to see if that book mentions anything about this album. I won't be shocked if it doesn't. It's nice that this article claims the album was a collaboration with the Chipmunks, but that doesn't count for much unless it's verifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've now listened to one of the NPR items cited as a reference, "Annoying Music, In Honor of the King". NPR personality Jim Nayder has a regular segment in which he plays "annoying" music. While Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin were not mentioned in this segment about bad versions of Elvis Presley songs, their rendition of "Blue Suede Shoes" was posted on the NPR web site as an additional example. Since Nayder did not mention the group in his segment, he did not comment on any alleged collaboration between Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin and the Chipmunks. The only fact this source establishes is that Shirley, Squirrely & Melvin did a version of "Blue Suede Shoes". I suppose that verifying the existence of one track from this album is better than nothing, but it certainly doesn't prove the collaboration with the Chipmunks, much less with the Ramones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 11 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.

Comparison of website monitoring tools[edit]

Comparison of website monitoring tools (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOT and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is optimized for readers over editors, Pages consisting of redlinks are unhelpful to readers. Repositories of Red link articles do not add content or meaning to the encyclopedia Hu12 (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while I think that almost all of the rationale for this deletion is only cause to edit the article, the first reason is sufficient: Article fails WP:NOT. It's certainly helpful, but it's not really WP's thing. Describing what a Web site monitoring tool is would be reasonable. Perhaps even listing some articles comparing them from the popular trade press would be fine, but such comparisons are ephemeral and their criteria subjective. Not encyclopedic. -Miskaton (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is just an attempt to establish a reason to spam Wikipedia with a bunch of "website monitoring tools". On a page like List of social networking websites editors regularly have to revert red-link additions of non-notable sites with the edit summary including write the article first. The list in this AFD is almost empty except for red links to non-notable companies who individually fail WP:CORP. This list fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 5 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. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis W. Thabault[edit]

Louis W. Thabault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. I'm in favor of including major-party nominees for U.S. Senate who lose the general election. But losing a primary is different. In general, candidates who lose primaries are not inherently notable. Thabault falls under that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or merge?) I'd like to find a citation that's not a broken link, and then perhaps a short phrase about him at United States Senate election in Vermont, 2006 after his name would make sense. Other than that, I don't see a need for keeping a stand-alone article for someone only on the basis of their having listed themselves on a Senate Primary. -Miskaton (talk) 22:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply fails WP:POLITICIAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 20:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Minor candidate with no indication of notability. If the primary were worth an article, he'd barely merit a one-sentence mention. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 5 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 as per consensus - WP:CORP requirements are met. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undertone Networks[edit]

Undertone Networks (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)

Though the subject doesn't meet the notability requirements, although it fails WP:CORP and WP:ORG. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 23:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I doubt any efforts would make this article more efficient than spam.keystoneridin! (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:CORP per the Gnews link above. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:BEFORE. The article can probably be expanded, with more than 100 GNews hits (excluding PR releases) to choose from. The nominator has not even attempted to rectify the problems before nominating the article. The company has received coverage in dozens of reliable sources. The fact that the article was not expanded is never a reason for deletion and the above delete-!voters do not even try to make a reasoning based on the available sources. Keystoneridin's !vote is particularly interesting here since I do not think it's spammy (then again, I rewrote it...). Regards SoWhy 20:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Not convinced it passes WP:NOTABILITY Bradybd (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the current references are sufficient to establish notability. Perhaps not by much but falls on the notable side for me. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 10 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. (X! · talk)  · @737  ·  16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zuzana Drabinová[edit]

Zuzana Drabinová (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 in question since February. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Could not find any reliable sources about her to satisfy the general notability guidelines. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject of this article fails to meet the WP:Pornbio criteria, nor does the subject's general notability appear to be otherwise established. This article cites zero sources, and has been tagged as such since June. The article has also been tagged for its lack of apparent Notability since February. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Asserts basic requirements of WP:N. WP:PORNBIO is additional criteria for inclusion, not qualifiers for exclusion. Chuthya (talk) 11:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How the heck can an article with zero sources possibly achieve Notability? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 13:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also satisfies requirements for WP:ENT. Lack of sources just means the stub article needs to be fleshed out, not deleted. Chuthya (talk) 20:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:PORNBIO. 86.164.58.117 (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: searching Czech sources it looks all information in the article is correct (she used names Ariana / Eva D. / Kirsten / Michelle / Raylene Latias / Raylene Richards / Wendy / Wendy AW / Zanette / Zuzana / Zuzanna / Zuzanna Drabinova). If she is notable than it would be for her stripping photos, her RedNews anchoring is atrocious and marginal. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as a curiosity, few days ago Police of the Czech Republic started country-wide search for her [6] (reason was not specified, she could be missing or suspected). The article may change in the future. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not present intersections of reliable independent secondary sources. Algébrico (talk) 09:27, 9 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. JForget 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Empires[edit]

War of the Empires (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 computer game that has not been created yet. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A non-notable game that has not been created. Joe Chill (talk) 01:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Zero sources indicating notability; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This appears to be a browser-based game, in which case Speedy Delete under criteria A7. Marasmusine (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Marasmusine --bonadea contributions talk 18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per notability and crystal ball concerns. The article probably does qualify for CSD A7. --Taelus (talk) 08:38, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charity: water[edit]

Charity: water (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 blatant advertising in the sense of CSD, the article as stands is not encyclopaedic and is self-promoting. -- Alexandr Dmitri (Александр Дмитрий) (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is poorly written, but the subject is notable: featured in a NYT column, covered in a CNET article, covered in a CNN broadcast, fundraiser covered in Bloomberg, etc. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article needs considerable rewrite, but I find it hard to object to an article about a charity being somewhat self-promotional. Rjwilmsi 07:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The notability of the subject is notable so deletion isn't appropriate. But Rjwilmsi's remarks are in opposition to Wikipedia policy. Self-promotion is unacceptable no matter what the cause. -- Atama^chat 17:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but it needs a heavy rewrite. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep But since when do charities get a pass on promoting themselves? Needs a ground-up rewrite with sources. ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep But it reads like and advert and needs to be rewritten completely. Bradybd (talk) 05:43, 10 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. JForget 22:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Krishna in Krishna Consciousness was already redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness prior to closure. --JForget 22:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krsna in Krsna Consciousness[edit]

Krsna in Krsna Consciousness (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)

Way too much detail of part of the Krishna Consciousness belief system. All references from Krishna Consciousness sources. ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The page was previously created as Lord Krishna in Krishna Consciousness which was then redirected by another editor. Also Bhagavad Gita in Krishna Consciousness, Lord Shri Rama in Krishna Consciousness by the same editor, PRODded, contested and redirected; there must be a few more such pages that were redirected. I remember seeing a few like these on the PROD log, not expressing an opinion on the article at this time. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bhagavad-Gita in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Vedas in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jesus in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rama in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lord Jesus Christ in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanskrit in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sanskrit as it is (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

And, also

Krishna in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Vedas as they are (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To extend on the above, the articles have extensive detail at the point where, if it was a fiction article, it could be deleted for being "in-universe". No analysis or external sources, just a presentation of "the truth". I can see where a summary of some of these could go into the International Society for Krishna Consciousness article, but not at this level of detail. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would personally prefer to keep, because I like the idea of having so much detail in articles. However, if not, much of this information should certainly go in the ISKCON article. Academic Challenger (talk) 22:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. All very badly written, one cannot WP:VERIFY any of the data, as not one in-line reference. To keep would require a complete rewrite to obtain WP:STYLE, and even then WP:NOTE may still be in doubt.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. No valid references, personal essay style, wrong place for such content. Any such information, if it were ever to be validly and encyclopedicly written (and with reliable inline sources), should go into the ISKCON article. Priyanath ^talk 23:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. References are of not for anything in any of the articles. Merge information into Krishna Consciousness if there's anything worth salvaging. OlYeller^Talktome 23:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. -Falcon8765 (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. It appears to be a synthesis, and the tone is that of a discourse, not an article. An option is to userfy one article and let the editor work on it before getting it to main space if notable enough for one. At present the articles don't appear to be anything more than content that belongs within International Society for Krishna Consciousness, but not really merge worthy. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all, as unencyclopedic POV in-universe essays sourced from non-RS websites. In addition, there are copyright violation concerns; for example a random check shows that:

• The following paragraph in Krsna in Krsna Consciousness is copied verbatim from an Bhaktivedanta Book Trust website:

The activities of the incarnation are the marginal features. ... "Let us leave aside all these discussions and continue with a description of the saktyavesa-avataras."

• The list in the Krishna's Lila Avatars or Kalpa Avatarssection is copied in toto from this website

Note that encyclopedic articles on some of the topics (say, ISKCON's view of Krishna) can possibly be justified and written based on third-party sources; however these article titles and content don't provide a useful start and are not worth retaining. Abecedare (talk) 00:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. One sentence about each in the ISKCON article will be sufficient (and they must be referenced). — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article not only unsourced and does not meet notability criteria, it is also grosly misrepresentative of the views it claims to represent, while using copyrighted material as well. In fact is should be speedy deleted due to copyvio. WP:SNOWBALL - do not wait. Wikid^as© 06:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a bunch of forks.Pectore^talk 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That, too. And a perfectly matched set of them. Priyanath ^talk 23:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as essays and copyvio. In addition, the author of the ten articles mentioned in this AfD also created another ten articles of the same kind which have since been redirected to International Society for Krishna Consciousness (just like Krishna in Krishna Consciousness above); while these redirects don't harm anybody it's questionable whether they are plausible search terms or mistypings for Int Soc for Krishna Consciousness. The ten redirects are listed below:

Lord Krishna in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lord Shri Krishna in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lord Rama in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jesus Christ in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Vedas in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Bhagavad-Gita in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lord Shri Rama in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Bhagavad Gita in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Sanskrit Language in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Sanskrit language in Krishna Consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--bonadea contributions talk 10:00, 7 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. JForget 01:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sellsumerism[edit]

Sellsumerism (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)

Prod removed by primary author (User:Christy Chung - I suspect a WP:SPA). Author seems to be using this to substantiate another article: Matt Garcia, which I believe should also be deleted. Per: WP:Neologism, WP:ADVERT. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Makes no sense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs)

• Delete - Per nom. Matt Garcia is also a highly suspicious one. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: there is no such a term.. South Bay (talk) 21:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable and disgusting neologism. Primary author history suggests this is part of a campaign. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism, seems to be promotional in intent. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 16:44, 7 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenka (album)[edit]

Lenka (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)

• Merge: I think this article is better off merged with Lenka. This page is only a stub, lacks content and It's her only album. Her page isn't too large. Abc518 (talk) 20:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Other artists have only albums listed, can't be prejudicial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can understand if she had half a dozen albums (Eminem for example), however, she only has a single album, and her main page isn't too big to support what's contained in this article plus some. --Abc518 (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep (ec)I'm not really sure with that (I don't edit "album articles" too often), but I've found a plenty of sources, reviews and further informations about that album. It has potential to be kept separately. I've already added some links, check it, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough album, plenty of reviews and charted in the US and Australia. If there's enough info out there to sustain an article, there's no problem having an article. I'll work on it a bit :) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've now added four reviews to the infobox, I'll do some more work on it in the next few days as I anticipate an avalanche of keep votes. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the reviews Dylanfromthenorth added. Passes WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 16:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's notable 83.71.37.118 (talk) 10:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dylanfromthenorth's arguments. Notable enough (reviews, charts) to warrant a separate article. Europe22 (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepEnough notable to have it own article. Facha93 (talk) 00:45, 11 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 delete CSD G4 as recreation of content previously deleted via AfD. No significant change since its last AfD. I am also going to salt it. --Angelo (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Dos Santos[edit]

Jonathan Dos Santos (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)

Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league Black'nRed 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteGr8launch (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gr8launch, it is typical to give a reason for deletion, rather than blindly stating that it shouldn't remain. Even if that reason is just "per nom" or "per above", it at least shows what editors believe to be wrong with the article. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 21:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G4 if nothing has changed since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan dos Santos, the article doesn't give me any reason to think it has. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy w/ salt no improvement and non-notable.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   22:51, 6 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. JForget 22:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MakRadio[edit]

MakRadio (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)

Still a non-notable internet radio station since 2007. Now that it's dead, it's more of an ad for McKeehan, who isn't notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteagree per nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 22:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, there really isn't much else to add RadioFan (talk) 17:40, 9 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 DELETE. Alexf^(talk) 12:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TQC[edit]

TQC (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)

Spammy vanity page of a non-notable company Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleteper nom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and probably could be a speedy deletion as a non-notable company without any reliable sources provided. I just wanted to remind everyone that according to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest we should avoid using the word "vanity" in AfD discussions; we can assume good faith and consider that the individual who created the article was trying to expand our coverage. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:57, 5 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. The 'per nom' delete comments are simply stating that because it's at Wiktionary, it needs to be deleted. Nowhere in the policies does it say that, and as such, they are given little weight. (X! · talk)  · @275  ·  05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceroma[edit]

Ceroma (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 entry has been copied to Wiktionary. It is very unlikely that it can be expanded into an appropriate encyclopedic article. It is possible the information could be added to another appropriate article if there is one. Sophitessa (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Agree with nominator. As it has transwikied over already, delete. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteagree per nom, if in wictionary already, no need listed separate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Information about who used this in what manner and for what purpose is not part of the definition of the word, but is encyclopedic information. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The present article is indeed no more than a dictionary definition. However, the question should be whether it is a stub that ought one day to be expanded inot an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. Every bit of information in the current article, including "information about who used this in what manner and for what purpose" is currently at Wiktionary. Cnilep (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it was in an earlier print encyclopedia, it should be in ours. If it was mentioned in classics sources, it can be expanded. DGG (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft redirect via ((wi)). Presence in print encyclopedia suggests appropriateness of inclusion, but current entry is little more than DICDEF. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Phil Bridger and DGG. This isn't merely a definition, has definite potential for expansion (although perhaps little interest amongst users to do so). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 14:46, 11 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devon ladson[edit]

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

In removing the speedy tag, the creator added just enough of a notability assertion to avoid a speedy deletion, unfortunately not enough to ensure the long-term survival of the article. The USA Today biography on this man is empty, and Google returns little else. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk)  · @075  ·  00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can it be verified that he's in the college football hall of fame? That would seem to me to be fairly strong indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently not. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN per WP:ATH. Borderline speedy A7. Jonathan Hall (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep only if article is cleaned up and properly sourced through normal editing. His career seems to have received some press[7]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coverage seems to be local. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The coverage is local. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I, the inclusionist of all things college football and defender of deletions, have done research and found that this guy has done basically nothing but suit up. He's made the roster a couple of times, at least on the web. Not finding any actual things he's done in games--finding lots of statistics columns with zeroes in them. Plus, the article says he's now sitting out and working at a UPS facility. Tail end of article reads as retaliatory against the school. This is not the kind of article that Wikipedia wants and it should be removed pronto.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:22, 7 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 deleted CSD G1 by DJ Clayworth. Amalthea 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson basketball championships[edit]

Jackson basketball championships (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)

Listcruft. Tckma (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Shouldn't it be a db though, as there is no content? ^TheWeak_Willed 18:52, 5 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. JForget 22:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horatio Holzbein[edit]

Horatio Holzbein (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. No hits in news aside from a press release, no indication of notability aside from a prize at a non-notable art show (no news hits for the art show itself), and no hits in scholar. His books do not show up at Amazon or google.books. NJGW (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - could have been an A7, in my opinion, but DGG felt we should give it a chance. Still fails all notions of notability and verifiability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peak civilization anachronism is a deletion discussion for an article created by the same editor about a term coined by Holzbein. freshacconci talktalk 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It appears that the artist has won an invitation-only award [8]. Since supporting the article on the talkpage [9] I'm now more sceptical about the status of this award and haven't found any reference to it outside of this artist's biography. --Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After reading the article on his book Peak civilization anachronism I'm getting rather low opinion on the notability of the author himself. Having an exhibition or a book published means nothing nowadays. Sometimes, you don't even need to pay for that, not to say about any assessment. Materialscientist (talk) 04:52, 10 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. JForget 22:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peak civilization anachronism[edit]

Peak civilization anachronism (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:NEO, and only uses one source. Just summarizes a book. No hits in scholar or news for the made-up phrase or the book title (in English and German). Seems non-notable. NJGW (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - non-notable neologism allegedly created by non-notable writer/artist (whose article is also at AfD). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - made up in a day; even a broader news search online reveals zero sources. Bearian (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable book.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A book summary of a book with questionable notability. Clubmarx (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above...Modernist (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An essay-like speculation based on a single questionable source. Materialscientist (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. already deleted per A5 by User:Fuhghettaboutit JForget 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sociotypical[edit]

Sociotypical (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)

yet another non notable neologism...when are we going to get a speedy category for things people made up one day?? WuhWuzDat 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki/Delete – Transwiki over to Wiktionary (as tagged now), as this is a legitimate term, as shown here [10] and not part of our sister's project as of today, then delete. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:21, 5 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 SNOW delete. Hammer time, indeed. Jclemens (talk) 00:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Offspring's ninth studio album[edit]

The Offspring's ninth studio 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)

Violates Wikipedia:Crystal ball. Things like "...he would like to have the new album out in 2010, but the band isn't likely to hit the studio until January." don't really indicate that this is currently a scheduled event and shows little in the way of notability at this time. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. The history part is also a copyvio. Triplestop x3 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No tracklisting, name or release date? Then here comes the hammer. (Seriously - one of the blokes in the band says they don't have any songs yet.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there's no track list, not to mention no name. WP:CRYSTAL. talkingbirds 19:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Speculation. Albums that aren't titled and/or haven't been recorded yet don't need an article. Alex (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop...WP:HAMMER time (delete). As I noted when I prodded it a few weeks ago: "WP:NALBUMS: Article about a possible future album that's only rumors at this point and about which no significant details (tracks, recording dates, etc.) have been announced (none exist, as at this point the band are only discussing tentative plans to write & record at some point in the next year). No objection to this being speedily deleted." --IllaZilla (talk) 21:32, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 19:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell account[edit]

Shell account (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)

• Delete - This article has no reliable sources as references and disputed external links, notability is questionable. --Hm2k (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per obvious notability. The sources are more than adequate to cover this, and the only ones who would dispute these links are those who get involved in anti-"insert OS here" wars.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into shell (computing). The topics are inseparable, and shell (computing) is currently little more than a list. I'm not sure whether shell accounts are independently notable, but they're clearly an important aspect of the broader topic. (Incidentally, I note that user account is a redirect to user (computing) rather than a distinct article.) EALacey (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite. According to better informed users, this is a major historical means of Internet access, something not indicated by the current article. EALacey (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into shell (computing) per EALacey. Excellent suggestion, saves this article's useful content. ReverendWayne (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Two reliable sources have been added to the article since the AfD was initiated and sources are not lacking for this topic. The AfD nomination by Hm2k is a violation of WP:POINT and is clearly a case of WP:REICHSTAG. This is a continuation of the ongoing disruption [11] by Hm2k with this article and its talk page and it appears to be a reaction to the RFC not going in his favour. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I presume nobody is questioning that the phrase "shell account" is used in the computing literature. Without intending to take a side in any running dispute, I can't see how the added references demonstrate any more than that. EALacey (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Tothwolf, assume good faith. I expect the outcome will benefit us both. --Hm2k (talk) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.
      --Tothwolf (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You do realise that is just wikipedia humor, don't you? Are you trying to be funny or did you mistake it for policy? --Hm2k (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Read WP:NPA. Both of you.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • We've already had this discussion, Tothwolf has a quite a history of bad faith. It gets tiresome constantly trying to defuse the situation when you're constantly under attack. Yet none of this belongs here. Issues with behavior belong in user talk. --Hm2k (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • ...and that right there is a personal attack. As you are well aware, the history you claim is not accurate and I've already brought this to the attention to the editor who created it. I've yet to see you defuse anything related to Shell account and the edit histories of the article and talk page make it quite clear that you continued to instigate arguments and conflicts with the editors involved. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hm2k, I assure you that climbing the Reichstag is no joke. It is a Wikipedia neologism that represents the absolute pinnacle of a dispute. You've clearly reached that point; edit warring on the article itself, [12] the talk page, [13] edit warring over the ((3O)) template and then changing the 3O request, [14] removing references, edit warring over the RFC, trying to add false logic and loaded wording in the RFC, and when none of that worked to your advantage, you initiated an AfD for the article itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tothwolf, your constant accusations are getting boring now. If you have a problem with my behaviour, use the user talk page or report me to an admin. Discussing it here is inappropriate and simply disruptive. Stop this dickery. I will not be engaging you on this matter here any further. --Hm2k (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:Duck --Tothwolf (talk) 03:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a basic type of internet account, and the standard type of internet access account preceding the establishment of always-on internet accounts. How could it not be notable? 76.66.193.221 (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- None of the references detail what a "shell account" actually is. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. (WP:GNG) --Hm2k (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, The concept of getting a shell account to access the internet via telnet is strangely alien in a Microsoft/GUI broadband world (see this howto). A merge may be possible but I think there is rather more to be said than defining the words. If the article were expanded to explain how people used shell accounts as part of the environment of the 1970s text driven "internet", scientific forums, early MUDs, BBSs, the beginnings of international social networking and how people chose shell accounts in the 1990s as they were the only form of internet access without hourly charges; then it would be easy to see why this article is notable and not quite just a sub-topic of shell (computing). As for sources, they are there, you just need to check through rather early computer enthusiast magazines. Damn, now I feel old.—Ash (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(source) Here is an article from Linux Journal in 1994 where Johnson, the editor of Linux Journal, shops for an ISP who can provide a shell account.

(source) 1994 again and here is a TidBITS article which reviews a possible funky new graphical replacement for shell accounts called The Internet Adapter; within a couple of years, it too was gone.—Ash (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ash, It seems your sources mention the legacy usage, something that is not even mentioned in the article. These sources are not suitable for the current content. I recommend you look at adding new content to support your sources. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had completely forgotten about TIA and it most certainly deserves mention here. I remember trying it out and finding that I preferred the simplicity of the open source program SLiRP (which even though SLiRP was very important software historically, it too is currently lacking an article). --Tothwolf (talk) 14:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It seems that a merge is a more likely candidate over keep. There's a different between the legacy usage of shell accounts provided by ISPs and modern usage which mainly consists of running background processes for bots and bouncers. However, you'll agree that neither have enough reliable sources at the moment to say which is right for this article. I'm unable to find anything conclusive that describes exactly what a shell account is, legacy or modern. --Hm2k (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's interesting because I continue to find lots of valid references. For example: Los Angeles Times: Core Fans of Shell Accounts Mourn Netcom's Demise We actually should have a section on Netcom's shell system netcom.netcom.com since this was one of, if not the first, commercial ISP to offer shell accounts to the general public. IIRC, those systems were SunOS 4.1.4_U1. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obsolete does not equal non-notable. If there are two different topics involved, the article should be split. DGG (talk) 02:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the article could use some elaboration, that does not mean it is not notable. Shell accounts have a very long and large history. There are many references to shell accounts in reliable sources, such as the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. If the subject is notable enough to be casually referenced in two of the largest news papers of the United States, I would think it is notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. It just needs to be researched and expanded on. The problem with referencing this topic is that shell accounts have not been in widespread usage in about 15 years. Less than 5 minutes of Google searches produced a number of links to useful articles which could be used. If you wish to improve the article as you state on the talk page I recommend taking the time to actually do so, adding references and external links rather than just removing invalid ones. Recommending the article for deletion does not seem appropriate. Iarann (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You'll notice the sources provided don't mention shell accounts in the same context of the article (ie: no mention of the legacy service provided by ISPs in the article and no mention of the modern IRC usage in the sources). That is why "5 minutes of Google searches" isn't always the best approach, because although it contains the right words it might not be appropriate to the article. Deletion would be the best way to prompt a rewrite. An AfD request has other benefits too including prompting the improvement of the article so that your "keep" is justified. My view is that there is no point disputing external links if the article is completely pointless. Note: I added the 2 original references, when there was previously none and added the current external links. Improvement is the aim of the game here. --Hm2k (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I read both those articles, and maybe you should too. They both reference shell accounts in the way defined in this article. In the New York Times article, the author casually mentions his provider wished him to no longer use his shell account, and in the LA Times article it discusses how those with shell accounts with miss the provider they were using. The first article only casually mentions the author using a shell account, but does not describe it, the second article does give an actual description. They both mention shell accounts in the "legacy" way described by the article, so I'm not sure what your point is. I wasn't using them as examples of sources, I was using them as examples of how popular it was in the early internet days. You can also find plenty of references to how they are now used for IRC bots or hacker/cracker purposes, but I don't feel a need to drive this into the ground. I stated keep and gave examples and evidence for that. I have no intention of rewriting the article myself but I would not like to see it deleted either. Your usage of recomending the article for deletetion specifically goes against the whole point of the deletion policy. To quote WP:AfD and WP:Deletion policy: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Iarann (talk) 05:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I strongly disagree with the use of AFD to "encourage a re-write" and I disagree that "deletion" can lead to a better article. If an article is deleted, then anybody who tries to write a new version will see a notice that the article has been deleted and might be discouraged from continuing. Even if a new article is created, there will be the specter of a G4 hanging over it if deleted via AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am aware of the contents of the sources I have provided and yes, one does indeed mention legacy usage, however it was the best I could find. I realise now that they aren't really suitable, which puts the whole article under question for notability, if it's so difficult to find suitable sources how can it be notable? Perhaps my reason for AfD is not suitable, however the outcome would establish whether it was worth improving further or not. I get the impression it is. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: This is a basic part of many operating systems. Maybe it needs better sourcing, but it is clearly notable. Bradybd (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(clarification) An operating system shell (a piece of software) is not the same thing as a shell account (a personal access account).—Ash (talk) 09:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is an important part of the Unix/Posix system, and it is proper to have its own entry established inside wikipedia. Unresolved personal disputes from some article maintainers, shouldn't affect its overall value. -- Prunk (talk) 08:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it's a very widely used technology of historical, current and continuing importance. It seems counterproductive to remove a factually accurate article without a very good reason. Possibly needs better sources. -- Franki-macha (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It's clear there is confusion over what a shell account actually is, possibly due to the poor information in the article and lack of reliable source to support it. If this article is not deleted, a rewrite would be required. Alternatively I would propose a merge with shell (computing) to help with clarification. --Hm2k (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A shell account was the primary way most people accessed the Internet before Dialup SLIP/PPP became widespread in the late 90s. Early ISPs such as Panix and Netcom offered these before they offered PPP --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sure, but this article has no mention of this legacy usage. --Hm2k (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WP:SOFIXIT --Tothwolf (talk) 14:25, 11 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. JForget 22:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramasubramanian.T.K[edit]

Ramasubramanian.T.K (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)

Hoax. Google searches for the book titles turn up nothing. User has also created several redirect pages, including Hellbaron and Ramasubramanian iyer; Google searches for those names produce a number of hits, presumably all pages created by the article author - his twitter page, profiles on chat forums, etc. This page shows him to be in same city mentioned in the entry, while another page describes him as an undergrad student in civil engineering. (The url for that page is a banned wikipedia link; the link is titled "myLot Photos - koodhi" on the page of Google results.) Not a famous physicist or an author. Hairhorn (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an intricately woven hoax and present some sealife to the author. Hairhorn, the link to the photos, is likely not usable because physicists don't normally title their pictures biologically. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should be speedied as a hoax. Priyanath ^talk 05:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 05:01, 9 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 as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smurfs (film)[edit]

The Smurfs (film) (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)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep. Easily meets general notability guidelines, rendering NFF moot. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]... I could easily go on. Powers ^T 16:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the first diff is nearly 4 years old and has a completely different cast, I think this is a textbook example of why we DO have the NFF guideline. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first diff didn't have any reliable sources. If you're suggesting that NFF should override the General Notability Guideline, you're going to have to make that case first. Powers ^T 20:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't seem to remember suggesting that. That being said, there's no consensus that either guideline "outranks" the other - they are both guidelines, and thus neither has precedence. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If neither has precedence, then an article need only meet one or the other, right? Powers ^T 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss possible merge. With respects to the nominator. WP:NF of which WP:NFF is a sub-criteria, states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Certainly, there are not many acceptable exceptions to WP:NFF, but when a subject has the coverage as does this subject, it is time perhaps to use best judgement to decide that the topic should have an article in some form, even if merged into one of the many Smurfs articles. The production began in 2003, is part of a very notable franchise, has received continuous coverage for those 6 years, and a blanket deletion does not best serve the project. And for a merge, the article must be kept first and such merge discussed on the article's talk page. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep sources found by Powers confer notability. Most future films are non-notable, but that doesn't mean all are non-notable and this one passes. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 6 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. JForget 22:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryjo Adams Cochran[edit]

Maryjo Adams Cochran (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)

Procedural nomination. Proposed deletion tags have been removed repeatedly by the subject of the article, or one of her employees or relatives. I would say it is a weak delete, as deans of colleges are not per se notable, and I'm not certain that she passes the notability guidelines for academics. Bearian (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as I don't see how she meets WP:PROF. The fact that it's written by her daughter Hallie Cochran introduces further issues of sourcing, WP:OR, and WP:COI. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable per WP:ACADEMIC. The obvious COI by the subject's daughter leads to inflated and unsubstantiated notability. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 17:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete According to WP:PROF the dean of a school is not intrinsically notable, but might me if one considers the school--we generally consider deans of major law and Medical schools as notable. She is Dean of an academic division in a fairly good but undistinguished non-research university where over half the students are part-time students in distance education programs --I can not judge from the Wikipedia article the importance of this college, as it talks very little about the academics there, emphasizing the athletics and the fraternities (not that one should judge the college itself unfavorably from that--except that the college PR staff had a major role in writing it--and see List of Troy University alumni ). I do not consider her notable as an administrator. She has apparently done nothing notable otherwise. DGG (talk) 19:05, 7 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) 04:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Side of the Game[edit]

Other Side of the 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 assertion of notability on this "independent" film "due for release at the end of 2009". Google results only in the home page of the film. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball. SGGH ^ping! 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Unfortunately I did not finish editing and in response to your attack please see the following links.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1331112/

http://www.othersideofthegame.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjVk22rPaQw

http://www.galwayfilmfleadh.com/pr_2009.php?p=saturday/other_side_of_the_game

Please give me some credibility and allow my page to go forward. Thanks keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not an attack, this is a discussion about whether the article meets the requirements for a wikipedia entry. To me, this page looks like promotion for not yet notable film. None of the references you have given is "independent of the source.". Delete without prejudice. Hairhorn (talk) 18:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why is it considered a promotion? I have seen many references like this.It is just information about the film, the production and actors. What can i do to change it and make it acceptable?keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem is just that it's not notable, it's not really a question of how the article is written. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-X#cite_note-0 is this notable at the time it was written?keep—Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 18:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Theleftorium 18:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perrier%27s_Bounty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorelei_(film)

Also how are these notable? Should I post more examples so i can understand? KEEP

You can comment as much as you like, but you can only make one keep or delete vote. --Smashville^talk 19:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok Im very new to this so no offense intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 19:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because another entry exists does not mean it meets the notability criteria either. See wp:otherstuffexists. Hairhorn (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No i meant how are those links notable because from what you are saying they should be deleted also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splitwigs (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is the definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I suspect that, based on the information given in the article, and which I could find, the subject was not notable enough for Wikipedia. We aren't attacking you, merely sampling consensus to decide whether this topic is notable enough. Also, please remember to sign your comments using ~~~~ and link to other articles using [[article name]] rather than URLs. Stay cool, and let us work out the best way forward. SGGH ^ping! 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete fails NFF, and GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NF Gosox5555 (talk) 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To the article creator, Wikipedia is not here to "give" you "some credibility" or help you promote yourself. Sorry. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn do not attack me personally and say sorry. Im not looking for "credibility" as I am not the "director" of the film and my income does not depend on it any way. Therefore, I do not believe you are making a valid or constructive point here. You know as well as I do, there are many pages on the wikipedia site that are not "notable". I have emailed user SGGH and explained that the industry screening was held as the academy of contemporary arts in London last Thursday 6th august (and Wikipedia did not make this happen). I do believe however that British films should get more credibility and that there are talented directors out there who are worth talking about and although it may not be of interest to you, it may be interesting to people like myself. I also mentioned that once I do received reviews i will add this to the article. ~~~~

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 22:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M.B.Nirmal[edit]

M.B.Nirmal (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)

Self-written bio to advertise a non-notable man. The guy is related to Exnora International which is itself a constant target for self-advertisement. Damiens.rf 14:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know why this would be self-written given the other contributions of the author, and clearly don't understand why he's non-notable. There are 311 gnews hits for his name, a good chunk in depth, and given that he founded Exnora in 1989, a good 11 years before online archives for Indian newspapers, that's a fair bit to show notability. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have created different biographies and articles and couldn't understand, the motive of the nominator to term "Self-written". Is that mean "I am M. B. Nirmal" and waited more than a year to create my own bio after I have created other articles? A clear witch-hunt is going on for some or other reasons, that's all I can understand.EconomicTiger (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per SpacemanSpiff and think M.B.Nirmal as the head of Exnora is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:02, 5 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 "keep" argument based on the availability of sources is only strong if you actually present the sources in the discussion. Some arguments on both sides (e.g. JNN, sold X items, etc.) have been disregarded. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Ridden[edit]

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