< 30 June	2 July >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redecard[edit]

Speedied as G11, recreated. Logo is copyvio that has been reuploaded multiple times. Putting it up for consensus rather than continuing a shell game of delete and recreation. Talain (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company is notable enough. It is the 2nd largest credit card processor in Brazil (after Visanet). The logo copyright issue is another matter that should be dealt separately. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company is a major credit card transaction processor. Coverage in the business press is extensive. Examples include [1], [2], [3], [4]. The issue of the logo is one of editting and is not a reason for deleting an entire article. Nor is the current material overtly promotional. -- Whpq (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Serbia relations[edit]

now that the standstill is over this nomination is valid. neither country has a resident ambassador. only 1 minor bilateral agreement in place of double taxation. [5] . lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations. [6]. LibStar (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This pairing ignores the fact that their relationship is pedestrian and mundance, not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - no sources actually discuss this relationship as such, and neither should we. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Larkin (ice hockey)[edit]

PROD contested (lmao at wikipedia's bureaucracy sometimes...), subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:ATHLETE or WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm reluctant to call for the deletion of the article. I would say he has some notability being the first Italian drafted, but really, that is not notable enough. He can wait until he (possibly) reaches the NHL, or does something else notable. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see that he should be treated any differently than anyone else who has been drafted by, but has not played for, a major professional sports team. Mandsford (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. The article claims he was the first italian trained player, and trained is subjective since he is playing in North America and he is from Britain not Italy... -Djsasso (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior precedent: Examples include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and at least 25 other AfDs for similar players. When/If this player wins a major award or plays in a fully professional league, then this article can be recreated, until then, he is not notable per WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE. -Pparazorback (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Standard post-Draft article creation frenzy always results in a lot of non-notable bio pages. This is one of them. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 04:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per statements above. fails to meet WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE as well as general notability guidelines. --Bhockey10 (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:HOCKEY/PPF#NOTE and precedent. --Smashville^talk 13:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Trust Project[edit]

Fails WP:BAND and also the general notability guideline. Aditya ^α _ß 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like you (Aditya) to elaborate on your reasoning for deletion please. The name "Trust Project" is used for some organizations other than this band, so of course Google won't turn up much if you just search "The Trust Project". Try THIS. Also, I believe that The Trust Project meets both requirements that (I think) you pointed out with this article HERE Mattman243 (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must insist you read WP:BAND, WP:RS, and WP:N. This hardly constitutes a reliable source, as it's content written by random users. As for your Google search, I see MySpace pages, I see Youtube videos, and I see non reliable sources. Aditya ^α _ß 17:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BAND. No independent reliable sources to establish notability. No significant releases or tours. Just an unsigned band that some people like. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 10:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems somewhat on the borderline of our notability guidelines. There are three (possibly? likely?) independent sources currently in the reference list, including one I added just now, but these are not recognizable mainstream media sources, and it is difficult to know if some of these webzines will write about just any Christian music act that emails publicity material to them. Newreleasetuesday.com is certainly dubious with regard to reliability if any user can edit the entry. Does anyone have some familiarity with the other music webzines? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 23:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular I am wondering about this source which I added. If no one has any further comments, a closing admin may consider my comments above as ~~weak delete~~. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed from "weak delete" to delete as per the additional investigations below. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's very fringe sources here, but I think the article in general fails WP:BAND. I read through the references. The Journal Chretien article kind of felt half like an ad for the band, not a review or a story about the band. The beginning of the article tells the reader where they can find their Myspace page, and talks in detail about ticket information, while the end notes where you can find more information at their Myspace page and their website. The other article that I looked at thoroughly was the "Artist Spotlight" reference, which did seem a bit more reputable (it actually criticizes the band in the article). I'm just not sure if either reference can make the article meet notability on its own, per WP:RS -- neither of these references make the band notable. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 06:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Trust Project has placed in the top 10 finalists in "The Christian Music Site's The 2nd Annual Battle of the Bands". LINK Sure, it's myspace, but the 2nd Annual part caught my attention. Is this reputable? On that same site, I found another review/write-up of the band HERE. I also found a concert that they played that was sponsored by Cornerstone Festival in conjunction with Gyroscope Arts and HM Magazine. LINK Oh, and here is a review of "Breaking the Silence". Mattman243 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but MySpace isn't a reliable source, 2nd annual or no. For your first link, the requirement at WP:BAND lists: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." A MySpace Christian music competition just isn't major enough to denote notability. For your second link, it is copied directly from parts of this link here which you brought up earlier -- that site was deemed unreliable because it was made from User-made content. The second link you just provided was actually written after the user-made one, so it's most likely a self-promoting piece made by the band and distributed to these various outlets, which fails criterion 1 of WP:BAND. Your third link shows that they were scheduled to be performing at a non-notable concert back in April; per criterion 4 of WP:BAND, it would've had to have been a national tour or an international tour, and the coverage would have to be the focus of an article, not just a name in a list for a concert. Your last link is the only one that has any sort of standing. I checked out the website, which seems to be very fringe for WP:RS. I hate to say this though, but... I don't think either of the fringe reviews you and Paul have provided are notable enough for the band to have its own article. However this is very up in the air, and I encourage other editors to take a second look at the analysis I've just made. For now though, I have to keep my delete vote from prior. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 19:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons outlined by Nomader, and because I was unable to find any other sources despite spending some time searching, I am going to stick with my "delete" recommendation. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. I will note that the review in journalechretien.net which was being looked at as a possible source is really the efforts of a PR person/firm. You will note that this is a "special" from Ginny McCabe. The same material can be found here and is prefaced with "For Immediate Release" which is the hallmark of a press release. Note also that the material there ends with "For more information, to request a review copy, or to set up an interview with one of the band’s members, contact McCabe Media (www.myspace.com/mccabemedia) ..." And if one looks at the other review under consideration from almenconi.com, the review was submitted by none other than "Ginny McCabe". -- Whpq (talk) 12:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had noticed Ginny McCabe on one of the reviews,, but I hadn't made any connection with "McCabe media" at the reviews. It still doesn't change my vote, but it does put me into a much stronger delete. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quixote (band)[edit]

Not notable or famous band, advertising/promotional article. The lion sleeps tonight (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no write up in independent 3rd party reliable souces. A self-released album which hasn't charted and two gigs supporting other unknown bands. Fails WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - was a proper A7, but tag was removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Oconomowoc (town), Wisconsin. (X! · talk) · @228 · 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Bank Volunteer Fire Department[edit]

Non-notable local fire department, deprodded by a suspected sock of user:azviz, and then edited by legit editor User:The Anome, who added a couple of references demonstrating that the deptatment does the usual things fire departments do, such as putting out fires, getting a new building, and practicing putting out fires. Still not notable. Abductive (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article passes the letter of the WP:V and WP:RS policies, with even a very cursory search showing at least three local newspaper articles that directly describe its activities, and is therefore notable. It is mentioned in passing by many more: see [7] Given that it passes the letter of our policies, and that it's a 100-year old volunteer organization, I think this is a keep. -- The Anome (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC), updated 22:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That looked scary, and I thought, how could I have overlooked all those Google News hits, but then I put quotes around the search term [8], then not so much. As I said in another deletion discussion, in many countries, fire departments are large and few in number, which would lead some users here to believe that all fire departments ought to be notable. But in the US, fire departments are often very small. This one is a volunteer department. Abductive (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would change my mind if reliable sources that discuss the organization as an entity (rather than its day-to-day putting out fires, which I view as a news item about a fire) could be found. Abductive (talk) 23:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all departments are in some ways notable as long as they aren't a business corporation. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Profoundly not true. Abductive (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge to Jclemens suggestion. Local papers have to cover local news. That doesn't say notability to me. Nom is correct.....they simply do what fire depts. do. Nothing notable about that. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: policy only requires multiple independent reliable sources, without any requirement that those sources be of national or global scope -- local papers are just as reliable as national ones. -- The Anome (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. But I'll repeat an example I used before. I know a part-time mayor of a 1,500 resident town. There are 3 newspapers serving that area (one daily, one 4 times a week and a weekly paper). His actions, of course, are covered by all 3 (multiple, independent reliable sources). By applying the standard the way you want me to read it, this man should pass notability. Do you honestly think that would be what belongs in this encyclopedia? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the claim to notability? Abductive (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its parent municipality per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fire_Service#Notability_of_Fire_Departments. Claim to notability for fire departments is much the same as for cities and municipalities, but if there's not enough independent RS coverage, departments should be covered in the article of the jurisdiction they protect and serve. Jclemens (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems fair to me. Changing my opinion to merge per Jclemens' argument above. -- The Anome (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One comment-if you do merge this article with its parent municipality-please do it with the town of Oconomowoc and not the city of Oconomowoc. The fire department said it services the towns of Merton&Oconomowoc.I made the change in the article itself.Thank you-RFD (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @229 · 04:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makoplasty[edit]

This trademarked term appears almost exclusively in press releases and articles written from press release templates. see this Google news archive search. Bongo matic 22:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional content fork for a surgery we already have an article about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as advert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talain (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Not saved. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

500 saves club[edit]

Article is pointless, considering there are only 2 members of this exclusive club and there will only be 2 members for a number of years. Furthermore, the information in this article is a subset of the much more valuable List of Major League Baseball all-time saves leaders article. Lastly, a template was created to duplicate the content of this article as well. Neither one is needed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that this "club" exists. andy (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect redirects are cheap and this term has been used a few times in reliable sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless--Yankees10 01:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Duplicative page, as List of Major League Baseball all-time saves leaders clearly covers the same informtion, per nom. - Masonpatriot (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really what I'm seeing is a WP:NEO. Someone just made up the name and tried repeating it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Masonpatriot. Rlendog (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. Sabiona (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need for this page. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. The phrase has been used a couple of times. But I do not see that this "club" has been discussed by the baseball press. And lets face it, baseball is stats obsessed and something like this should have more than just a couple of gnews hits. -- Whpq (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe someday, but no where near now. Adam Penale (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chuck Grassley. The fact that this was clearly well sourced and covered (per the keep voters) but is potentially a neologism with little long-term impact (per the delete voters) are neatly compromised by following Squidfryerchef's suggestion to merge it. The target article does not currently contain any real mention of this event that received substantial coverage at the time. ~ mazca ^talk 22:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp Tax[edit]

Please forgive this nomination if submitted in error. I am not certain if this article is needed. It is a stub and refers to a part of a legislative bill. As far as editorial interest, it has not seen a single edit (not even a minor edit) in more than a year. Even after creation, some editors were questioning whether it merited an article. I was going to contact the 2 main editors for this article but both have not edited since 2008.

If deleted, then a possible reason would be insufficient notability as opposed to the full text of the law. If this tax is notable, then perhaps it should be a subsection to the entire bill that was submitted. User F203 (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable enough for a stub based on the article's contents and sources available on Google News. It was proposed and received quite a bit of coverage. I don't think the encyclopedia is made better by deleting it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep It is referenced and seems notable enough for a stub. I don't imagine it will grow any larger (it's been around for three years), but there is no advantage to deleting it now. My only concern with it is that it is an orphan. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article name is a WP:Neologism. It has been around since 2006 because it was a neologism associated with a news story in 2006. Yes these words get a mass internet blast when the media decides they like them for the story, but since then, nothing. And WP:NOTNEWS. Polargeo (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as a nn neologism. Perhaps the bill would be notable, but the article appears to be about the neologism, not the bill. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and condense to a paragraph within the article Chuck Grassley, on the proposed Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2005. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro secondi[edit]

Hoax. Punkmorten (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It needs references. Prove that it is a hoax and I'll change my vote. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The proof that this is a hoax as that John Spencer's transfer fee of £2.35 million in 1996 was a club record for QPR [9], so they can't have signed anyone for £15.6 million in 1995. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - there is no news coverage of a player by this name. This is a clear hoax. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per clear hoax, ~~playing for Italy U-18 when you're 23/24 is an obvious giveaway~~. Few sources for a bloke who would be Serie A's youngest ever player and also would have broken the world transfer record is a giveaway. --Jpeeling (talk) 12:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; clear hoax. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, no substantive content, and unlikely to be kept under any form. Apparently this was an original literary text in Tamil. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

மொக்கை என்றால் என்ன?[edit]

I saw the page on the translation required logs and translated it from Tamil. I also PRODded it because it really is a dicdef of a Tamil word, not in use in other languages (and don't know of a CSD criteria I could use). PROD has been contested by an IP with no explanation, so bringing it here. While my translation is right, it isn't as poetic as the original, not that I think it matters in this particular case. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef that shouldn't be dumped on the wiktionary people. Drawn Some (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nom, this isn't a dictionary. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does anyone know if the Tamil Wiktionary has an entry on this term? If not, it could be transwikied there.--Unscented (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't when I checked, however, the other problem with this particular entry is also that it isn't the "correct" dicdef - it's an explanatory dicdef, to use an example - shame: When you say something in humor, instead of laughing, if the person you tell it to is annoyed or laughs at you, instead of at the joke, that is shame. This being the case, I decided against Transwiki. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - WP:NOTDICDEF. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per common freakin sense. It won't be a likely search term. How many people will come to the English WP, convert their keyboard to Tamil and then search for this phrase? Cite WP:NOTADICT if you must, but I still say common sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a translation of a Tamil word or quote to me. Since the nominator has actually tried to translate it before adding to AfD, I will go by his op that it cannot be transwikied. --Deepak D'Souza 08:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the above. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trilambdathon[edit]

Non-notable college drinking game, fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I must be becoming a prophet. When I read the first line I knew beer would be involved. No objection to good beer, but these college student 'inventions' just aren't notable. As a consolation, nor would the Eton Wall Game be if it wasn't played at a school that is mainly notable for being regarded by its ex-pupils as notable, and its longevity. Oh, and for some of its ex-pupils... Probably, Dartmouth comes into the same category - but this event doesn't - yet. Give it 50 years and try again. Peridon (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability ot meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This is in no way notable. In a way this goes along with my coach who goes there and says that partying mood is pretty small. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another non-notable drinking game made up by bored college students. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another textbook case of WP:MADEUP. —LedgendGamer 07:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as per User:LedgendGamer. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was kept. although it looks rather weak to me... ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Follow-up I was asked about my closing this as a keep on my talk page, thus I decided to take a second closer look at the AfD and stand behind my original stance. First, I think it is meaningful that a person who originally !voted to delete changed his !vote to keep. Essentially, his !vote was the most material. The other keep was the article's author and then there was the nom. Second, the sources that were provided that convinced the one !vote to change their vote, while not the most comprehensive are very reliable sources and speak to the value of the product. To quote one of the articles, the launch of the nftables alpha has barely been mentioned by the press. That's somewhat surprising, considering the new software will represent the biggest change to Linux firewalling since the introduction of iptables in 2001. The other articles seem to indicate that this is a fairly significant development for Linux. Thus, I having looked at this in closer depth, I stand by the original close.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nftables[edit]

Non-notable software - fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to fail WP:N (or WP:WEB/WP:ORG if you want to use those as well). The only source I can find is already in the references (this), and nothing else turns up. I have no clue what the second of the two references is. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 20:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a few similar mentions here. The second reference in the article is a conference presentation. · Naive cynic · 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I originally searched, and then reported as seeing nothing but the source already in the article. If I'm missing something (or just not looking hard enough), please point it out. Does the second reference convey anything more? If so, I may reconsider, however, I couldn't open the document. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_ (Linux Magazine), _ (Heise Online), _ (heh, Fyodor looks a bit freaky :P), and a number of non-English ones. You can open the presentation with Open Office or MS Office 2007 (SP2) - it has some interesting information, but nothing really related to assessing notability. · Naive cynic · 01:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep - Notability is light, as sources are hard to find ("the launch of the nftables alpha has barely been mentioned by the press"source) but the sources User:Naive cynic posted are of enough to sway my mind. Nice job. :) Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - replaces iptables as the engine of Linux firewalls. Compare similar software on various Unix systems: ipf, ipfw, iptables, pf. The article was also requested at WP:RA. · Naive cynic · 01:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Requested or not, it still needs "significant coverage in reliable sources" to show notability. – ukexpat (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @229 · 04:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letters to God[edit]

Non-notable film, no reliable sources, not yet released, fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Orlando Sentinel is a reliable source with an article about the film.--kelapstick (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep even though Orlando helps, this does fall under WP:CRYSTAL... -WarthogDemon 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the article says: "there is no major distribution deal yet." For a future film to be notable, IMO, it has to rise to the level that it would still be notable even if it was canceled and never release. I just can't see that being the case here, thus I recommend deleting until the movie is closer to release. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - Although it should go without saying that an AfD doesn't automatically get salted, there's a good chance this movie will later meet notability requirements after it is made. However, in contradiction to the keep votes above, a single reference rarely satisfies WP:N. In the case of a film that hasn't even approached production, it has a larger burden to show notability than a released film (as implied by WP:NFF. Again, if the film is made then there's a good chance it can be recreated but considering the lack of "buzz" surrounding it at this point I don't see its inclusion being warranted. (I did make an attempt to find any other press coverage of the film and came up empty.) -- Atama ^chat 21:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Not sufficiently notable at this time -- one reliable source isn't enough under either the GNG or NFF. Powers ^T 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NFF. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy & weak delete for now. This will, no doubt, be notable in time, so I'd like my written copy saved and available when more sourcing is available (see User:American Eagle/Letters to God). American Eagle (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete social networks and official websites aren't RS. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why they are in the "External links" section. :P American Eagle (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Crystal-ballery. Springnuts (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 National Doctors' Day. Closing this as redirect over delete due to the fact that NDD is pretty much the same thing covered in this article. (X! · talk) · @230 · 04:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor's day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Doctor's day

National Doctors' Day already exists, I don't think we need two articles on the same topic. Odie5533 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At best, redirect to National Doctors' Day, though neither article is particularly well-written, well-sourced, or notability-proven. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, not celebrated, just a historical event of little significance. And while we're at it, I think the National Doctors' Day could use an AfD too. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to article National Doctor's Day, which can be wikified. Rmosler | ● 19:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 06:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's clear that there are mixed feelings about this list. Some say that it's unmaintainable, others say that it's a useful list. It's clear that people can't agree, so it's a NC. (X! · talk) · @232 · 04:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of street names of drugs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This "article" has a long history. There have been three previous nominations for deletion, the second actually carried it out. The third was in February of this year. This thing is totally unsourced, anybody can just come in here and add whatever names they want to add, and nobody would be the wiser. This is a direct violation of Wikipedia is not a directory, is completely unmaintainable, and should be burned with fire. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, and its a list with no criteria for inclusion. Fuzbaby (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the record, the article was created in good faith when I found a red link on a page buried somewhere in Wikiproject medicine. It took about 8 hours to research the names. The article is sourced, but I found inline citations for all the entries impossible to do. Since then the page has clearly become a beacon to all vandals in the world, and I think that Wikipedia would be a better place without it. It would be best if a nice admin would come along and put it out of its misery. Gilo1969 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic and notable list. Sourcing needs improvement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This helps those who might hear it and wonder what X name is. We can always remove the vandalism and lock the page. What message does it send if we let vandals dictate what we do here. I also see that a reliable user has been maintaining this page.Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable user? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. I'm going out on a limb here because I'm basing a big chunk of this on my professional experience. (Please bear with me, I believe it is relevant). While there are a few that endure, so many change what seems to be almost weekly. From a professional perspective, I've seen lists come out from the DEA that were already outdated when they were printed. And what is meant in one city can be totally different in another city, let alone other states and countries. I can see huge sourcing and vandalism problems, as well as the fact that the vast majority of terms will be nothing more than neologisms. You can call my objection WP:OR if you want, but I see this article becoming nothing but a huge mess in the making. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I believe it is maintainable, I don't believe it's encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Perhaps a substantive trim and renaming to "Common street names of drugs" with a general reference to the DEA list mentioned above would help put some kind of limit to it's growth and allow us to preserve information here. -- œ ^™ 16:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see this as a very useful list indeed. This is yet another reason why our encyclopedia is so much better than Britannica! Baileyquarter (talk) 16:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Lists like these can never have valid sources. Nominator is right here that anybody can add anything they want. These are slangs and slangs have no encyclopedic standards unless they turn out to be global. Not an encyclopedic material. Hitro 20:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, best of those street names are already included in their respective articles. Hitro 20:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Improvement of the article seems easy as we already have authoritative sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (i) because the subject matter is not particularly encyclopaedic (WP:NOTDICT and particularly not a dictionary of slang); (ii) because of the lack of clear, inline, sourcing for such a bulky list (and the problems with maintaining such sourcing, even if an attempt were made to implement it) & (iii) because of the ephemeral nature of the material. A shorter, well-sourced list of enduring slang terms would reduce my opinion to 'weak delete' (but not to 'keep'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important and basic information for the real world. Although these change,m we can keep up with the successive changes, and there are very good sources available. DGG (talk) 08:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some will do their best to keep up with it, but there is no way it will ever be current and comprehensive, while still meeting the WP:V standards. By the time media and/or govt. figure it out and print it, the many of the terms change. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I have mixed feelings about this list. I believe that the topic of street names of drugs is notable -- these names are written about extensively. Also the topic is important to society, as life and death sometimes depend on understanding the meaning of street names. It's clear, however, that this list is much less well-developed than this source that it cites. Also, the lack of inline citations makes it nigh-on-impossible to ensure verifiability. I think the list would become worth keeping (mostly because of the value of its links to relevant Wikipedia articles) if it were thoroughly supported by inline citations. The list of street names in Purple drank (names that aren't in this list!) has remained remarkably stable ever since I inserted a bunch of inline citations and deleted all the alleged street names that I couldn't source. I suggest the same approach for this article. --Orlady (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citrus (company)[edit]

A non-notable company. Coverage in the cited sources is in the main trivial and incidental. Mattinbgn\^talk 12:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd be interested in a clear reason for this, it seems to be subjective. How does this article differ from those for adstream, Fnuky Advertising, SMART (advertising agency) and Toshiedo, which are also Australian agencies? Cocolaco (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our "other stuff exists" guideline has an answer to this one: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article". For one thing, we have other articles that should be deleted; for another, straightforward analogies between articles are hard to make. We consider each case on its merits, once someone gets around to bringing it. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There's at least one of those which probably should be nominated for deletion. Orderinchaos 11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cocolaco (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a contested PROD. The reason for contesting is here. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 12:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I added the prod on the basis that, at the time, the article didn't attempt to establish notability. Of the external links now present, two ([10], [11]) don't mention the company at all, one ([12]) literally only lists its name without any elaboration, and the other ([13]) totals a single sentence. To me that's not enough to indicate significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If better sources can be provided I'll certainly reconsider, but the generic nature of the company name makes this one kind of a pain to research in e.g. Google News, and an initial trawl there hasn't given me anything. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, strongly, obvious spam: Citrus is an independent interactive agency.... OK, but what do you do there? Product offering includes web design & development, email programs and web applications.... Oh, that. "References" are entirely to websites they helped develop. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdia - fails WP:CORP. Orderinchaos 11:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @232 · 04:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans in Italy[edit]

This article is just a dictionary definition which tells us that Mexicans in Italy are Mexicans in Italy. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although it happens, it isn't a notable phenomenon. Tavix | Talk 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 19:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I think even a dictionary would reject this entry. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says only that there are mexican or people of mexican background that lives in Italy. I also remember that there are only few thisands of Mexican in Italy. User:Lucifero4
Delete I'm not seeing anything on Google, Google news, Google books, Google scholar. The editor who created the article couldn't be bothered to actually write anything meaningful. It can always be re-created if someone comes up with sources. Probably created to get rid of a red link on the Mexican diaspora template which probably should be deleted as well. Drawn Some (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Delete For the same reasons as above. Fuzbaby (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete not an article. Ostap 00:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. Now I'll wait to see if the rescue squad appears. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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~~ closed without prejudice to opening more controlled AFD's. This is perhaps one of the worst AFD nominations in history. You've mass nominated 140 different articles. How anybody can go through that many articles and make an intelligent educated decision on ANY of them is beyond me. I suspect that most of these articles deserve to be deleted, but there might be a few that are worth keeping. In this mess it is entirely impossible to tell. It is impossible to discuss any of them intelligently to identify which articles in this mess should be kept. If you wish to open AFD's on individual articles, feel free to do so. I am closing this mass AFD without weighing the merits as to whether any or all of the articles deserve to be kept or deleted. If there are any people who use tools and can automate the task of closing the AFD's on the individual articles I would appreciate it. I'll take a look at it later to see if somebody who uses tools took care of these articles...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Special thanks need to go out to User:Xeno who used a tool to close these. I've usually been a critic of people who rely on tools, but this is twice in the past month I wish I knew more about them! Anyways, Xeno is going to remove the AFD tag from each of the listed articles, but he is NOT going to tag the talk page with an AFDold template as there was not enough individual dialog to discuss warrant it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note2 I've had several (3) people email me because some of the characters from this list have been speedily deleted and others have been nominated for deletion. Since there have been 3 so far, I'll make a statement here. First, I've looked at most of the ones that have been speedily deleted, and based on what I've seen, they appear to be legitimate speedies. The versions of the one's I checked actually had more information on the versions deleted in 2008 than they do now. If the characters have already gone through an AFD, unless there is something new, then the old AFD is a valid reason to speedy. Second, as for the new AFD's, I explicitly worded the close of this AFD so that new AFD's could be started. I would encourage discussion on the characters, but in a more controlled format. This does not mean creating 140 individual AFDs, to do so would be exceedingly pointy. Create AFD's with 5-10 articles on them so that they can be discussed intelligently. I suspect that most of these articles SHOULD be deleted, but that there are probably a few worth keeping.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC) moving discussion to talk page[reply]

Hugo Austin[edit]

All of these articles about characters of a soap opera are nothing but either one sentence stubs such as "Rhys Sutherland was a fictional character in the Australian soap opera Home and Away, portrayed by actor Michael Beckley from 2000 to late 2004.", or extremely long and detailed plot summaries -- or rather, recaps -- and character biographies that only a dedicated fan would be interested in. They don't meet WikiProject Soap Opera's notability standards for characters, they are written in an in universe style, rather than from a real-world perspective, and there are no reliable secondary sources. In fact, if any of them do contain references they are only to http://backtothebay.net, a fansite, but most of the articles don't even do that.

WP:FICT says "Articles about fiction should describe their subject matter from the perspective of the real world in which the work or element of fiction is embedded, and should not attempt to create or uphold the illusion that a fictional topic is real by the omission of real world information or by over-reliance on a perspective that is in universe ... If a fictional topic has received non-trivial real-world coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

While FICT is only a proposed guideline, what has been quoted can also be found in our WP:GNG. Because of the style of List of Home and Away characters and List of current Home and Away characters, these articles cannot be easily merged with either of them, so they're here for deletion.

Note: A number of related articles have been deleted before, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ric Dalby (second nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matilda Hunter (2nd nomination).

The following pages are also being nominated for the same reason:

There are also five(!) character lists. Three are nominated for deletion also, leaving List of Home and Away characters and List of current Home and Away characters.

Matthewedwards : Chat 18:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Matthewedwards : Chat 19:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Strong Keep for certain pages. Maybe someone should set up a project page for these. Dedicated fans obviously write these pages, so maybe it would be good if they were not simply deleted all the time and something good was made from them. Soap opera's often play out storylines for a purpose to gain ratings but also impact on society. Character's such as Belle Taylor and Irene Roberts have a place because of their addiction storylines. Over the internet there are enough references to cite and back up there notability. It's just these fans need to know how to edit wikipedia in this certain way. Obviously the whole character plot summaries do not have a place on here, but their big plot lines should be explained with the out of usniverse style, the impact they have had. So I don't think putting them all up was a good idea. Raintheone (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've kind of hit the nail on the head. They have been created by fans for fans, when there are plenty of fansites available instead. None of these pages offer any enyclopedic value. Many pages have been tagged for cleanup and stuff months, and nothing has been done about it. Many articles, especially those about characters who are no longer in the show, contain only one line and an infobox, as in the case of Rhys Sutherland. "Rhys Sutherland was a fictional character in the Australian soap opera Home and Away, portrayed by actor Michael Beckley from 2000 to late 2004." They do nothing that the existing list of pages cannot do. It's a duplication of information that isn't needed.

If characters such as Belle and Irene have as you say made an impact on society, something should be written about them somewhere, in reliable secondary sources that can be added to the articles. But there isn't, and there hasn't. There is nothing good coming out of these pages at the moment. Their big plotlines could instead be moved into a well written character list such as those we see at GA or FA/FL, but these pages should be deleted. Matthewedwards : Chat 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well can't you set up a wiki project for Home and Away characters with value after then? To be honest certain soap operas and all their pages to do with them are a shambles and alls people think of is a quick delete instead of trying at improving things.Raintheone (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow, what a list. I took a look at a couple and one wasn't an article but a redirect so part of what the nominator says about all of these articles isn't true. (Annie Campbell is a redirect, not a "concise extremely long" plot summary whatever that is). The present format of the lists of characters should not act as a barrier to merging these articles or creating a couple of articles on the characters if there is some reasonable method of grouping them. The basic premises for the nomination I would agree with but I'm not sure the answer is to delete. Drawn Some (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I thought I'd weeded out all the redirects. I'll recheck. "Concise" should be "detailed" - now fixed. Matthewedwards : Chat 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V.J. Patterson is a good example of the sort of stuff on there. The ones that are stubs for the most part are so because a number of users have been trying to fix a number of them against a tide of IP blind-reverters for quite some time. Orderinchaos 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator Matthewedwards : Chat 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the nomination. The types of articles are much more suited to a special purpose Home and Away wiki similar to Memory Alpha. Where are the independent sources asserting wider notability outside the subset of Home of Away fans. Once deleted the articles could perhaps be redirected to Home and Away. -- 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattinbgn (talk • contribs)

*Keep and improve. Clearly not enough screening was done during this multiple nomination for deletion, because Carly Lucini has various sources and majority of the article is real world information. That should be removed from this list.GunGagdin ^Moan 21:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already noticed that one from when I went through the list regarding the redirect. I was just waiting to remove it until I got to the end of the list. Matthewedwards : Chat 21:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GunGagdin, I've fishished going through the entire list. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate that, and in that case I'll strike my Keep vote. Because if they are all just one sentence stubs with infoboxes, they probably should be deleted.GunGagdin ^Moan 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- I didn't mean to mislead anyone. Many are one sentence stubs; however, others are extremely long and detailed plot recaps. Matthewedwards : Chat 01:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete All per nomination. I've been aware of these for a couple of weeks. The stuff in these articles is completely unverified content of interest only to dedicated fans which would be great for a fansite or a Wikia wiki, but not the English Wikipedia. Many of them aren't even title roll characters - see eg Elliot Gillien. The reason some of them are stubs is that myself, Sarah and other admins have done our best to try and fix them so that they met WP:STUB without failing WP:V. I can't even justify a weak keep for those as we are fighting a losing battle against an IP drone army (often to the point of 3RR) to maintain them as stubs, they would end up being a bunch of indef semi- or fully-protected articles about a series of minor characters of a soap opera which has little consequence outside the screen in even the countries in which it screens (Australia and the UK). Another good example of what we are dealing with (can anyone seriously tell me this stuff belongs in an encyclopaedia?) Orderinchaos 23:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't it be more appropriate just to redirect and merge what's useful? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They would all need to be protected redirects to prevent recreation if that was the case. Orderinchaos 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete all. These articles are unmaintainable, unverified and unverifiable. Orderinchaos and I have recently been trying to clean up some articles in this area but once you remove all the unverifiable fan stuff that sounds like a bad youth novel, you end up being able to say little other than "X is a character in Y tv show, portrayed by Z". And then you have to deal with the steady influx of anons and accounts with few edits and all to this subject area, who return regularly to edit war over restoring the junk and refuse to respond to messages and attempts to explain why this material isn't suitable for Wikipedia. Having been looking at these articles in recent weeks and trying to progressively clean out the unverifiable junk, I honestly don't think there's enough verifiable information published by reliable sources to support individual articles about the characters. I would prefer to simply delete all and protect against recreation as necessary and then monitor for forks, but at the very most I think the names could become protected redirects to a central list of characters, but as noted above, a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Vale) was closed in this way and some weeks later these users came back and recreated the articles and made forks to get around the protected redirects (see for example Aden Jefferies which was turned into a protected redirect so they recreated at Aden Jefferies (Home and Away) (now deleted), and Annie Campbell, protected redirect forked at Annie Campbell (fictional character) and I see we've now also got 'forks of forks' with Tony_Holden_(fictional_character) also at Tony Holden (Home and Away character) - this stuff really needs to be cleaned out). I have suggested several times to the people who keep restoring the storyline junk that if they find it useful information and they want to create a database of Home and Away content, they should take these articles and create their own fansite, even a Home and Away wiki like Lostpedia as the material has been released under the GFDL so they can do whatever they want with it as long as they credit where it came from, but NOT everything belongs on Wikipedia and this is jsut not suitable for an encyclopedia and doesn't conform to our policies and guidelines. Beyond the very short stubs that Orderinchaos and I chopped a few of these down to, I don't think there's really a possibility of writing proper maintainable articles about these characters in way that would conform to policy and so I would really like us to have a clean up and delete all these articles and protect from recreation. Sarah 01:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate articles that resemble fansites and reiterate plot lines. When these all get deleted, is it possible in the future for me to recreate certain one I feel meet the guidelines. Charlie Buckton for instance is not nominated, but with that particular character there is plenty to write about. As with a few select other that are on this page. I don't mind finding info and veryfing it from good sources.Raintheone (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be possible, but I think they should be deleted on and work on on a case-by-case basis. While they still exist they drag Wikipedia down. Not nominated were Pippa Fletcher, Alf Stewart, Sally Fletcher, Charlie Buckton and a small handful of others. The first three are quintessential characters and almost certainly have received third-party coverage. With regard to Charlie Buckton, be careful with "plenty". The only thing covered in third-party sources is her lesbian relationship. The character's only been in the show a year, so there should probably be no more than one or two sentences about the character's biography as pretty much anything else is verging deeper into the let's-write-for-the-fans territory again. You need to write about how and why the character was developed, what impact it has had in the real world (not what impact it has had on Summer Bay), and not what the character has done within the show. Please see the links in my nomination statement as they go deeper and can explain better.

If you want to discuss this further, we need to take it off this AfD and onto a talk page. If you really do intend to improve the article, I'd be happy to guide you in the right direction, and Sarah may be willing too. My talk page is open. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the current article for Charlie Buckton should be deleted as well as IMHO it is just as bad as the others. Charlie Buckton is one that I took a pair of scissors to, the previous version looked like this and since then I've had to deal with a steady flow of edit warriors restoring the "storylines" eventually resulting in another administrator having to implement protection. Once protection comes off, that previous version will just get restored again, so I think that page should also be deleted and if there is enough published sources to support an article on that character, starting from scratch. If you want to write an article about a character that gets deleted at AFD and you think you could do so in a way which complies with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines (see some useful links in Matthew's nomination), you could try writing an article in your userspace. Then when you finish, you could ask a couple of admins to take a look and give you feedback (I'd be happy to give you feedback) and then take it to deletion reveiw for reconsideration. But one of the important things to keep in mind when writing about these sorts of subjects is that Wikipedia only reports what has already been published by reliable sources and doesn't publish original research or information that hasn't been published elsewhere already. Matt's right that this isn't an ideal to discuss this though, so if you want to discuss it further, I'd take it to a talk page. Sarah 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. I will admit that I didn't look at every one of them. I sampled several and decided delete was how I wanted to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL and Restore to their original sizes before mass article hacking occurred Common sense says, you don't help the wikipedia by destroying articles that some people might enjoy reading, and people who don't want to read it wouldn't be likely to find anyway. Dream Focus 06:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5 does not require editors to produce articles that "some people might enjoy reading" - this is an encyclopaedia, not a light entertainment magazine. Could you seriously imagine the Britannica printing this stuff? Orderinchaos 06:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't the Britannica. Wikipedia's articles are mostly popular culture. Dream Focus 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not the Britannica, true, but articles on this encyclopaedia must be about notable topics and contain verifiable information, and cannot contain original research or what amounts to opinion pieces. That is policy. The standard Wikipedia expects is not that different to first-year undergraduate at university in terms of the referencing, sourcing and prose. I would note that the onus is on those adding the information to justify it in terms of policy, which has not been done at all. Orderinchaos 07:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Were the creators of all of these articles contacted? I don't see the message on their talk pages. Isn't it suppose to be done by an automatic bot? Dream Focus 06:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not necessary to do so (see the process listed at WP:AFD) - that is why it has been added to Deletion sorting queues to bring them to the attention of various Wikiprojects. And no, it's not automated. Orderinchaos 07:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion policies strongly recommend that good faith nominators offer a good faith heads-up to good-faith article creators. It is not absolutely required that nominators do so. But when a nominator is an experienced administrator I think we should expect them to offer a serious, meaningful explanation as to why they didn't leave those good faith heads-up. The closest to an explanation that has been offered so far is that the contributors to these articles are ALL -- single purpose accounts, bad faith contributors, possible sockpuppets. Trouble is, I checked the revision history of a big selection of the articles nominated here -- and those revision histories simply do not support the claims that those working on these articles are not good faith contributors.
As I pointed out before, monitoring watchlists, monitoring deletion sorting pages, are far from sufficient for newbies, who only log in intermittently. For newbies, who log in every couple of weeks, the activity on the deletion sorting projects will have fallen off their watchlists. When the nominators fails to comply with the recommendations of policy to inform the article creators they don't get told there was a policy problem with their contributions. How is it fair to hold them responsible if they repeatedly lapse from the same policy if the more informed contributors can't be bothered to inform them their contributions lapse from policy?
As I pointed out before, it is wasteful and disrespectful to fail to help good faith contributors to learn where they are lapsing from policy. This wastes the time of good faith innocent bystanders. Would we be spending all this time discussing these articles if those who were concerned over them had made a good faith attempt to explain to the errant contributors how their contributions lapsed from policy? I see contributors here claiming they made efforts to explain the policy to the errant contributors. I see their acknowledgment that their ability to assume good faith is exhausted. What I don't see is any record of those good faith attempts to explain the policy to the errant contributors. ::*I hate sockpuppets and sockpuppetry. If the impatient contributors think they can substantiate their hints that those contributing to these topics are sockpuppets I encourage them to get the sockpuppets blocked. But, if the impatient contributors can't substantiate their suspicions they are interacting with sockpuppets I suggest their two policy compliant choices are: (1) summon up new stores of good faith for their interaction with the new contributors; or (2) take a break from working on this topic. Failing to be civil to the new contributors merely because one is suspicious they are sockpuppets, is not compliant with the wikipedia's civility policies. Geo Swan (talk) 09:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and reference better, merge the smaller ones as a last resort and keep character names as redirects. There are whole reference works to fictional characters. See: Dictionary of Fictional Characters by Martin Seymour and Imaginary People: A Who's Who of Fictional Characters and Beacham's encyclopedia of popular fiction‎ and The Encyclopedia of Fictional People by Seth Godin and Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of Literature. Character articles for the Simpsons and for South Park have episode numbers as the references to facts contained in their fictional biographies. We shouldn't have regional bias and only have American TV. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As dictionaries and encyclopedias, those works are all Tertiary sources, so while they may be okay, they must not be used as sole sources. WP:NOR says articles should rely on secondary sources rather than tertiary sources, which often summarize secondary sources to fit their remit. The Simpsons and South Park character articles cite episodes for plot stuff only -- stuff that appears on screen, but not for anything relating to the real world. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re regional bias - I'm Australian and so is Sarah - I'm even a one time fan of the show (enough to notice stuff that is clearly missing even amongst the wads of triviality). However, what impact do these characters have beyond the show? A few of them do and it's worth pointing out they have not been included in the nomination. Also, do any of those book sources above reference Home & Away characters? I'm sure if they did, they wouldn't have the level of detail that we find in these articles. Orderinchaos 15:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mattinbgn is also Australian and these articles don't even reference to episode numbers.8| Sarah 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all this is not the way to settle disputes. Nor am I going to try to settle it by dealing with the question myself here. But even if there were agreement that the GNG is applicable to fictional articles 1 the GNG and WP:N itself are guidelines, and therefore have exceptions. So it would be necessary to show that these should not be exceptions. 2 Violation of BEFORE, because the nom has almost certainly not made a comprehensive search for each article. 3 if some are too large and some too small, there is an obvious remedy--edit every one of them. That way , we actually build the encyclopedia 4 absurdity., because i could equally well make a nomination for every article on every athlete, on the basis that there is no full agreement on what the guidelines are, and I propose =removing them all as the way to settle the question. 5 and most damning, violation of DELETION POLICY, because deletion is the last resort and at the very least, every one of them could be redirected--and thus there is an alternative to deletion.DGG (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unsure what "dispute" you are suggesting was being settled by this AfD? WP:BEFORE does not apply as there was a serious attempt to edit the articles (for several months in fact) by neutral editors and admins - they were universally reverted by a raft of SPAs and IP accounts on a fairly persistent basis. The content being added was a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:NOT and WP:V - all actual policies. In fact, several of the articles nominated are a violation of CSD G5 as they had been individually deleted at AfD then recreated later. And finally, wikilawyering around the "deletion policy" (which changes every second week) is not a good basis for any argument in here. If you wish to solve the problem, then actually get in there and help to solve it. If you simply wish to preach from the sidelines, then maybe let those actually stuck with managing the problem decide what to do with it. I notice a fair bit of that sort of thing on Wikipedia. Orderinchaos 17:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So we are to give up editing when it becomes difficult? The solution of merging was rejected because in won;t fit into the sparse tabular format of the present list articles, but that's no argument against a proper merge to good substantial sections of a combination article. As for the dispute being short-circuited, it's at NOT and FICT and multiple other places, and the nominator admits he is bringing it here because there is no consensus at any of those discussion that articles such as these are to be deleted. DGG (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So we are to give up editing when it becomes difficult?" Checking your edit history, I see you have not edited these articles or helped at all in trying to control the raft of unacceptable edits to them. When those who promote a rabidly inclusionist ideology actually lift a finger to help fight the endless array of mindless reverting drones inserting cruft that the few admins and editors that actually watch these corners of the encyclopaedia struggle to keep out, I shall listen to their views with interest. As it stands, I see no reason why any of these articles should survive - I actually think they'd be far better off at a wikia where Wikipedia's rules don't apply at all, so they can write whatever they like (which it seems they do anyway). Orderinchaos 23:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note It should be noted by the closing admin that DGG has emailed and talkpaged abuse to admins and editors who have supported this proposal. (For some reason I seem to have been spared.) I was rather surprised to find this user is a fellow admin when I checked listusers - this is behaviour I wouldn't even accept from a newbie. I think DGG needs to come clean on what other off wiki activism or canvassing he has engaged in with respect to this AfD. Orderinchaos 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa up there, Orderinchaos! DGG is one of our soundest and most knowledgeable inclusionist editors/admins! That accusation is gratuitous and uncalled-for, and I formally request that you withdraw it! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC) (notorious deletionist)[reply]

"DGG is one of our soundest and most knowledgeable inclusionist editors/admins" While Orderinchaos could have been a little more diplomatic in his phrasing, he speaks from the frustration of trying to do the right thing while getting no support or assistance and only criticism from a group of users who want articles which are in no way compliant with content policies kept and yet show no sign whatsoever of being willing to do the huge amount of work necessary to fix this mess and then maintain it. He also happens to speak the truth. DGG has contacted people regarding this AFD; I was one who received a most unwelcome email from him and it appeared that he was so furious that I would support "what will turn out to be the most disruptive nomination in wp history" that he fired his email off mid-sentence. If he is going to make efforts to influence AFDs by chastising people for supporting AFDs and not voting as he wants, he could at least have the stones to do so in a transparent manner on site. I have never received an email from DGG previously and have never even exchanged messages onsite so while he didn't explicitly ask me to change my position it was certainly there by implication and I find his behaviour mid-AFD inappropriate and agree with the essence of Orderinchaos's comments though I do agree that his phrasing wasn't the best. Sarah 03:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On principle I refuse to withdraw a true statement. Sorry. Orderinchaos 03:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I am not involved in any dispute and am not aware of any. This nomination is certainly not a way to resolve any dispute that I have no knowledge of. What is the dispute that you refer to? Please explain how you know whether or not I have tried to find reliable sources showing notability in the real world for each character listed here? You don't. You can't. Assume good faith. I did search on Google, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google News and there isn't anything. There are a few news articles regarding the latest plot developments for characters, but they are only from British newspapers like The Sun, The Mirror, Metro and a handful of weekly local papers, which have been determined not to be WP:RS. As Orderinchaos says, uninvolved, neutral editors and admins have been attempting for over a year to control these articles and try to edit them in a positive way. It's sometimes easier to start with a fresh slate, a blank page, than to work with what we have, and this is one of those times. The "solution" of merging was not rejected solely because of the tabular format of the list pages, but because merging what we have into another page just creates a list of crap. Right now it's not "difficult", it's impossible. I'm not opposed to a list of characters, but putting the crap from 50, 100 (I haven't actually counted) articles into one page doesn't get rid of the problem.

Comment - I think that if they do get deleted we should start to work on a wikiproject for Home and Away. From a admin suggestion it would make sense to make the project to focus on Neighbours also. This way we can all work together to produce good articles that do have a place on Wikipedia. I do stress though that I do not support keeping articles such as Hugo Austin, Xavier Austin, Ruby Buckton. .. because they are not notable. If you are a fan and interested in saving some of the articles now would be a good time to indicate your interest in such a project so something good can come of it. To be honest I'm wondering why I did say keep because most of the articles are poor and before the edits were just typical plot summaries with nothing that would interest a reader of wikipedia if they came across it randomly. As you do sometimes.Raintheone (talk) 01:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you have changed your mind from keep? Matthewedwards : Chat

Comment -- I too find it extremely disturbing that the nominator chose not to inform the article creators as the deletion policies recommend. If our nominator has an explanation as to why they chose to ignore the deletion policies' recommendations I hope they will share that. When I find an article I started has been deleted -- and the nominator chose not to inform me, I am pretty mad. In the five years I have been contributing to the wikipedia I have seen, time and again, promising new contributors, who end up going rogue, and being banned, and I think the watershed event is a more experienced contributor's lapse from WP:BITE. Alternatively other newbies are just driven away when more experienced contributor's lapses from WP:BITE. Geo Swan (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are dozens of creators, recreators, re-re-creators (as several of these articles are violations of CSD G5) and it is up to those who add content to justify it. We are not talking about "promising new contributors" here - I am not sure that you have actually read the articles in question. Orderinchaos 04:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've spent a little bit of time looking at some of them since the post above. Our nominator has made a number of claims about these articles, including that they were all short. I found that this was not true, the half dozen I've checked, so far, included one really long article. This further confirms my concern over the nominations of such really huge lists. What I have noticed in the past, and what I am afraid I am finding in this nomination, is that nominators of these long lists lapse from the due diligence I think is reasonable to expect from them. If you are going to nominate a bunch of article, all at once, and claim they are all the same, you should take a close enough look at them so that you can be sure you are telling the truth.
  - Your comment, "We are not talking about "promising new contributors" here" -- what do you mean? Are you suggesting that the contributors are vandals? Are you suggesting they are hopelessly poor spellers? Incapable of writing a coherent sentence? If they are not vandals, and they are doing their best to make contributions that comply with their limited and inexperienced understanding of the the wikipedia, then I have no hesitation calling them "promisting new contributors".
  - In my attempt to fully understand all our nominator's concern I also looked at List of Seinfeld minor characters, and the corresponding list for Coronation Street. Seinfeld has close to twenty separate articles devoted to characters from the show. Seinfeld was a weekly show. If Home and Away was a daily show, and it has run longer than Seinfeld, it makes sense to me that it would have a greater number of characters.
  - It is up to contributors to do their best to provide content that complies with policy, so its retention can be justified. But the policies do recommend telling the article creator, and citing the sheer number of people the nominator would have to notify in this particular case seems to me to be a very weak argument. No one forced our nominator to nominate all these articles at once. Geo Swan (talk) 05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've actually misread what the nominator said. The nominator said: "nothing but either one sentence stubs [...] or extremely long and detailed plot summaries". Length does not correspond to quality - in fact these articles were pure and simple WP:NOT violations. The contributors have no interest of contributing to Wikipedia, and have engaged in edit warring, process violation and whatnot to keep their preferred version which is riddled with opinion, original research, unverifiable claims and unencyclopaedic language and extremely poor spelling. Some of the information is actually copyvio from a range of forums which would be EL/RS violations if linked. If these were promising new contributors, they would actually contribute rather than simply dump. In my opinion they should be blocked if they persist. Orderinchaos 05:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)Geo, just to clarify something, Matthew didn't say they were all short. He said some were really short and others were extremely long: "are nothing but either one sentence stubs...or extremely long and detailed plot summaries -- or rather, recaps -- and character biographies that only a dedicated fan would be interested in." It is true that some are incredibly long "Storyline" pages filled with unverifiable detailed information about everything that ever happened to the character. The problem, IMO, is the issue of verifiability. Having been trying to work on cleaning some of these up, I've found it very hard to find RS compliant sources to write articles on these characters. Note also that some of these characters have multiple articles. See for example Tony_Holden_(fictional_character) and Tony Holden (Home and Away character) and Claudia Hammond (Home And Away) and Claudia Hammond (Home and Away). I've been accused of supporting a disruptive AFD nomination but I know nothing about any policy disputes and care even less. All I do know is this subject area is a mess that makes Wikipedia look ridiculous and it needs to be resolved one way or the other - either through deletion or through the people wanting these kept coming and helping to clean up the unverifiable original research. Sarah 06:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(2xEC with Sarah and MichaelQ) I don't have to inform the creators. There is a tag on each article. It is listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 1, and three deletion sorting pages. Many have been recreated a number of times after being deleted and salted, just at different page titles. I don't think my not informing them personally will turn them into rogue editors and vandals, but if it does so be it. Their true colours will have shown. They aren't "their" articles anyway. I've had articles I've created AfDed and I haven't been notified on my talk page a single time. It's no big deal. They're not mine to worry about. Other than that length, which I stressed are different, the articles are the same. A bunch of plotlines that do nothing to show the encyclopedicness of their subjects and the impact they've had on the world. There is no bias for me picking the H&A character articles. I just happened to be reading a couple and was dismayed by what they actually were. Length of show and number of characters does not equal character importance. Matthewedwards : Chat 06:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator, who should be setting an example of compliance to the wikipedia's civility policies, so less experienced contributors can see what is expected of them, I think you should have a very good reason for not leaving the courtesy heads-up on the talk page.
I am surprised you would assert that placing a tag on each article is sufficient. I log in to the wikipedia just about every day. You probably do too. But newcomers usually don't. If they are knowledgeable to know they should place articles they work on on their watchlist, and that they should check it, every time they log in, they would still have to log in sometime before July 8 2009 to learn that the articles were nominated. If the next time they check their watchlist is a couple of weeks later there is no record for them to review. Several contributors here have suggested that the people contributing these articles are doing so in bad faith. And one of the justifications for this suggestion is that they re-contributed the articles after they had been deleted. Can you please explain how a newbie is going to learn what lapses of policy they made in the first version of an article if no one tells them to look at its deletion discussion? To suggest that the recreation of a deleted article is bad faith, in this circumstance, is extremely unfair. I left a heads-up for one of these contributors. I looked at their contribution history. I didn't see any glaring signs of vandalism. I didn't see anyone trying to warn them of concerns about their editing choices.
With regard to "true colours" -- I am going to assume it simply never occurred to you that by deleting newbies articles, without telling them, you spread chaos and discord. That is what you are doing, whether you realize it or not, because those newbies have no opportunity to learn what they did wrong, and they have had the example set for them that the wikipedia's civility policies can be ignored, if you feel strongly enough about an issue.
IMO complying with the policies should be the top priority no matter how strongly we feel about an issue. Nationalists, who edit war, and otherwise try to preserve the reputation of their nation, and are willing to disregard the wikipedia's policies to do so, represent a problem. I'd like to draw a parallel between their damaging actions, and yours. You also seem to think an issue -- ridding the wikipedia of "fancruft" -- was so important that you were willing to ignore the recommendations in wikipedia policies to do so.
I don't know what ECx2 means. Geo Swan (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It means he edit conflicted twice, with me and you. Sarah 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ALL. Oh, it would have been easier to say keep a, b, c, d, and delete, e, f, g, h, i, j, k.... but a huge mass nomination does not really allow editors the luxury of time to go through them one by one by one by one by one (etc) to make an individual determination for each to see which might be salvagable per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE and WP:POTENTIAL, and which might not... or even if one or two actually do have the required sourcing and should not have been nominated. By placing all the eggs in one basket, the nom allows either a keep all or delete all. With such a practice, whether perceived as disruptive or not, even even one gets deleted that should not have been, all of Wikipedia is diminished. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"At least seven days" is plenty long enough to at least check each article for sourcing. They've been tagged for months and months. Truly none have potential and there is no information that can be preserved because it's all plot junk. If you haven't looked at them all, then how can you stand behind what you've just said? Matthewedwards : Chat 06:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your mass nomination has just about assured that NO ONE could do a diligent source search for them ALL. Yes, 7 days would be ideal... for three, six or perhaps even nine articles, allowing interested editors the time to do a diligent and in depth search for each. But for 100 at the same time? Nope. Sorry. A diligent and in-depth search across numeous databases with various search parameters and including visits to libraries is most decidely limited by the sheer volume of articles here being mass nominated. Many editors have obligations outside these pages. If such limitation to improvement was not the intention, such is certainly here the result. Which is why huge mass nominations are consider by many to be disruptive to the project. SPECIALLY when it could then lead to "rogue ediitors and vandalism". Why create wikidrama simply for the sake of more wikidrama? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Visits to libraries? You're assuming libraries actually have stuff. I actually did already look and the *only* thing available in my state (I'm in Australia) is a 1989 book in a library in a town with 300 people out in the middle of nowhere. It was published by the producers only a year after the chart run, so may not even be usable as it's basically a primary source. We don't want to preserve content which is unreferenced, unverifiable and most likely false. Orderinchaos 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, visits to libraries. Wikipedia understands that not everything is online. Yes, I am assuming that many libraries (if not the one in a town of 300) have stuff.... books... as well as microfiche, videos, DVDs, archives, and more... and I am assuming that somone might wish to also use these and other available sources... magazines, books, digests, search engines other than google, and yes... even bookstores. That the only library you found in your state with an older book was in a town of 300 really does not allow an presumption that paints all libraries and sources as useless. Not all books ever written about every subject are in each and every library, and many might never be in a library. However, it IS a pretty safe assumption that a popular (to some) soap opera that has been running for 21 years broadcasting thousands of episodes which has received 33 major awards and nearly 70 award nominations might have received just a little bit of coverage somewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this library side-conversation still does not address the fact that the mass nomination will and is serving to create more disruption. The sheer number precludes them getting proper attention. The lack of courtesy notification precludes contributors from being set to a search for their "favorite" articles. And if ALL are deleted, these contributors will come back and wonder just what the heck happened to their good faith contributions... as WP:CIV does not allow the presumption that every editor who ever contributed to these articles did so in bad faith and as vandalism. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Home and Away has received heaps of attention and heaps of articles and material has been written about it, that's why Matthew hasn't nominated Home and Away. However, very few of the characters themselves have been written about in RS compliant sources and the few that have (Sally, Alf, Charlie etc) haven't been nominated. Sarah

There is a lot of plot junk, but that doesn't justify throwing them all out. We're supposed to at least attempt to find salvageable information. This is going to take a lot more than seven day to properly deal with these articles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lists, rework lists to conform to MOS, merge characters to lists This is a bit overwhelming to deal with all of these at once. These could probably be displayed on a list, but I'm not sure the lists are named properly, and there shouldn't be duplicates of anything. Trim out the fan-plot summaries and merge what's left of each character article into the list. Keep any characters that have met coverage requirements. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I would consider something along the lines of this an okay solution. I did not anticipate or expect this AFD and had been considering a solution of redirecting the non-notable character pages to a central list containing the basic character information (which is all these most of these pages are once you remove the storyline essays. So I would actually be satisfied with what Kraftlos proposes here. I would still rather get rid of the page histories because I know the fans will keep edit warring restoring their storyline essays as they have been leading up to this AFD and after previous AFDs which closed as redirect. I just hope that people who don't want them deleted will volunteer to help deal with cleaning up these articles because it's way too much for Orderinchaos and I to deal with and at present very, very few people are even around these articles and we're greatly outnumbered by the edit warring fans on dynamic IPs who refuse to even engage in discussion. Sarah 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - this would be quite an acceptable solution. Re the last part of what Sarah said, yeah it's completely unacceptable that two admins are left with the *entire* burden of enforcement of policy against a literal army of IPs, putting ourselves at risk of 3RR and having to blat recreated articles (and figure out which ones are recreated and which ones are not). I have never seen most of the ardent Keep voters ever before trying to help us. Orderinchaos 20:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned over the comment immediately above -- which reminds me of the triggers for police brutality. A former mayor of Toronto, John Sewell, wrote a book where he explained how good cops get drawn into police brutality. His explanation was similar to that famous quote from the War in Vietnam: "We had to destroy the village, in order to save it." The Police, he explained, have their own subculture. Their values were not the same as those embodied in the laws they enforce. Public order plays a much higher role in Police values than the laws they enforce. A strict compliance with the law is frustrating for the police, because it results in suspects they are sure are bad guys escaping punishment, on technicalities. So, what, exactly, is being argued, above? Are you arguing that over-worked and frustrated admins, concerned over the coverage of this topic, should feel free to bend or break the wikipedia's policies because it is really important to keep the wikipedia's coverage of this topic under greater control? No topic is so important it justifies our administrators lapsing from a strict compliance with our policies. Geo Swan (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that there are so many G5 nominations, that the IPs will not comply with Wikipedia procedure and simply blindly revert, the SPAs have no interest in engaging or discussing their actions even when they get blocked for them (totally in line with policy, too) - what would you suggest? "Strict compliance" never saved anyone or anything, that is why we have WP:IAR as a fundamental rule here. And IAR would, by the way, have perfectly justified the evacuation of the entire category without the need for an AfD. The writer of the above seems to forget not only are policies not set in stone but they were written by humans, and humans, for that matter, with a perfect appreciation for the fact that common sense, rather than letter-of-law, would always ultimately guide us as a project. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy nor is it governed by statute. The selective interpretation of policy - that a constantly changing deletion policy, should trump V, NPOV, OR, NOT, all cornerstones of our encyclopaedia - is ridiculous to me. Orderinchaos 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all -- Nominator should withdraw this flawed nomination. Many of these article are mere stubs. But, as the nominator acknowledges, some are longer -- they are a different case. Nominator should pick the half dozen longest, but unreferenced articles, and nominate them, making the effort to properly inform the article creators. Maybe references can be found. If those working on these articles have the energy to improve them, and find references -- once that concern is brought to their attention, a half dozen is the most articles one can reasonably expect good faith article rescuers to work on at once. A half dozen is about the most articles one can expect the participants in a deletion forum to take a proper look at, and put on their watchlist, so they can notice the article has been improved to the extent they would reverse a deletion opinion. If those half dozen articles end up being deleted then the shorter ones should be open and shut. Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand what is going on at all. They don't care about references. They don't care about Wikipedia policies and we have tried to explain why certain material isn't suitable for Wikipedia but all that happens is they ignore us and return regularly in what appears like an organised manner to edit war over restoring their essays to the pages, to such an extent that about 20 of the pages which we've tried to make a start on cleaning up have had to be protected. Sarah 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"They"?? As some sort of "US versus Them" mentality in an encyclopedia anyone can edit? Did you yourself understand all policies and guidelines when you first edited? Did experienced editors then treat you as some sort of uneducatable heathen and delete your edits out of hand? Is such an expectation toward newcomers now becoming the unwritten rule? Wikipedia is not for only experienced editors. It is about and for the readers. It is up to the experienced editors to encourage growth in newcomers, not alienate them or antagonoze them by tossing out their good faith contributions as if they did not matter. The fact that "they" include informations about subjects that the "us" find unsuitable is a reason to educate new editors, not banish their contributions to oblivion. It is unhelpful to mass nominate articles in such a fashion so that it is made impossible to do a proper and diligent search for informations and sources for the ones that might be salvaged. So yes, a Keep all and Protect all will allow the time required to seperate the wheat from the chaff. Mass nominations, whether perceived as disruptive or not, and whether intended as diruption or not, do not best serve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption of good faith of these "editors" (who are not interested in being "educated", and shift IP so regularly that a logical place to "educate" them doesn't exist) extends well beyond any measure of common sense. They're just fans of a show who want Wikipedia to show every last detail of their heroes' lives, whether it belongs here or not, and will not take no for an answer. The patterns of behaviour suggest an uncanny level of coordination, possibly from a fan forum, but we're yet to find it. Discussion works only when one has a line of communication. I look forward to seeing your efforts in modifying their behaviour in the future. Orderinchaos 20:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it's just charming isn't it when the AGF falls to a bunch of edit warring IPs who refuse to engage in discussion, rather than a couple of long term established and experienced admins who have spent huge amounts of time trying to clean up a walled garden of junk. I too look forward to seeing an influx of experienced editors willing to clean up these articles. I would hate to think we have people who sit around AFD pontificating and lecturing but who refuse to actually do the work implementing the outcome they demand. 8 Sarah 03:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection prevents anonymous IPs from editing a page. That leaves registered accounts that can be schooled if willing to learn or blocked if not. As for me, I do my share of contributing and improving, so I hope you're not including me as a "pontificator". MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption of good faith is one of the core behaviorial policies of Wikipedia. If an editor is disruptive or vandalizes articles, there are other methods for dealing with such other than a mass deletiion of over 100 articles, which could then actually encourage even greater and more organized vandalization all accross the project in retaliation. Protection is the way to prevent contributions, well-meaning or otherwise, from anonymous IPs. Opening a dialog is the way to deal with new registered accounts. That some might not be open to discussion is an invalid reason to then condemn all simply because of their interests. And please note... I am not Australian, I do not like soap operas, and I do not see the fascination they hold for so many. My comments are based on WP:CIV,WP:Editing policy, WP:Deadline and WP:ATD. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but that's just such a ludicrous response. You've clearly not bothered to look very deeply at what has been happening. As I've said already, an initial effort to clean up unverifiable material resulted in an influx of IPs and new accounts edit warring over restoring their storyline essays to such an extent that more than 20 articles have had to be protected. I'm obviously not referring to any editors editing in good faith but a core group who refuse to respond to messages, are distinctly SPA-like in their edits who come here solely to edit war over restoring their material and when they don't get their own way, they post their essays under different names, which is how we wound up with a bunch of articles about the same characters. Unfortunately there are very few responsive good faith editors in this subject area who actually want to edit with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, rather than treating us as a hosting facility. Any good faith editors who are responsive and want to edit within policy and write articles that comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are most welcome and I am most willing to help and advise such editors to find their way around this project and write compliant articles. Sarah 03:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all for now. Mass noms are a really bad idea for this very reason; some likely should be merged while others should be kept. If fans are building these - so what? We look for good articles and this is possibel in many of these. For those that aren't a list article is an acceptable solution. This nom just seems very pointy which is a bad idea for XfD. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:They provide a valuable resource on the show and the characters and are as valid as any other article on a fictional character. Alternately, if it is felt they are not worthy of individual articles, move all the details to List of Home and Away characters and possibly to List of current Home and Away characters. Especially keep Recurring characters of Home and Away, this contains information that does not belong in either of the other two lists and should be maintained as a separate list. Skteosk (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I have been involved in editing or creating many of these pages. I am not part of a conspiracy. I have only ever been contacted to be told that a page has been deleted or is about to be deleted. I have taken great care to ensure that all contributions I make are the work of myself and no-one else. I apologise if I have broken any rules but I believe that these articles, which I feel are frequently singled out ahead of identical articles, should not cause offence to anyone. Skteosk (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See. My point has now been made, and thank you. Here above speaks Skteosk (talk)... a contributor to these articles who was never previously asked to discuss anything... and indeed DOES wish to take part in discussions and improvements to his contributions. I wonder who else might have willingly come forward if courtesy notices had been sent to their pages. It's time to put away that brush that continues to paint all as unredeemable pariahs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect all to List of Home and Away characters. Wow... these do need to be dealt with on a large scale as there has been a walled-garden created within this universe where all these characters are presumed notable. In reality they aren't and the resulting articles are terrible. Among the problems contained are a lack of real-world notability, wholly unreferenced sections and articles, in-universe descriptions with no encyclopedic analysis, and large chunks of original research. The best solution is to merge these all; this preserves the information that they are characters as well as removes most of the problems listed above. No prejudice to recreation of individual articles after there's evidence presented that an individual subject meets our policies and guidelines. Them From Space 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- TFS offers a cogent and well-thought opinion that the mass nomination did not even attempt to address. A proper merge and redirect that preserves the histories and allows recreation could indeed serve the project. Nice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed and as I've said, I would find a solution along these lines acceptable, however we need a lot of help to implement it and as such a staunch advocate of this subject area, I look forward to seeing you over there helping us to do so. Sarah 03:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it closes as temporary keep all so that such can be then impemented, I'll be here. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge stubs & redir - It may be a lot of work, but I do believe that the Group is notable (notice small caps) to List of Home and Away characters. Mass AFD is not the route to go here. I find myself comparing this to the way Baywatch Articles are setup, it could be done much better, but thats an edit issue. Stubs & list entries dont yet rate stand alone Articles, they provide a method of navigation to the actors (whom may/may not be independantly WP:Notable (notice large caps)). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Please be aware that User:DGG is now on Wikien-l pointing readers at this AFD and misrepresenting the nomination. He claims "the nominator's argument is that all the articles on all characters of the famous australian soap opera Home and Away should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short." This is clearly not the case because the nominator has not nominated all character articles - Pippa Fletcher, Charlie Buckton and Sally Fletcher are notable characters not nominated. The nominator's argument is also not that the articles "should be deleted, because they are either too long or too short". His comments about the length of the articles were merely an observation, a description of the articles and his stated rationale for deletion was the characters do not meet notability, have no reliable sources and are written in an "in universe" style. Users coming here after reading the mailing list should be aware that DGG's comments are not accurate and should be sure to read and examine the nomination for themselves. Sarah 04:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator did not include 3 of the 100? I have not been notified by DGG, nor am I privvy to or even heard of Wikien-l before your comment above, but if he said "all" (100%), he should modify that statement to say "most" (97%). I hardly think that 3 not being nominated does much to justify that 100 were. A mass nomination is never for the best when other options are available, even if an editor or two are frustrated with the pages being a magnet for anonymous IPs. That calls for protection, not deletion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just named three off the top of my head as examples of some that were't nominated but by no means was that all of them. Other articles not nominated include Justine Welles, Pippa Ross, Josie Russell (Home and Away), Liam Murphy (Home and Away), Miles Copeland (character), and Lance Smart. And there are others. I wasn't trying to "justify" anything, thankyou; I was simply providing correct information for any users who come here after reading the incorrect information DGG posted to the mailing list. It's really very unhelpful that you make these kinds of authoritative sounding (but actually false) comments without being willing to get off your AFD chair and go into this corner of the project and get the actual, you know, facts. I really wish you would stop sniping from the sidelines and actually do something constructive to help clean these articles you insist we kept. What, for example, are you going to do about the multiple articles for the one characters which you want kept? Perhaps you would be so kind to go and do some merge and redirects to resolve that problem since you are so intent on keeping all articles. It's very, very easy to sit at AFD sniping, lecturing and judging others but not so easy to actually go into this subject area and clean it up and then maintain it. I would really appreciate your help doing so. Sarah 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That a small number were not nominated does not detract that far too too too many were so all at once. To address the concerns of the nominator will require indepth researches to attempt improving any portion of 100+ articles against the ticking of the clock... more than a bit overwhelming. And will then would require coming back here as the sands trickle out of the hourglass to debate further about which ones were improved enough to merit a keep and which ones merit a redirect or merge. I have other areas of the project where I devote my time... building new article or doing a lot of research and rewriting to rescue ones in danger of deletion. That my rescues are handled one at a time allows me the luxury to give an article the attention it properly deserves. And now here is a challange to take part in rescuing 100+ in only a few days... when it took me months to rescue the 125 that I have done so far. And my addressing the difficulty of the task under a ticking clock is now called "sniping"?? Yikes. Yes, unsourced articles should be {eventually) removed, but a mass nomination that requires such to happen within such a short time flies against WP:DEADLINE and WP:IMPERFECT... specially since at the very least, the mere existance of these characters meets WP:V. Now that the nominator's concerns have been made, this AfD should close all as a temporary keep and semi-protect all from any contributions from anonymous IPs. Then editors can coordinate efforts to save the ones that may be salvagable or redirect/merge the ones that are not. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I have no real objection to the details being moved to appropriate list articles. It is the unfortunate habit of deleting whole articles or stripping them down to the bare bones that I find somewhat disrespectful. I admit many of the articles relate to short-term guest characters (one of whom was only in two episodes) and could quite possibly be deleted although I think it would be fairer to move the content to Recurring characters of Home and Away (another reason to keep it in existence). I have been endeavouring to "trouble shoot" List of Home and Away characters and ensure it only lists characters who were officially classified as "main" on either the opening or closing credits, as I believe was the intention. My only claim to being an expert on the subject is watching the show for a number of years and occasionally contributing to fan sites but I would be willing to provide whatever help and advice is needed to prevent the whole resource being the victim of mass deletion. Skteosk (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skteosk, thank you very much, I appreciate your willingness to come and help clean this subject area up and bring it in line with Wikipedia policy and guideliness. Your help is most welcome and I will come and talk to you on your talk page when this discussion is over. Sarah 02:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm on wikibreak and working on a variety of other areas too, I'll do what I can to assist also. I think the end picture will look like a heap of redirects to a list for those characters who are "bit parts" or low impact/simply a plot device, while a selection of short (but not stubbish) reasonable articles on the key characters at various points and over time can be built up, and an emphasis on references where they exist would be a positive thing, and I'd be happy to encourage anyone who wants to help with it. It's good from a maintenance point of view too as less articles and less crap means less work to keep/develop (and is also a good "gatekeeper" on false spoilers and such things). Orderinchaos 11:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep all per DGG , DreamFocus and Schmidt. Those wanting deletion seem to have some strong and valid points. But at the end of the day I dont think its going to hurt the encylopedia to have a few articles on a soap written in a more fan friendly perspective than we’d normally wish. If these were in a topic area like science or religion the case for such mass deletion would be much stronger. Not agreeing with everything Geo said, but basically upgrading to Strong keep per Geo Swan and ANobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. This material is not encyclopedic, it belongs on a fan forum or such, not on Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge all individual articles AND character lists to List of Home and Away characters per normal method of dealing with unnotable individual character articles and the guideline that a series only needs one list. What's with the other three? Once merged, do appropriate clean up of the list to fix organizational issues, cull down unnecessary excessive plot details and in-universe tones, and deal with referencing per WP:MOS-TV, WP:WAF, and WP:V. Tempted to add speedy delete to those already deleted before, but merging seems the best way to deal with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that view. I think it shows a n intention to compromise. I might ideally like to have separate article for half o them, but i certainly think that if we can get substantial information included for all, that it would be a sufficient solution for the present time. Colllectonian, coming from a significantly different approach , seems to agree that this--though not ideal from her point of view--is adequate also. We could have brokered such a compromise with out the drama involved. will at least settle the present issue for now. Neither of us are looking for a knockdown fight,. This was a very ill-conceived nomination, but we can still deal with it with a spirit of compromise. It is probably after all not a good idea to start a major conflict by attacking one of the most notable soap operas in the world: it shows a desire to pick the strongest point and fight to win. I don't want to fight to win. I want to compromise on a way of dealing with these and get on too other things. 08:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)i

Comment -- Since no one else had left the good faith heads-ups on the talk pages of the creators of these articles I started doing so. I know the opinion has been expressed above that this was unnecessary. If I have understood the xplanation as to why the good faith heads-ups are not necessary, it is because those concerned about these articles had already tried patiently explaining what was wrong with these articles, and had exhausted their ability to assume good faith. User:Conquistador2k6 replied. I encouraged them to come here, and weigh in on whether the efforts made by those with concerns over these articles, to explain the concerns, were sufficient.

I continue to feel that our nominator should have had a good reason to choose not to comply with the recommendation of the deletion policies to leave those good faith heads-ups. And, if those concerned about these articles had really made a significant effort to communicate with those working on these articles, I am mystified as to why I didn't see any indication of those efforts on the talk pages of the articles, or the talk pages of the contributors.

The suggestion has been made above that this mass nomination was not a wholesale, indiscriminate nomination made with little consideration to the after-effects -- because there were several Home and Away articles the nominator didn't list. But didn't the nominator have to edit the list, after the nomination, having included several articles that for one reason or another shouldn't have been listed?

Several contributors here have tried to defend the nominator's decision to not bother informing those working on these articles that they had been nominated for deletion. They have repeated that it is not required. They have also repeated that the show of good faith is not necessary. Strictly speaking the policies don't require this show of good faith, but I absolutely can not agree that this show of good faith is not necessary. I regard it as absolutely essential. Those concerned about these articles have cast serious doubt about the character, judgment and motives of those who want to work on these articles, and have challenged those contributors commitment to the project's core policies. Newbies aren't mind-readers. A newbie who only returns to the project occasionally, isn't going to see that the article was formally nominated for deletion. They aren't going to see discussion on the deletion forum. When those deleting the articles don't inform the newbies, they can't expect the newbies to learn what our policies and procedures are. They can't expect them to learn from their mistakes. When those deleting articles can't be bothered to inform the newbies that formal steps to delete the article were initiated it is extremely unfair to characterize the newbies as the contributors who are acting in bad faith. How in the name of heck are the newbies supposed to know that the deletion of this material was backed up by policy, and their recreation of the material was not, when those making the nomination chose not to inform them of the nomination?

I continue to think the best thing would be for the nominator to withdraw this flawed nomination, and initiate a better researched, more limited nomination -- one that was respectful to the efforts of good-faith contributors. Geo Swan (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Geo here,. Not notifying people is always bad. Saying they were notified already in essence is not a n excuse, when its so easy to make sure they are aware. Such practice always looks like an attempt to try to get things through in the hope that at least some of the opponents will not notice. Nominating a large number of articles of varying degree of notability is also never a good idea--the almost inevitable result, unless stopped, is for the medium notable ones to be lost, because the argument is based on the least notable of the batch. Neit4her of these show good faith.m they show rather an attempt to deleted all one can get away with regardless of the merits, or, more likely, a view that the arguments of those who might want too preserve these articles are so contemptible that they are not worth taking account of. On the basis of this AfD I think it is time to propose a change strongly deprecating joining afds unless the circumstances are truly identical., and saying that if any good faith editor will say that they are not, the nomination must be split. DGG (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the end of the day we're more interested in finding a solution that works than in process wonkery. Following the letter of the law has not worked to date, so we need to try a more intelligent approach. This is what is being attempted here, in my view - something drastic needed to be done to pull the category into line, and something drastic will probably happen, although it may not be in the exact terms of the nomination. One final note - you repeatedly cite AGF and insist that we should show it to vandals (while yourself failing to show it to those of us who are trying to help the encyclopaedia - some of your notices to contributors re this AfD border on canvassing and are shameful in their content). I do not see it that way, nor does WP:AGF if you read it: "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary" is an important caveat. There are good faith users who we can work with (e.g. Skteosk and Conquistador), but the ones responsible for this mess are not within their number. Orderinchaos 18:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put my reply to the concern that I have canvassed other wikipedians, and written "shameful" comments on the afd's talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 10:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is not what Wikipedia is for, IMHO, and everything is unverified per WP:V. I suggest the fans create their own wiki, if there isn't one already. –Moondyne 00:49, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all & redirect per WP:NOT. There is strong consensus that this stuff should be in a character list. Eusebeus (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all as disruptive mass nomination (the community cannot reasonably be expected to adequately review scores of these in a mere week and based on comments above, it is clear that accounts are indeed just looking at some without considering each one, which is problematic because they vary considerably on terms of quality from one to the next; and also disruptive because of the various bad faith accusations in the discussion above). Moreover, various of the so-called delete claims above either reflect not looking at the articles or are flatout just dishonest. Let us first take the titular article. Well, its contents are certainly verifiable, as I was able to confirm out of universe information from a Google News source, which I added to the article, which means the article contains some non-plot information and thus meets the heavily disputed and thus consensus lacking WP:NOT#PLOT, because they are not actually only "plot". The fact that they contain out of universe information verifiable through reliable sources also means that they meet the WP:GNG (as there are millions of fictional characters that get no Google News results, whereas these ones do) and at least one of the many versions of the proposed WP:FICT, which changes constantly anyway. So, at a minimum the articles do meet WP:V, and because we know they are not hoaxes, nor libelous, then even at worst, they would be merged and redirected per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. Now whether the individual articles should remain or if they should me merged or redirect is for the individual talk pages. Deletion is clearly and overwhelmingly a bad call that no one seriously supports, and again, the notability and verifiability varies per character. Tony Holden and the actor who played as him as a search string gets six Google News hits, some others get more, others less. It would take a post equal to this entire discussion thus far and then some to adequately go through every single one of the items listed above. Finally, Wikipedia does not have a deadline. There is no pressing, dire need to hurry up and get rid of these now when other options like sourcing (as I have begun to do to Hugo Austin and the second item on the list, etc.--the sources are out there!), or merging and redirecting are on the table. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, all that source you added says is "Hugo Austin (Bernard Curry)". I'm not kidding (people can click to see for themselves), that is all it says about this character. It does not say anything *about* the character beyond its mere existence in the show. "No evidence beyond mere existence" is a quite valid AfD argument for delete. There is no "out of universe" information there. The six Tony Holden hits - four are from unreliable sources and one is about the actor, not the character - it would support expansion of Jon Sivewright but not the character's article. The remaining one is weak and flimsy and only once mentions him, and only incidentally in a first-person interview with the actress who plays his on-screen relationship partner. So much for "independent coverage in secondary reliable sources". As for "noone seriously supports deletion" - several already have. I would say about 65% of these articles should definitely be removed. Additionally you say they are "not hoaxes, nor libelous" - we don't know that. Much of the information contained in this walled garden is entirely false, and anything inserted as a "spoiler" cannot be trusted as it does not indicate its source (indeed, I've seen criticism of Wikipedia's H&A articles on exactly this base in a range of fan forums). In fact I think you have demonstrated quite well the sound basis that exists for deletion - these articles are for the most part entirely indefensible. Orderinchaos 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No basis beyond WP:IDONTLIKEIT exists for deletion, which of course is no legitimate basis. The actor playing as the character is out of universe information; the critical comments about the character in the sources is out of universe information; etc. That this information comes entirely from reliable sources demonstrates that the articles should either be kept and expanded further or merged and redirected with edit history intact. Thus, this nomination is entirely indefensible and thus far has only been sustained by falsehoods and attacks on other editors, i.e. it has been disruptive and unproductive and serves no beneficial purpose for our project, whereas actually improving the articles does or having more considerate and careful discussions on individual article talk pages would have. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actor has nothing to do with the character - the actor is a real world person, the character is a fictitious representation created by a script writer which the actor happens to represent. I see no critical commentary in the four words "Hugo Austin (Bernard Curry)", therefore I'm unsure what you are referring to. Articles on Wikipedia need to meet notability, they need to sustain themselves from independent, reliable secondary sources which primarily pertain to the subject, and they need to avoid original research or claims which cannot be sustained from such sources. That, in summary, is the problem with the great majority of these articles. I actually *do* like some of them, so "IDONTLIKEIT" doesn't really apply, but my liking them as a mildly amusing work of fiction (whether or not it correctly describes the onscreen fiction) has nothing to do with its encyclopaedic value. Orderinchaos 20:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The character is from a show that is notable to everyone who watches it and for all the sources that cover the character. And again, the problem with this mass nomination is that while I added one source to Hugo Austin, I found considerable out of universe information in interviews and the like for another character who clearly is notable and absolutely can be expanded to include out of universe sections beyond just the plot elements (I only scratched the surface for this character). And in event, the characters are doubly notable per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable, which is the best notability "guideline" anyone has ever come up with on this site! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This long discussion has not turned up a single valid reason for keeping these unreferenced personal essays on non-notable topics. A list with a one-line description of each character might be appropriate if it can be supported with reliable references. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @232 · 04:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jacobs[edit]

Delete: (along with Parker Jacobs; see below) non-notable actor Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also let's consider whether her brother Parker Jacobs qualifies as notable. His page only indicates that he is a Mormon graphics artist, from what I can decipher. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I can find indicates notabilty; also per RMS Parker Jacobs should AfD too. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources to establish notability, subject doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. I would think the Parker Jacobs article qualifies for speedy deletion, as nothing in it seems to assert notability. Rnb (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see the notability. I can't see her passing WP:ENT. If she has had all the roles Rms125a says, and he puts them in the article, I'd be willing to reconsider. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Fuzbaby. Nothing notable came up during a google search. There are a lot of young children actors popping up on wiki that go into AfD. I think a PR company and/or management firm creates their articles; very suspect. BioDetective2508 (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants–Yankees Rivalry[edit]

Delete as a non-notable rivalry. They played in a few world series and were in the same city, but they barely play(ed) each other. Tavix | Talk 18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix | Talk 18:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. BRMo (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Calling this a non-notable rivalry smacks of recentism. The two teams played within walking distance of each other for almost 60 years (heck, they shared a stadium for 10 of those years) and vied for the hearts of New York baseball fans (along with the 3rd New York City team). During that time, they played 6 World Series against each other - more than many teams have even been in - including 2 that were played when they shared a stadium. Does anyone really believe that 2 teams sharing a stadium that played in 2 consecutive World Series against each other would not have a notable rivalry? And then, in the year the Yankees moved out, they found themselves in the World Series again? Plus, the article is incorrect to the extent that San Francisco Giants did play the Yankees in the 1962 World Series, one of the closest ever. Plus there was the bad blood between the teams from when the Giants "stole" the Yankees' hall of fame manager right before the Yankees moved to NY to compete against the Giants and Dodgers for the NY market; some of that bad blood becoming a factor in the cancellation of the 1904 World Series, which the Giants qualified for and the Yankees (then Highlanders) contended for. Rlendog (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In addition, there are at least two entire books largely devoted to the rivalry betwen these two teams (plus the Dodgers) just during the late 40s and 50s. [14] [15]. Rlendog (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those books look like generic New York city baseball books. That doesn't mean it specifically discusses a rivalry. Tavix | Talk 01:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you think they specifically discuss the rivalries? From the Library Journal review of the first book: "Kahn again returns to an era he categorically states is "the greatest" in baseball history. Central to his description are the three New York clubs and the spirited rivalries [emphasis added] they produced." Rlendog (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - just because they rarely play doesn't mean the subject isn't historically notable. That said, can we move the article title to keep with conventions? matt91486 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know it is kind of like saying other stuff exists, but a pairing which has provided several World Series and co-habited the same city for a long time must be at least as notable as supposed rivalries between teams who have only played each other since interleague play came about (eg Freeway Series). It would be recentist to argue against this article's concept. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Staff Canteen[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE. Having a news page on your web site does not make you automatically of note. Trevor Marron (talk) 18:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, so tagged ukexpat (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no issue with that, the editor who added the article had attempted to circumvent A7 so I was giving the benefit of the doubt. It all looks like a big advert to me as well! Trevor Marron (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I've removed the A7, since I think there is some claim to notability there, enough that it should be discussed here in AFD. I don't think it meets the notability standards, mind, but I don't think it qualifies for speedy. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I think this page has some merit while I do agree that is worded like an advertisement. It should be re written in the format of some more popular web sites like facebook. Write this article as if it were encyclopedic. Origin, history, contributors... that sort of thing. I could see there being a page for this site because it seems to be widely popular in the chef community and also seems to be a fairly original idea. The references should be to public information about the site not references directly to the site that provides this service.Msimpson607 (talk) 04:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leave me a message if he plays for Hibs and I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Galbraith (footballer)[edit]

Former Hearts and Man Utd youngster who has just signed for Hibs.[16] He has yet to make a senior appearance (fails WP:ATHLETE) and is not particularly notable otherwise. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created this page as it is obvious that he will make a first team appearance this season, having signed a professional contract. This is the same as the case with Yves Ma-Kalambay two seasons ago. --ExcelExcel (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Makalambay was more notable because he had least been on the bench for Chelsea once or twice after they had that ridiculous game at Reading where two keepers were injured. He had also been out on loan to Watford, even though he didn't play. Galbraith never made the Man Utd first team squad. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - saying that he will become notable in the future is pure WP:CRYSTALBALLery. As he is now, this player fails WP:ATHLETE, isn't therefore notable, and the article should be deleted. Giant Snowman 18:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. – Pee Jay 20:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above and recreate when you need to. You might want to save the code somewhere to help that process. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to save the code, just notify an admin to recreate the article when the subject becomes notable. --Jimbo^[online] 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can all deleted articles be retrieved from within the system then? But if someone wants to start the article they won't know that a version is already within Wiki and thus will probably end up having to re-do much of the work already done. Eldumpo (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After an article is deleted, a notice appears on the page warning the user that they are potentially recreating deleted content. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean at the point they go to click on 'create a new article with this name' such a warning will come up - though presumably if they've only given it exactly the same name as the old one? Eldumpo (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a page that was recently deleted via afd. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability at WP:ATH as he hasn't played in a fully-pro competition. Recreate if and when he does. --Jimbo^[online] 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. CRYSTAL and ATHLETE failure. recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^T 01:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Concepts[edit]

I have no idea what this article is about, but it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of music . . . thing. Completely spamish and promotional vanity. Delete. -WarthogDemon 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This couldn't be speedied? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, AFD started by banned user. Someone else can start another AFD if they wish. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity death hoax[edit]

Tautological, dictionary definition, stub. Not really an encyclopedia article as such. Bored of the world (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close AFD. Please read the talk page. There is an RFC in progress specifically about the policy for this page. That is why there was a comment on the main article saying "See the talk page for an explanation of why this page exists." Please close this AFD immediately and let the RFC take its course. Manning (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A3 A celebrity death hoax is a hoax about the death of a celebrity. Wow, I didn't know that! Thanks for telling me absolutely nothing. Put a little effort into it next time. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Please do not vote on this AFD until you have read the RFC at Talk:Celebrity death hoax

Delete - this is a premature article, created purely to raise the question of whether it should exist. I say no - not in this state, at any rate. But I doubt that there's enough to say about the subject to justify keeping the article so it can be improved - what would a comprehensive, encyclopaedic article on 'Celebrity death hoaxes' look like? If, as I expect, it would just be a list of 'notable celebrity death hoaxes', it's probably not worth having at all.
I can see, however, that there might be a case for having a page in Wikipedia-space about whether and how celebrity death hoaxes should be covered by Wikipedia. That seems to be what this page was basically intended to be; perhaps the best solution is to create WP:DEATHHOAX and move the content on the talk page there. Robofish (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pseudocide - isn't this the same thing? Badagnani (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest transwiki to wiktionary, but at best, what else can be said other than "a celebrity death hoax is a hoax about a celebrities death"? Would examples be helpful? I doubt it; see the above cited Pseudocide article for an example of a trivia train-wreck. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep The topic certainly exists. If sources could be found which discuss the general history of celebrity death hoaxes, not just individual cases, then there should be an article on the subject. I would think that somebody, somewhere has done so. Borock (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 VG Cats. (X! · talk) · @233 · 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ramsoomair[edit]

Only notability is that he's the man behind VG Cats, an irrefutably notable webcomic. Prod and two prod-2s contested as it was already prodded on April 30 (oops). This is nothing but a bunch of off-topic trivia, including the author's opinion on various things which have no relation to VG Cats (besides that he, well, has cats). Someone suggested a merge to VG Cats, but honestly there's nothing worth merging. The VG Cats article mentions him sufficiently. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My first prod was removed in place of a merger. I agree, the page needs deleted. The VGCats page mentions him just fine. Gpia7r (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an obvious case for a redirect. Why delete the page? Powers ^T 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it is not unlikely that somebody would search for the name of the author of a webcomic, so keeping the article as a redirect to VG Cats seems reasonable. --bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree, and this should possibly be considered for any other existing author articles with little to no substance. In the case of others, like Penny-Arcade (which organize and create more important events such as PAX and the Child's Play Charity), they should remain as their own page. Gpia7r (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @233 · 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forkfly[edit]

The article does not provide any references for its assertion of notability. I was unable to find any reliable sources which would back up its claims, and I was unable to find any sources in Google News, Scholar, or Books relating to the website. [edit] additionally, the user which created the page, User:Forkflypdx, may have created the article as advertisement for the site, given the similarity of their names. Odie5533 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional advertisement. None of the 15 results for "Forkfly" "Paul Wagner" can be considered reliable or nontrivial. The mentioned quotes appear to be unverifiable. — Rankiri (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the entry is full of self-promotional material and I find zero reliable sources about any of the claims that were mentioned.--Christian B (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Coverage of a subject must be substantial and not trivial, and the consensus here is that the coverage provided for this subject is insufficient to meet inclusion criteria. Shereth 15:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Alexander Davis[edit]

Contested prod. This biography of a non-notable living person is sourced only to blogs, messageboard posts and primary sources, and I have been unable to find decent secondary sources. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article perhaps I am to blame for not using enough sources. The distiller is one of the most noteworthy people in the absinthe industry and he has been referenced in several dozen searchable articles. Notably many are blogs but others include newspapers, magazines, and radio shows. I also think that not all blogs are created equal, for example a wine and spirits magazines blog referencing an article, or or a radio program about wine referencing an interview in their blog should be considered differently than a ordinary blog. The products produced by the distiller are very famous and I would argue that he does meet the criteria laid out by wikipedia for biographies. Here are three references in major media outlets for review. The prodicts themselves also have many national references including the NY Times, and all the major international spirits competitions, Wine Enthusiast, Market Watch, Imbibe and many others, as well as dozens and dozens of local newspapers and magazines.

http://www.sacbee.com/livinghere/story/1506415.html http://www.mutineermagazine.com/blog/tag/obsello/ http://www.wistradio.com/page.php?page_id=19236&jock_id=4418

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, as well an obvious COI violation, as the creator of the article claims to be the owner of the images (themselves obviously professionally created) which are listed as belonging to him/her. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, COI isn't massively relevant. COI may be a reason to re-write an article from a neutral point of view, but it is not grounds for deletion, and I was careful not to refer to it for that reason.
The purpose of this AfD is to establish whether Bryan Alexander Davis has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. As nominator, my position is that where the sources are reliable and independent, the coverage is not significant, and where the coverage is significant, the sources are not reliable or independent.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall If I were to use the references above would that change your position? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitterherbs1 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that they're not about Davis. I think they contain passing mentions of him at best. But it's not me you need to convince, it's my audience. :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, if Thomas Edison were interviewed in a wide variety of texts referencing the light bulb would you also state that the inventor was not relevant -only the invention? The articles and interviews are centered around the spirits that were created by Davis and thus I would argue that those same articles conclusively lend credence to the creator.

If we were to take that stance then we could also bring in the dozens and dozens of articles about the products themselves as further evidence to the relevance of the distiller. I also think it is destructive to argue for removal of an article rather than simply edit it to make it more complete or correct.

I will conclude my argument with a NY Times article about Barcelona Gin published last week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/dining/24gins.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitterherbs1 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with a biography of this person? This article is an ad for the company. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Jimmy_Wales. Is this an ad for a company as well? It follows the same format? Lists the awards and accolades that justify it? The biography complies with the rules governing biographies...

Do you simply not like it. Your opinions should not be relevant to weather or not it is a viable biography. The issue is--- is the person significant enough to warrant a biography. I argue yes. If you disagree debate the evidence, the awards, the interviews, etc not your opinions.Bitterherbs1 (talk) 11:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not, and please assume good faith. This is an ad for his company, not a biography of the person. If it isn't rewritten to be about him, then it will probably be deleted, but not by me. Note that I didn't nominate it for deletion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so if I were to rewrite it give me an example of a biography of a somewhat similar living person to follow as a guideline. I am not opposed to working on it. I am just offended that it was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it does not fit the criteria when to me it seems to quite well.Bitterherbs1 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the coverage in reliable sources about Davis himself is insubstantial. In order to satisfy notability, there needs to be stronger coverage about the subject. I just don't see it here with the material presented, nor with my own search. -- Whpq (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armless[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Bethany's personal assistant says that the article is false and Bethany Hamilton has not started a music career. This album appears to be a tasteless joke. Fromagebus (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case then delete without prejudice. False information about living persons (or anything for that matter) has no place here. -WarthogDemon 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This was previously deleted at AFD as a hoax article - is there any reason why you didn't tag this for speedy-deletion, as recreation of deleted content?--Michig (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The True Victory[edit]

Contested speedy of unreleased film not even in production yet. Google search on <"The True Victory" "Kevin B. Rogers"> (to separate out other similar film titles) brings back zero results. No valid claims of notability, references are all primary sources, and major COI as the film director is the article creator. Delete. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on. I said in my edit summery, "...wait for work completed, then consider AfD.'" You didn't even give me five minutes! Please be patient while I attempt to source this. American Eagle (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I'm going to do my best to find sources. Please just wait. Give us some time. Thanks. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you are right, not one scene has been filmed. But what cannot be denied (and I realize this is going to be scrutinized) is that other film articles are created during the pre-production stage and they do not get this sort of heavy scrutinization. If it has anything to do with it's church affiliations (and I'm not accusing you of anything) it constitutes religious discrimination. Again, I'm not accusing anyone here. But I strongly feel that this article should be kept. And if not, is there any article anywhere that it can be merged with? Perhaps if I created an article for the church? Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cavanaugh FWBC is equally non-notable, like most small congregations around the planet. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know it is non-notable? It's not like we have 3 members. There are many more, believe me. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I did a search on it before saying that. You're not nearly as small as, say, my home congregation (Bethel SBC in Deanburg, TN), but by planetary standards Cavanaugh is still not large enough to meet our notability standards. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Fort Smith, AR? That page is already there. I could clear up the entire conflict right now by mentioning in a small line that there is a planned movie to be filmed there. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we're left with the problem of verifiability, and sourcing. If you can't come up with independent references about the film being made, what references would support it being added to the Fost Smith article? It's the same problem. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is done, I'll wait until better sources can be found. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a "mere" $5000? Take a look at this before you start creating articles. Just because others don't pay attention does not excuse you ignoring the rules. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll delete the word. The "WP:NFF" page I was not aware of. Though I don't agree with the rule, I'll comply from here on. Kevinbrogers (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ I know my vote may not count, as I created the article, but here's my argument: First off, I wasn't aware of the WP:NFF rules. Disregarding that, I agree, the article has exactly 0 references and only 1 external reference. And it does seem biased, that because it is my film, I want the article to stay. But lots of films started out the same way (I realize that this is basically saying "Other Stuff Exists," but this isn't a matter of keeping the article, it's a matter of whether or not the film is notable). Those films are notable (not here on Wikipedia, but everywhere). Maybe this wasn't the time to create an article. Maybe (certainly) I wasn't the person to create the article. But I don't see one form of advertising in the article. If I have a little more time to gather references, I'll be able to do so. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to put it like this, Michael Bay (and anyone associated with him) are highly unlikely to have ever edited the Transformers or Transformers 2 articles, they made a film, it made money, it got press, the article was created. Kudos to you for getting involved with this business called show, but make your film and get it released, if it is notable at that point then someone else will create the article (someone not connected to you or the film) and it will have a better chance of surviving. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete -- advertisement for embarassingly non-notable non-existent film that may or may not ever get made; violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and above all WP:NFF. If the movie ever gets made and ever becomes notable, then somebody without a COI could create an article on it. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, here's what I say to that. I truly am offended by the fact that you say that it is embarrassing. And not one person has even cared to listen to this: I AM GETTING RESOURCES. Don't delete an article simply because the creator is involved with the film. WP:NFF is a horrible rule. I'll comply with it from now on, as I was previous unaware of it. And go ahead, delete the article. It will just be re-created once the film is released, and you'll have wasted everyone's time. Thanks for wasting mine. Kevinbrogers (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is that you come in here, violate the rules, have the rules explained to you, yet claim that we are wasting your time? And if the article gets recreated without reliable sources as to its notability, it will get deleted again, and you will have wasted everybody else;s time again.Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Look, I realize the rules were violated. I have acknowledged that time and time again. I didn't realize, however, that they were broken. If someone would have told me at the very beginning, I would have been fine with it. But when they cite fixable things first, and then say "Oh, wait, you're in violation of the rules!" it just really makes me mad. Go ahead, delete the article. In the meantime, I'm going to get a list together of every article that I feel should be deleted. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it, juts don't be too pointy. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The article should at least be given a little more time, as the creator says he is currently searching for sources BAR1269 (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)— BAR1269 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - How long should it take to find sources? You can't squeeze blood from a stone. This AfD shouldn't close for a few days at least, and if he can't come up with something by then (and I doubt very much he will) then it should certainly close with a deletion result. Fair enough? -- Atama ^chat 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF which is the existing guideline and a sound one at that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NFF and Wikipedia is not for things made up in church one day. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF - you may think it's a "horrible rule", but we think it helps Wikipedia be an encyclopedia not an advertisement-hoarding. Also, note that even when the film has been made and released, it will still not get an article unless it is notable.JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is exactly why we have WP:NFF. There is no hint that this movie will ever have notability (if it every gets made), considering its tiny budget and unknown cast, and it certainly does not have notability at this time. -- Atama ^chat 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF - even once made unless something extraordinary happens this film will not be notable. Smartse (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my problem with this entire conflict: most of it (excluding the apparent rules violation) is based on opinions. I have a real problem with that. It's your opinion that there is no notability, and I see why you think that. However, none of you (most likely) know anything about it. There are no sources, I'm admitting that. When there are, though, you will see how notable something like this truly could be. Kevinbrogers (talk) 20:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That is a very fair statement. I don't think anyone has made it clearly and objectively enough. So hopefully this will make it easier... One of the inclusion standards, which is an official guideline, is WP:N which outlines what article subjects are "notable". The basic gist of the guideline is that an article subject can be considered notable if you can show significant coverage in reliable sources. What is a reliable source is covered under the WP:RS policy, but can be a bit subjective admittedly. Essentially, however, you would need to show that some notable publication (multiple publications preferably) gave in-depth coverage of your upcoming film. For example, a lengthy article in the New York Times might do it (just an example). That is the objective standard that your film is being held to. In addition, because films are very often begun but not released due to the enormous difficulties involved (which I'm sure you've experienced) there is a slightly greater hurdle presented at WP:NFF. That is what these deletion recommendations are based on, and should not reflect a prejudice against yourself, your church, or your film. If you are surprised by the somewhat strong language behind the deletion recommendations, it is because there are often films begun by established filmmakers starring famous actors with a sizable budget that still are too obscure to pass notability requirements, and in comparison your movie seems to fall very much short. But who knows, maybe your movie will be the next "Clerks"? At that time the article can be recreated. -- Atama ^chat 21:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks. You're right, there are thousands of setbacks along the road to a good movie. We started pre-production back in March, and are just now able to begin the production stage (even though pre-production usually takes years, we're still behind schedule). I'll work on the article further in my sandbox, and I'll clear up the sources during that time. When I feel it's notable enough, I'll have the article reviewed by an outside source and have them post it if necessary. Fortunately, all of this has in a funny way inspired me to get it done, just so I can get a Wikipedia article about one of my projects. Thanks everyone, and remember to go see "The True Victory" in January! Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the sandbox page can be found at User:Kevinbrogers/The True Victory if anyone wishes to check in at a later date. Kevinbrogers (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page would like to change his vote to Delete, as long as the page is archived and can be reposted later, once the film has become notable enough. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And sorry for all the harsh words over the course of this debate. Kevinbrogers (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF. Also bothered by the WP:COI issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the WP:NFF. Though WP:COI isn't grounds for deletion, I agree with that one too. I am the creator of the article in question, and I have also voted delete on this page. Right now I'm just waiting for it to go away. I've put it on my sandbox so that when I can overcome the WP:NFF and have some outside people look at the WP:COI, the article can be re-added. Kevinbrogers (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NF in general, (not just WP:NFF) and WP:SOAP. [Snark removed]--ospalh (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - That last snark was gratuitous, "bitey" and uncalled-for!. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I guess you're right. I'll try to keep it to myself in the future.--ospalh (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice with thanks to author. Allow back once principle filming has begun and notability can be adequately established. Let's encourage editors, and not give up on good faith efforts to improve the project. 05:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
Delete per Orangemike Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gizmondo. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmondo (brand)[edit]

There are now at least 4 articles on wikipedia covering the unremarkable gaming device Gizmondo, the now defunct company Tiger Telematics that produced it, and its ever rumored successor Gizmondo 2. This page in particular is devoid of any content that is not sufficiently covered by the other three articles. Fugu Alienking (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge all four articles into a single Gizmondo page. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always have to propose a delete or something on whatever I do? --AimalCool (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this. This really helps us for the future and new sources for Gizmondo. It is notable and clearly. --AimalCool (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the verified content of Gizmondo (brand) and Gizmondo 2 to Gizmondo. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Maramusine. Way too light on content to warrant its own article. --Oscarthecat (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bethel Woods. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Museum at Bethel Woods[edit]

Content fork. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bethel Woods. The museum is an integral part of the Bethel Woods Center for the Arts, as can be seen from the website [17]. Bethel Woods is an unnecessarily brief article because of the omission of details on the museum, and it really makes no sense whatsoever to carve out the museum from the article on Bethel Woods. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is vital to the Bethel Woods article and it isn't present, why not be bold and merge the two articles? Kate (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed to do just that on the talk page for the museum article. We were reaching a consensus and then someone objected. So I thought I'd get permission here to do it. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided thanks for User_talk:Star_Mississippi#Museum_at_Bethel_Woods the heads up! As I said at the talk page discussion, I can see both sides of this discussion. I can see JohnnyB's point advocating the merge, but I can also see the undue concerns about having the museum overwhelm the performing arts center. It is possible to have separate articles-see Carnegie Hall and Rose Museum and Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts-where one building is the New York State Theater-one of whose tenant is New York City Ballet. An extreme example, but one I know well. Also Sailors Snug Harbor and Staten Island Children's Museum, although another part of the center, the Noble Maritime Center does not have its own article. I'm honestly not sure what the best course of action is here and am happy with whatever decision is made so long as this content is somewhere-don't care if it's here or in the PAC. StarM 02:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. But I think that for Bethel Woods, given its limited size, as evidenced by the limited size of the article, we had best keep them in one place. I would feel differently if it was a bigger institution and had more going for it (other than a stage and a snack bar!) --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. One article should easily suffice to cover all portions of this. Keeper | 76 02:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as hoax/attack. – B.hotep •talk• 16:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scarpinoed[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or for non-notable neologisms. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:DICTDEF, probably WP:MADEUP as well. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Utter nonsense, blatant hoax, and attack page, all rolled into one. Edison (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many sources which need to be added. No good reference can be built in a day

Article was speedily deleted as an attack page. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 16:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G4) — Tivedshambo (t/c) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and not a place for non-notable neologisms.

Tagged for speedy deletion G4. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 15:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a repost. I'm also requesting salting over at RPP. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fwiw, "ideate" isn't a neologism - the Oxford English Dictionary traces it back to 1610 - and I could see a potential article here about the term's use in philosophy. But the current article, and the definition format, is absolutely off-topic and should go. Gonzonoir (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A7 Jclemens (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veinke[edit]

No evidence of notability and the use of self published sources. In the government (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete fails CSD A7, no assertion of notability, no sources, couldn't find any significant coverage on google, the record label that the band has a release on is redlinked. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Waters Lumpkin[edit]

Unsourced anthropologist, no further sign of notability and no references found. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 13:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Sources, No Notability, No Article. Irunongames • play 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. May meet the requirements of WP:PROF once her stated achievements get noticed by her peers, but apparently that has yet to happen. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced BLP of non-notable Tarot card reader and self-styled "medical and environmental anthropologist". Drawn Some (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete May be notable some day, right after I win the nobel prize. Not notable per WP:Prof, and I have no crystal ball to help me predict her nobel prize. Fuzbaby (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides being non-notable, I have difficulty with the idea of a "scientist" using tarot cards to predict the future of her efforts. Just doesn't fit. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) · @233 · 04:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100% Tour[edit]

Contested PROD. Fails WP:CRYSTAL. No sources provided to prove this tour exists. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 12:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - no objection to recreation if significant coverage is found. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geosexing[edit]

Neologism without widespread use; coined by (according to article) "an employee at a small company" and without a clear conception or publication. Failed PROD, only given rationale for keeping was that geocaching and geoshagging exist. Author has noted that the term/activity is "bound to be conceptualized" and that current reliable/verifiable sources cannot be found. Fribbulus Xax (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ditto and ditto. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic. In the government (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per same reasons as DS. MobileSnail 15:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk) · @234 · 04:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afterburner (modification kit)[edit]

Unreferenced and questionable notability; PROD was removed without any effort being made to add sources. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This product has been covered by Newsweek, Electronic Gaming Monthly (no longer available online), IGN, Computimes, and is mentioned by ZDNet. Additionally, it has been reviewed/covered by dozens of gaming specific sources that may or may not pass as reliable sources: see (http://www.google.com/search?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=afterburner+triton+labs&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web). This story indicates that at least 75K units were sold. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ThaddeusB: significant Reliable Source coverage is apparent from brief Google test. -Thibbs (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Computer Games Research[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable club/group. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Stubbify - This is a major figure in Games studies and Ludology research. A quick Google search reveals hundreds of citations to it in RSes in this topic area, so I think it survives under UNIGUIDE. Clearly it needs to be expanded, however in this case per Jimmy Wales, I think people should relax and accomodate. -Thibbs (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is an academic program/group that has generated international coverage. Sources such as the The BBC establish notabiliy. The programs work has been mentioned in newspapers in the Denmark, France, Germany, India, Norway, Poland, The United Kingdom, and The United States. The NY Times says it "has emerged as a hub of game studies" ([18]). --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per findings by ThaddeusB (despite that fact that I endorsed the PROD [19] because I could find anything, someone came through and found something). MuZemike 17:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has reliable sources that are about it, or about video games creeping into academia. Abductive (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FK Arsenal[edit]

Does not seem to be a notable team. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to league placings, team has played in national cup competitons (see 2008 and 2009 cups at rsssf.com). I understand WP:FOOTY's general bar for notable teams is that they play in a nationally-organised league or cup; FK Arsenal meets both criteria.CJPargeter (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as played in cup as per CJP, and recently in the 2nd level of Montenegro so seems notable/reasonable to keep them. Eldumpo (talk) 09:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per cup appearances and two seasons in the second division. matt91486 (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because they have played at the third level of US soccer . пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Wheels (soccer)[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable team. PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is at least as notable as all the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, etc. division European teams which never seem to have their notability challenged. Mohrflies (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't see why this is any less notable than any other USL team, or why any such team would be non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 16:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. --Jimbo^[online] 08:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asrar Ahmad Adraak[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. Prod denied by article's author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, obvious self promotional biography. Google search lands 2 hits, this wiki and his facebook page. Fuzbaby (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- totally non-notable. misuse of rescue tag here. Hitro 09:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non-notable. -Falcon8765 (talk) 06:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Pahari Sahib 08:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fuzbaby. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't quallify WP:N.yousaf465

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lewis (mathematician)[edit]

This discussion is a result of (what I fully admit was clumsy) addition, then withdrawal, in the Frank Duckworth AfD. In that AfD, sound arguments were, inter alia, made to Merge both articles to Duckworth-Lewis Method and to Keep both The specific notability of this article should have been tested - again, this was my fault - but it was not. Shirt58 (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The co-inventor of the widely used Duckworth-Lewis method in cricket. The coverage in the "The Independent" and "New York Times" provides the necessary RS. Salih (talk) 14:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep sources establish notability. A case could be made for merger, but that would be better handled outside of AFD. Artw (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it can come across as WP:BLP1E, the fact is that he has made a lasting contribution to two forms of the game of Cricket at the international level - One Day Internationals and Twenty20 Internationals and List A matches at the major domestic levels and therefore clearly passes the BLP1E exception "if the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial". Duckworth-Lewis method, the name and the usage or availability at every cricket match is significant enough to warrant the exception. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Unlike Duckworth I can't find anything else of note that he's done. But I think he does have enough personal fame as a result of this one thing to merit a separate article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Senators from Delaware (alphabetic)[edit]

Unhelpful fork of List of United States Senators from Delaware; it offers no more information, and duplicates the data on that article. A category would serve a better purpose if any were actually needed. (See a similar discussion closed today at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Governors of Delaware (alphabetic).) —Markles 21:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, what senseless nonsense. Why do we have to put up with this trivia? Please come to your senses, especially you who should be more knowledgeable! Are you going to help me with Biden design, or just wait to criticize what I end up doing? stilltim (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the same rationale at similar Afd. Stilltim, we honestly don't know how to help you anymore, given your disdain for any viewpoint but your own.DCmacnut <> 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only benefit provided by this page is a different order than the linked list of senators, and that too could be remedied if we added a sortable feature to the template. Surely that alone isn't a sufficient reason for a separate article. Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually pretty big on lists, but I honestly see no navigational value, nor a need for an alphabetized list of Senators from Delaware or any other American state, since they all have articles about them. If you know enough to look for someone's name on this list, then you have the information to locate the article about that person without benefit of the list. On the other hand, if you're looking for the identity of who the two Senators were in, say, 1917, then you wouldn't consult this list at all. This could be one of the variables on a sortable table. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason as the other list.......it's duplicative. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, completely duplicative. Stilltim has previously been warned for similar things. Ironholds (talk) 09:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 15:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked Wendsdays[edit]

Non-notable, unorphaned and no sources/references found. It might be an original research. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Short term even that doesn't require its own article and probably doesn't even warrant mention in another article about Universal Studios HollywoodRcurtis5 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Don't Delete This is information I would like and need to know about.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Myselfthankyou (talk • contribs)

Yes, but that is not a valid reason: there is all sorts of stuff which I would like to know but which is not notable in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above is the sole edit so far made by Myselfthankyou. Ladyof Shalott 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closing admin THere is also a redirect at Wicked Wednsdays. Do you guys always check for redirects to pages that are deleted? I've never considered that... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some tools do it automatically, and it's generally good practice to check "what links here" after a deletion. If we miss it, it generally shows up in Special:BrokenRedirects and gets G8 speedied a little later, so it's no big deal either way. ~ mazca ^talk 08:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, the article has now been moved to Wicked Wednesdays. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--non-notable and unverified/able. Disclaimer: I asked for speedy deletion, and then again after the template was removed. I guess I must really want this deleted--third time now. Drmies (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable trivia. Ladyof Shalott 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete the information on the article is factual. It can be proved with the references. It was an actual event that took place that should at least be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.109.150 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was also an actual event was you vandalizing my user page in exactly the same way as User:LSlavin13 did. Coincidence? I think not. Bad manners? Definitely. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:* I would hardly call it vandalism. I saw the graphic that was removed. It was a little innapropriate. Those bad words can be disturbing to some people. And this page is to discuss the deletion of the article. We should not bring in other discussions. User:Myselfthankyou

Considering that (counting this one) you have made all of three edits on Wikipedia (well, under this name...), you'll forgive me if I don't take schooling from you on Wikipedia guidelines and rules of behavior. By the way, sock puppetry is directly relevant to this AfD. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::*I may be new, but everyone starts out that way. I have found that you have to earn your respect on this site. You started out just like me with only a few edits. But i can't if i don't make theese edits. I won't have a big number later. I am sorry if I offended you in anyway in my last comment. And, you have no proof that Lslavin13 and that unidentified person are the same person, so lets not start making accusations. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.109.150 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 July 2009 and deleted by the same anonymous IP user 16:27, 5 July 2009

::*I may be new, but everyone starts out that way. I have found that you have to earn your respect on this site. You started out just like me with only a few edits. But i can't if i don't make theese edits. I won't have a big number later. I am sorry if I offended you in anyway in my last comment. And, you have no proof that Lslavin13 and that unidentified person are the same person, so lets not start making accusations. Thank You. User:Myselfthankyou —Preceding comment added by Myselfthankyou (talk • contribs) 16:33, 5 July 2009 and deleted by the same user 16:33, 5 July 2009

I don't think anyone has argued that it was not real. However, it takes more than mere existence of something for us to keep an article on it. Ladyof Shalott 01:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in this edit [20] Myselfthankyou changed the signature of one of the above comments, to attempt to make it appear that the comment had been posted by an anonymous user at 98.165.209.150, whereas in fact the IP address in question was 98.165.109.150. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I sympathize with the nominator it is obvious that this does indeed meet the notability guidelines, and therefore should be kept. Shereth 15:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIITJEE[edit]

I had proposed this one for deletion,but one of the user contested it citing it's presence in some resources.I think that even if it gets some coverage in local or national media sources,it fails to attract any interest from a user unfamiliar to the subject.Moreover there are hundreds of thousands of coaching institutes scattered across India,but that doesn't mean we list them all here.See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Shashankgupta (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "I don't like it" is not a reason to delete. There is no policy requiring that coaching institutes be excluded from Wikipedia, so the nominator would be better of reading WP:Notability. As far as this particular org, The Hindu has at least 21 pieces - significant and trivial, Financial Express, Indian Express, Indian Express, Daily News, Bahrain, The Financial Express, Business Standard, Livemint - Wall Street Jouranal, India - trivial mention, and a bit more. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about "I don't like" or all that. Do you expect anybody to come to wikipedia looking for this one? It certainly diminishes wikipedia's value as a source of knowledge.Should we create an article for every "XYZ" institute in any "ABC" town?--Shashankgupta (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Non-Notable. Has little or no encyclopaedic value. Even if they are famous, they are not institutions in themselves. They derive their notability from being linked to a particular exam. --Deepak D'Souza 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this non-notable when it meets all the requirements of WP:GNG? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that the subject has multiple sources. But notability is not subject to number of sources alone but has to be inherent in the subject itself. The subject derives its notability from the fact that it is a preparatory course for a premier exam. The exam in itself derives its notability from the fact that it is an entrance exam to a premier group of institutions . If I can put it this way, FIIT-JEE's notability is 3rd-degree, with IIT making the first degree and IIT-JEE second degree. Hence IMHO it is not notable in itself. --Deepak D'Souza 08:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your "inherent in the subject itself" idea is your subjective evaluation of importance and significance. That is not how notability is determined, and not how the PNC is formulated. Notability is not subjective. It's not subject to Wikipedia editors' personal whims, and not formulated along the lines of their personal ideas of how human knowledge ought to be structured in "first", "second", and "third degree"s. It's based on what human knowledge actually is, and subject to whether and how that human knowledge is properly recorded and documented in the world at large. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Notability is not subjective, it is not objective either.--Deepak D'Souza 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is important to add this: As a long time reader of Hindu and Forntline(a sister Publication), I can tell you that FIIT-JEE is a regular advertiser in the Hindu, and a frequent sponsor of advertorials in Frontline. In fact, most of the links you have pointed out to the Hindu are joint programmes conducted by the Hindu Group and FIIT-JEE. The last search result is an editorial response to the criticism of Hindu :-) --Deepak D'Souza 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I need some persuading that an educational training institution that is named in 140 sources in Google News has insufficient notability to include in Wikipedia. If you believe that the Hindu and Frontline are not reliable sources for this subject, then please consult the reliable sources noticeboard at WP:RSN to get a considered opinion on the matter. As it stands, the nomination and delete vote smack of IDONTLIKEIT rather than reasoned argument. Fences&Windows 18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:FIIT-JEE is a coaching class, not an educational training institution. There is a major difference between the two.--Deepak D'Souza
Comment:I dont understand why it has become a habbit to accuse someone who does not agree with you of "IDONTLIKEIT". IDONTLIKEIT or ILIKEIT speccifically means that a voter votes for or against a topic based on his/her personal like or dislike of a subject instead of evaluating as per Wikipedia guidlines. I have provided the reasons for my vote and the nominator has present his/her reasons for putting it on AfD. How then does this become a case of IDONTLIKE IT? Do you expect everyone to agree with you and come to the same conclusion as you do? Please assume good faith and stop making things personal. If you can accuse the nominator and delete voters of IDONTLIKEIT, you should first ask yourself if your stance does not "smack of ILIKEIT".--Deepak D'Souza 09:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coaching vs education training would seem semantic. They train students into passing the IIT-JEE entrance exam. And as for IDONTLIKEIT, I think you and the nominator look down on FIITJEE and thus you're arguing for deletion. It might not be the most impressive of educational organisations, but it does seem to be notable. Fences&Windows 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The difference is not semantic. It is very clear cut. Coaching classes are an optional suplementary recourse for students. They are not part of the educational system; they exist outside it. For example,the IIT is a government recognized institution which is subject to the rules and regulations of the state whereas coaching classes like FIIT-JEE are not. You can complete your education without recourse to a coaching class but you cannot get a degree if your institution is not regulated or approved by local laws. Its that simple. What makes you think that I am looking down on FIIT-JEE? Do you know something about me that I do not? Perhaps you can tell me more of my inner dark secrets that have been hidden from me :-). --Deepak D'Souza 10:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that you are not, as can be seen above, evaluating as per the PNC, but rather you are applying your own personal, subjective, estimation of importance/significance. Others have argued that in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists. In response you have failed to even address what they say, let alone looked at the numbers, depths, and provenances of the sources. Instead you've been creating straw men about Google hits (which no-one here has counted in the first place) and quibbling over irrelevancies such as the precise description of the subject. Your reply to Fences and windows above about coaching classes, which completely avoids the substantive point made, is but one example of your doing this. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tried very hard but I cannot see how coaching classes are semantically similar to standard education. Sure they both teach. But you have to pass your 12 std public exams in order to qualify for IIT-JEE. Joining FIIT-JEE cannot qualify you for ITT-JEE if you have failed your board exam. So how can you say that there is no difference between the two?--Deepak D'Souza 10:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the references given above do not present a neutral point of view about FIITJEE and do not discuss the subject in general,seeming more like adverisements.They merely indicate it's scaling operation and hence not reliable.--Shashankgupta (talk) 10:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable sources are determined if the source has a reputation for fact checking. You suggest that every single one of the 140 news articles that mention FIIJEE are unreliable? Fences&Windows 19:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability has been demonstrated by substantial coverage in reliable sources. Saying that peoples arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is a perfectly reasonable response to the arguments expressed for deletion, which simply say that this can't be notable because it's a coaching institute for an exam, rather that address the issue of whether it is notable by Wikipedia's definition of the term, which is based on coverage in reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately most people at AfD define notability simply by the number of Google hits without going into the results of the search. Its pretty easy that way. If someone can ascribe motives to my argument should I also say that those who voted keep did it because they liked it. This meets the definition of ILIKEIT more than my vote:It's not just any coaching institute -- it's one of the most notable coaching institutes in India." --Deepak D'Souza 10:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  - No, that's an argument for notability, not that they like it. You've still got to persuade anyone that the sources are invalid - concentrate on that angle, not ILIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT. As it stands, you seem to have a special insight into FITJEE and the validity of the sources which other editors are not privy to. You need to demonstrate that your view is correct. Fences&Windows 22:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thats really nice! You accuse me of bias without assigning any reason for it(except for your "thinking") and then tell me not to concentrate on it. Did I say I have any special insight into FIIT-JEE? No, I have specifically questioned the 21 hits for Hindu. Anyone who goes through those 21 refs can see that many of those are articles about joint programmes between FIIT-JEE and Hindu group. I just added something I knew as a regular reader of the paper. Did I question the valdity of the other sources in order to buttress my point? No! Then why are you are you curious about my "insight into the validity of other sources"? Now let me come to why I called Utcursh's vote as "likely to meet ILIKEIT". Its not that I believed that he was biased in favour of the class but to show that it is very easy to assign motives to other voters
      My argument has been that a subject has to have some inherent notability in itself rather than merely relying on how many reliable sources there are. And I based my vote on this argument. If google hits is the only criteria, 99% of articles at AfD will pass through.Why even bother with AfD then? It doesn't bother me if someone else disagrees with me. People are bound to differ in their interpretation of guidlines. What pissed me off was that I was accused of being biased.--Deepak D'Souza 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - My argument has been that a subject has to have some inherent notability in itself rather than merely relying on how many reliable sources there are. — and that's exactly where you are wrong. Notability is not subjective.
        And I based my vote on this argument. — and that's exactly where you are wrong. Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Deletion policy explain what Wikipedia actually needs from people at AFD, and it is not subjective estimations of whether one thinks that something is or is not notable.
        If google hits is the only criteria, 99% of articles at AfD will pass through.Why even bother with AfD then? — and that's where you are raising a straw man instead of addressing the definition of notability that has been quite clearly pointed out to you. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for having reverted your edit. I realized I had acted in haste when I had looked at the diff; but by the time I logged back in the my changes had been reverted, so I could not revert myself. Nontheless I believe that numbers aren't everything as per wikipedia rules. Even the General notability guidelines say that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article.. Isn't that the whole point of having an AfD debate.? --Deepak D'Souza 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of good sources showing notability, even after tossing out the ones the seem like advert-articles. Priyanath ^talk 01:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not just any coaching institute -- it's one of the most notable coaching institutes in India. References are easy to find. utcursch | talk 12:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every body here is talking about references,sources etc,but no one has come up with a strong reason as to the the utility of this article.No sufficient arguements about what makes this one important.
A notable article is bound to have good sources,but the converse is not always true.--Shashankgupta (talk) 10:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"no one has come up with a strong reason as to the the utility of this article". The reason we're talking about references and sources is that this is how we judge notability on Wikipedia - we don't use our own independent judgements. You need to apply WP:ORG rather than trying to judge importance or utility. "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."... A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Fences&Windows 22:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All said and done? lets close this AfD. The discussions no longer center on the subject itself but on the interpretations of rules. If anyone is interested, lets continue somewhere else. No point in keeping this AfD open when there is consensus.--Deepak D'Souza 04:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Since it does appear this may in the future warrant an article, there is no prohibition against re-creation when it meets inclusion criteria. I will be happy to userfy this article upon request. Shereth 15:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ironclad (film)[edit]

A film in pre-production that fails WP:NFF as there are no reliable sources (either in the article or that I could find via a Google search) that confirm that shooting has begun. While it was scheduled to begin filming this summer, until there are reliable sources an article is premature. Even if shooting has started, I am not sure that there is enough material for an article yet. The article as it is written is sourced almost entirely from IMDb, which is not a reliable source for upcoming films, and I coulnd't verify most of the content in my searching. If it is made and released, it looks set to be notable but not until then, or at least until there are reliable sources discussing the production. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice per nom: no verification that shooting has started yet. Cliff smith ^talk 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Uerfy to author. Film entered pre-production in May 2008 Variety. ContentFilm International acquired worldwide sales right in February 2009 Screen Daily. Cast solidified in May 2009 Insomniac Mania, Daily Telegraph. This one seems to be coming together, and will merit a return when ready. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 15:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utrujj Foundation[edit]

Clear Advertisement for the promotion of the organisation posted by the Staff of the concerned organisation fails Notabilty , fails WP:RS and WP:SPAM . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How this has evaded G11 speedy deletion I don't know. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although an excellent sounding Organization, I dont believe it has had time to generate reliable source material and the 1 GBook snippit cant give a true reading of them. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Spot[edit]

Fits under criteria for Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Article should be on a single topic. Patchy1Talk To Me! 09:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Widely used term, widely inlinked, passes google test. Article is currently in a terrible state, but that, as always, is an argument for improvement, not deletion. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many fixes implemented. I think no one will complain about it now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article definitely needs a good clean up (I would remove the "Non-sporting use" section altogether) but I don't believe that it falls under WP:DICDEF.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=%22Sweet+Spot%22+baseball+OR+tennis+OR+cricket

http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~cross/PUBLICATIONS/BatSweetSpot.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?%22Sweet+Spot%22+baseball+OR+tennis+OR+cricket

http://books.google.com/books?id=CPosYIEgag8C&pg=PA139&dq=%22Sweet+Spot%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=CPosYIEgag8C&pg=PA147&dq=%22Sweet+Spot%22

http://books.google.com/books?id=BeVP2YmqLUAC&pg=PA267&dq=%22Sweet+Spot+is%22 — Rankiri (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but limit the article to the sporting concept, i.e. area of a racquet. etc.. The article needs to be about the sweet spot area, not about the term. The "usage of the term" nonsense needs to go - this should be in Wiktionary, with a link pointing there. The article is not currently about one topic, but about several fairly unrelated topics linked by a single term.--Michig (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely used term deserving of its own article. DICDEF is not applicable here. –Moondyne 02:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been improved. AFD should be closed. Patchy1Talk To Me! 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in it's current, encyclopaedic form. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let me suggest that listing a blog entry titled "Wikiipedia fascists deleted my article" as the first reference probably isn't the way to win friends and influence people here. OTOH, the complaint there of the article being tagged and deleted within minutes of creation is unfortunately all too familiar. Glad we did this one (and the preceding prod) the right way. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wigger slam[edit]

Non-notable musical genre. The references provided don't appear to be reliable ones. A different version of this article (located here) was prodded and deleted in August 2008. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism; no cites are given from reliable sources to back this up, almost all Google hits for the term are about the controversy over the article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ericom Software[edit]

Not notable (spam). I tagged this article twice for notability and Pitvipper removed the tag both times. The references and links given are obvious adverts for the company and not really proper news items in reliable sources (even if the Butler group could be considered reliable these particular links are to ad-type promotional write ups). The most notable thing is that it was the 46th fastest expanding technology company in Israel in 2005 and grew by 65% in that year (65% from what it doesn't say). I also tagged this article for SPAM and although some of the advert language has been removed by Pitvipper (along with the tag) it is still obviously non-encyclopedic and I cannot see with the references given how this could become encyclopedic, it has had plenty of opportunity. Polargeo (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising for a non-consumer software firm: software for enterprise-wide application access for server-based computing environments, in other words, you probably aren't going to find this on the shelves at Best Buy. Blurby, obvious ad-speak -- Ericom comes to market with Desktop Virtualization and Presentation Virtualization solutions that are simple to implement, have a small footprint and are extremely cost-effective -- if it's obvious advertising, lawyering over notability is beside the point, but I would note that it would appear to be referenced only to trade websites with limited readership and reach. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete "De-adverting" the article and removing the POV left me with two sentences. There might be a valid claim to notability with the award the company has won, but at a bare minimum this needs to be scrapped and completely rewritten. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletebut not speedy; if the company were notable there would be enough that could be rescued to form a stub article. I removed the speedy tag. DGG (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I made significant changes/deletions to the content in this article to bring it in compliance. Note that Butler Group is a well respected IT analyst firm and they have repeatedly covered this company. The Butler write-ups cannot be accessed on their site as their clients buy them for thousands of dollars. Microsoft holds Ericom in high regard and references them on the home page of one of their key technologies. Ericom was the first product to be certified for a strategic Microsoft technology, this is a major accomplishment. Also this company has been covered by major IT publications, such as eWeek, Information Week and Healthcare IT News. These are not advertisements, they are solid news articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitvipper (talk Pitvipper (talk) 21:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification on the Butler write-ups, that actually explains quite a bit. I restored the AfD tag, as there isn't yet a consensus to close this discussion as a speedy keep or speedy close - typically AfD discussions run the full seven days even if a clear consensus forms to keep or delete before then. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pitvipper. But please take note. Maybe if you had provided better references and removed the huge amount of advertising jargon, which filled the entire article, instead of removing the notability and spam tags twice then this wouldn't have been an AfD debate. This debate should run its course though and I don't prejudge the outcome. It looks like you still think the way to solve things is removing the tags as you removed the AfD tag. Polargeo (talk) 06:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, let's keep this professional and courteous. You can easily see that I did delete much of the content in the article with which you had an issue, per your suggestion. I thought those changes would bring the article into compliance and hence removed the tags. Per my comments above, this company is notable in that they have breakthrough technology, a unique partnership with Microsoft, have been covered by a top IT analyst, have been covered by editors of top IT trade magazines. 96.56.217.34 (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pitvipper, you seem to be an employee of Ericom Software and so I know you have a job to do. However, if you had addressed the tags why did three other editors look at the article and suggest deletion. The answer is simple, you didn't address the tags but simply removed as little text as you thought you could get away with along with the tags, you did this twice and then you even removed the AfD tag. Now if you can comply with wikipedia guidelines and prove that the company is notable, as the tags were trying to assist you in doing, then great but please try to follow and respect consensus. Polargeo (talk) 12:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make any assumptions about my status with this company. I did more than simply "remove as little text...". I removed MOST of the text in the article, explained misunderstandings about some of the anlayst comments and added another Microsoft reference. For your information, none of the text that was removed was actually written by me, it was all taken directly from quotes in IT analyst reviews and trade journals, and frankly is quite relevant for this technology sector. This company is a leader in their field and I can provide you with many more third-party references.96.56.217.34 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An industry magazine can still get its stories straight from company press releases. If the quotes are obviously complete ad speak and unencyclopedic it really doesn't matter where they come from we cannot build an encyclopedic article on them. A reliable source still needs to give the company significant coverage, if this coverage is obviously dominantly promotional in nature then the question arises as to how neutral and reliable the source is and how much the source is repeating company PR. Please find good sources which give not just glowing, promotional stories but give real unbiased facts about the company and then I'm sure this article will not be deleted. I am afraid I can do little else but assume you are employed by Ericom because you have been on wikipedia for two years and done little else but advertise Ericom so please do not act hurt. Polargeo (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two more independent analyst reviews of this company's technology and also referenced the company's stock ticker as they are a public company.Pitvipper (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News shows significant coverage by reliable secondary sources:

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/sco-push-web-services-ericom-alliance-815

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/server_virtualization/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=207801422

http://events.sys-con.com/node/642398

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-13016776_ITM

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Infrastructure/Array-Ericom-Team-Up-Against-Citrix/ — Rankiri (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All techy/business articles obviously originating from press releases either from Ericom or SCO who have 'teamed up' with Ericom (quotes in articles are all from various members of Ericom or SCO). I'm not saying this is definitely not notable but I would hope that we could apply better standards. I'm probably wrong though. Polargeo (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polargeo, there are seveal articles that obviously do not originate from press releases, nor do they have any quotes from Ericom or one of their partners. These are in the Ericom article: (http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Reviews/Ericom-PowerTerm-WebConnect-Challenges-Citrixs-XenApp-on-Desktop-Virtualization/) that is obviously a product review, or this article (http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/brianmadden/archive/2008/07/03/who-s-missing-what-a-checklist-of-what-each-vendor-needs-to-get-to-vdi-by-2010.aspx) which is a review from a noted analyst. In reference to your comment about other articles originating from Press Releases, these publications receive thousands of Releases a week and cover only those that they deem to be notable. Pitvipper (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter whether the publications choose to cover certain PR's over others, press releases are not reliable coverage. - 2 ... says you, says me 13:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that's why I highlighted articles and product reviews that did not originate from PR Pitvipper (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the topic of PR, while it's understood that Press Releases are not reliable coverage, however, when major trade publications write articles based on that PR, that is reliable coverage. In addition, I am reiterating that there has been significant coverage that was not PR based. Pitvipper (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect to Dean Zelinsky to prevent recurrence of spam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DBZ Guitars[edit]

Clear Advertisement posted by company Staff and actually done by the department of design for future models of guitars in production.The company was founded in 2008 and fails Notabilty and fails WP:RS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As someone else mentioned, it is clearly a spam article creating solely to advertise DBZ Guitars. Not to mention numerous failings of correct naming and perhaps even WP:MOS -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly advertising. This may well be notable in the future but at the moment what we have is a lot of self promoting minor news articles which are not reliable about Dean Zalinsky starting up a new company. So really Dean is the notable person trying to make his new company notable. This should be deleted just to get rid of all the spam and then maybe in the future it could come back. Polargeo (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dean Zelinsky, although I have no doubt that there are similar self-promotion concerns with that article. Still, based on the references and solid GNews resultsZelinski is notable, and his new company is a plausible search term. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:ATHLETE failure. Leave me a note if he makes his debut and I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Ojamaa[edit]

The player does not have a full, professional football league appearance to his credit and, as such, does not meet Wikipedia notabiltiy guidelines on professional footballers. AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Henrik Ojamaa being the first Estonian to actually sign for a professional English team and coming through the youth ranks as scholar of the year should be more than enough reason to keep this article. He is also likely to make a debut in the Championship and the national A-team in the ongoing year. Lipik (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league/competition yet. Being the first XYZian footballer to join the youth ranks of a club doesn't make you notable. Recreate article if and when he makes his professional debut. --Jimbo^[online] 08:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. --Jimbo^[online] 08:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you don't "know" he'll make his debut. he could break his leg and retire Spiderone (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE; claims he will make his debut are nothing but mere crystalballing exercises. In addition he is not the first Estonian to be signed with an English team (how about Mart Poom?). --Angelo (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (A1). (non-admin closure) —LedgendGamer 08:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artgargoyle[edit]

Does not meet specific criteria for A7, but unquestionably fails WP:N. —LedgendGamer 06:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G1, G3, A1 .... take your pick. I have tagged it A1 as it appears to match best, let's see. Enki H. (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no point at all... Irunongames • play 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see that the article falls into G1, as it is fairly coherent, and G3 does not apply here either, aas I have no reason to believe it is a hoax, but those who drafted the A7 criterion could not possibly have foreseen something like this. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formula SimRacing[edit]

Non-notable sim racing series based on a game. Is not encyclopedic at all. Poor sourcing. Citation needed all over the article. Fails to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. Contains improper references to self-published sources. Need I go on? This is my first AFD by the way. If it isn't properly done I am sorry — --Roadblocker (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - I cant find a RS, just ads. Weak 'cause looks fun :D Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - highly POV, no reliable sources to back up claim of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Refvem[edit]

Non-notable child actor. — TAnthony^Talk 06:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He is a newcomer (it appears due to credited dates and press coverage) however has taken on a coveted major notable role on General Hospital. With time his notability and credits will grow. In my opinion, to delete now would be premature. BioDetective2508 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2009
Weak Keep I'm familiar with this character and agree with BioDectective2508 that it would be premature to delete. Tree Karma (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tangerine Confectionery. This confirms it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kola cubes[edit]

Delete hard to make what this is about a brand of candy or a type of candy. Minimal content and context and no sources to boot. Doesn't seem notable, you can buy them on the web, but you can buy nearly anything on the web. Fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a new article on ~~Barratts candy parent brand Monkhill Confectionery Tangerine Confectionery.~~ Not individually notable, but it would be nice to include these candy types under the broader subjects. http://www.sweetselection.co.uk/Product.aspx?categoryid=18&productid=14 ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect--I'm with Child here, and congratulate him/her on the valiant and necessary effort to increase Wikipedia's coverage of treats and sweets. Drmies (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a substub that doesn't have enough information to bother merging. I do however support adding some real info about Kola Cubes to the Tangerine Confectionery article, because I love cola-flavored candy. Mmmm. -- Atama ^chat 18:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you settle for a redirect? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Actually, a redirect seems just fine to me, if Kola Cubes is an actual candy that the company makes. For example, I see a "Tilleys" in the UK that supposedly made Kola Cubes since the late 1800s.[21][22] It would be reasonable to assume that someone who wants information about the candy may search for the name, and if directed to the company's article that would be helpful. I just felt that there wasn't enough info in the article itself to merge into the company's page. -- Atama ^chat 19:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be included at List of candies or perhaps gummies. Apparently it's made by various manufacturers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found much the same thing above. It's a real candy, but not an actual brand name, made by different companies, and I can't find where one manfacturer is more known for making it as another. -- Atama ^chat 18:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ababil (disambiguation)[edit]

DAB page with 3 entries as follows:

the primary usage found at Ababil
a dictionary definition that has been transwikied to Wiktionary
a restaurant chain that doesn't current have an entry on Wikipedia

Thus, there is no reason to keep this page --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - for obvious reasons. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a useless disambiguation. Tavix | Talk 18:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transcend[edit]

Delete: Article reads like an ad Lthompson1 (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Wikify The corporation appears notable, the problem is with WP:NPOV issues. I think it could potentially be wikified. Rmosler | ● 04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's argument is not really valid as it is merely a WP:UGLY variation- a biased article can be rewritten as pointed out by Rmosler. Now, there is some evidence in the article of independent notability (although most of the references lead to the company's own website). It was mentioned in this article: [23] which alone does not satisfy criteria for notability. It is a little difficult searching for it on Google due to the very general nature of its name, but I have found several mentions of it (many of them more than just trivial) in the Google News archives: [24], [25], [26], [27] etc. At any rate, it appears to be a relatively major player in its industry. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I did a lot for the article and don't want to see it get deleted. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I do agree with you that the article should not be deleted, your argument is not valid. See this page for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 16:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify I came to this page expecting a definition of the concept of transcendance (or redirect to) and various religous/philosophical guff (such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendence_(religion) ). I'm not anti-capitalist or anything but I do have a problem with a company hijacking a page on wikipedia which really just references a common english word. The company should be listed as a 'Can refer to'/'See also' not the core page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.40.10 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 because obvious hoaxes are technically vandalism. It is gratifying to see that the urge to make fun of banal, trivial twaddle is not something unique unto myself, but all that was here was a fairly elaborate joke. I laughed too. BIBS is a somewhat humorously referred to, quality management system. BIBS is a satirical "jab" as other management systems, notably ISO 9000. BIBS is maintained by a loose affiliation of software developers with the intent of slackening the quality standards required to ship a product. BIBS is designed to make the exceedingly complex world of quality management simpler for those without the time to implement a full standard. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BIBS Quality Measurement[edit]

As I declined a G3 speedy tagging on this article, I also prodded it for lack of notability, and another editor followed with a prod2 tag with additional concerns. The creator deprodded the article and changed important facts in it to cover up the concerns of the prod2 tag, but without addressing the lack of notability. Delete, and may be eligible for a G3, given its edit history. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as g3 vandalism. Zero ghits for either the quality system, the inventor, or "Drools University", the inventor's institution. (See this version for the inventor and institution, and this edit to BIBS)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn after some coverage shown in major newspapers. LibStar (talk) 04:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Brands and Products Expo[edit]

whilst I note a 2 million person attendance, the attendance number in itself is not the criterion for notability. this event has not been subject to significant coverage [28] LibStar (talk) 03:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After declining the invalid speedy tag that the nominator placed, I did some searching and found that this subject has been the subject of significant coverage in newspapers. I have added five sources, which is just a sampling of the multiple sources that discuss this topic. It's a keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Effect[edit]

Neologism that does not appear in any of the cited web pages. The source offered on the talk page is a blog post that does not use the phrase in a nomenclatural sense. The events themselves are already discussed at Death of Michael Jackson, and this is not the first time the net has gone down due to breaking news.

Keep because the term is widely being used around the World Wide Web. It is a unique phenomenon that we can now refer to it by using this specific term called the Jackson effect. E.G [29] BSRDefiance (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, neologism. WillOakland (talk) 02:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The real name of the phenomenon is flash crowd. Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this is simply a non-notable neologism. Brian Reading (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like turtles. Also this is just something someone made up and not a real term that anyone uses. Put up some real evidence of newspapers and important people using the term or delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.241.164.20 (talk • contribs)
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOR Rmosler | ● 04:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No idea about this one! Portillo (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Page has moved from Jackson Effect to Jackson effect. Greg Tyler 08:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously none of you have looked up the term, it is being used in mainstream articles, credible articles, to refer to this event. It's being used by the public and should be found in Wikipedia. Cliffsteinman (talk) 21:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I googled it. I don't see what you're seeing. Care to provide some actual references? Brian Reading (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw articles with "Jackson effect" but not articles using it in a way that this article described. Bowler225 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps that "public" that you speak of should be using Wikipedia to learn about ideas that already exist. Wikipedia already has an article documenting flash crowds, a notion that is in no way specific to Michael Jackson. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was a term used for people who don't know the already existing terms for network congestion that causes downtime. When Obama had his inauguration and the internet experienced the same drama, what were people calling it then? Certainly not the Jackson effect. I also cannot find any articles directly describing the effect caused on internet networks, only things such as major unexpected sales rises, and impacts on cultures expressing their emotions.
- That's just a false statement. It seems I'm out-voted. But Wikipedia's built off democracy, delete it. Cliffsteinman (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This has happened before Jacksons death and it was called something else then. And next time it happens, they'll call it something else. That puts this squarely into WP:NEO territory. Just because a few talking heads in the media lack the iniative to find out the real name or the imagination to come up with a better term doesn't make this one notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the user who initially created the article no longer exists on Wikipedia. I hereby authenticate this response as awesome. (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just out of curiosity, what do you mean he "no longer exists on Wikipedia"? I see he hasn't edited since last Tuesday; but he came back after a year-long break to make the article, so I'm not sure that a five-day absence means he's gone for good... Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly worthy of its own article. 91.104.78.84 (talk)
Delete This is something that should be limited (if at all) to the Michael Jackson page itself under his death. This phrase sounds like it belongs in a slang dictionary instead, and it is defined poorly. Bowler225 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - it needs a name ("slashdot effect" is not mainstream as yet) but there's little to no evidence this is the name - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It has a name. It has had a name for about three decades, now. It's a flash crowd. Ironically, Wikipedia actually documents this long-standing idea, under its actual name. Would that people, including people in AFD discussions, learned from what Wikipedia already has! It's not as though I haven't linked to flash crowd three times, now, once in the Death of Michael Jackson article, once in the Wikinews coverage, and once at the start of this very discussion. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minor variation on the "slashdot effect" in that the trigger is off-net or widespread so it hits more generic services rather than specific hosts. IMO this does not require it's own page, though a note (and possibly a redirect to) the slashdot effect page may be in order 86.0.255.95 (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much of the OR problem could be solved via the removal of the irrelevant Middle East blog (apparently the only cited source to use the words, "the Michael Jackson effect" in sequence--albeit in no apparent connection to the Internet-congestion theme), and much of the neologism issue could be fixed with a simple page move to something more prosaic, like Media and Internet coverage of the death of Michael Jackson. But Death_of_Michael_Jackson#Media_and_Internet_coverage already exists, already covers everything (save the blog) that Jackson Effect covers (otherwise I'd have opted for a merge/redirect), and is succinct enough that it does not seem to warrant a spin-off article at this time. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That article originally even linked to flash crowd. Uncle G (talk) 15:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If the death of another major celebrity causes Internet congestion, and that congestion is widely referred to as the "Jackson effect," then you could add a note about it in Death of Michael Jackson and Slashdot effect. But it's not worth its own article. Trivialist (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Recent death-itis. I'm not sure that even the Death of Michael Jackson article needs to exist. It's just overkill at some point. And yes, very iffy sourcing. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the slashdot effect. See WP:NEO. Also, as others have explained, the death of Michael Jackson is being covered quite efficiently in other articles. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD G3 and this discussion.. --Oxymoron⁸³ 12:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drunkdependence Day[edit]

Speedy Delete; Was speedied and denied; Non-sourced; violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is not for things made up one day) mhking (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I see no reason to deny speedy here? Totally made up junk. Get rid of it fast! Cazort (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as pure vandalism. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ghits at all other than this article, definitely not notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and hopefully Speedy by consensus. It doesn't qualify G1 and illustrates why we need a CSD# for made up stuff. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per nom. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Vandalism Rmosler | ● 05:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? If an event has been occurring for five years with hundreds of attendees, it is notable. There are numerous corroborating sources, such as facebook, evite, photo records, flickr, police reports, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubangaldo (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of attendees - especially only hundreds - is not inherently notable; notability is established through coverage in third party sources. This supplies none, and the vast majority of ones you mentioned just there are not reliable (e.g. facebook, evite, flickr/photos). Nor do police reports don't really establish the notability of it, just say that something warranting police attention happened: by the same notion, I could say my house was notable for being robbed and a police report being filed (hypothetically speaking). Sorry, no dice. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely violates one of either WP:ONEDAY or WP:Notability & WP:Verifiability. Totally unsuitable for inclusion.. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 03:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OmniCentra Media[edit]

nn comapany Gotttor (talk) 01:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable, published, 3rd party sources. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-07-04t09:01z
Delete or add references. The article also shows instances of WP:CRYSTAL. --Sigma 7 (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, short unreferenced article. Cargoking talk 11:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will be happy to restore the article if/when the institution's article is created. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infectious Diseases Unit, St.John's Research Institute[edit]

nn group Gotttor (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the non-existent St.John's National Academy of Health Sciences —G716 <^T·_C> 05:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per G716. I'm not sure why a department article was created before the institution's. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Parent is a redlink but has possibilities [30], the Unit article just hasnt made a name for itself [31] independant of the Parent. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW many, many, many times over J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Russell (Florida politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject ran a couple of times, unsuccessfully, for political office. Despite what appears to be a plethora of references, there is really not much here, besides trivial and passing mentions, certainly no "significant press coverage" ("in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles"). The article seems to be a magnet for non-encyclopedic trivia and personal attacks on Russell's opponents (see this edit, for instance, all the way at the bottom), and there probably is a pretty big COI going on. Those, I know, are not reasons for deletion--a good reason for deletion is that our subject does not pass WP:POLITICIAN. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an unsuccessful candidate doesn't qualify WP:Politician, and coverage is essentially related to the campaign, not him as an individual, so not WP:GNG either. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability for politicians is subjective. It appears his entry is undergoing updates which offer consideration. It appears the candidate contested his 2006 election and was noted in Mark Crispin Miller's book "Fooled Again." In addition, there appears to be numerous citations listed from newspapers articles. I believe this politician has unique contributions and may be considered notable. WP:POLITICIAN PuddyKat (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) — PuddyKat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Russellfl5. --auburnpilot talk 14:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "Unique contributions" make you sound a bit less than impartial here, but read on for real irony. There are in fact numerous citations--but if a level-headed editor goes through them carefully they will see that there's really not much there. They were untemplated; I've added titles so duplicates could be removed and they can be better assessed. Lots of passing mentions, a whole bunch of primary data (election results), and a few references that discuss only the opponent--and all of that, including a terrific amount of absolutely trivial information, to obfuscate the lack of notability. I might point out that the subject seems to be an editor inserting that sort of trivia, besides accusing me of anti-Jewish terrorism. He actually put that in the article... Yes, that is an unique contribution! Drmies (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redirect to Florida's 5th congressional district election, 2006. Candidacy does not equal notability. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 05:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete serial failed candidate --- nn per WP:POLITICIAN Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, SpacemanSpiff, Ironholds, Bigdaddy1981, and WP:COMMON.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, it fails a number of standard Wikipedia guidelines.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable serial failed candidate. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DrMies's review of sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Add me to the list of "wiki-terrorists" who thinks this guy fails WP:POLITICIAN. The COI and Sock issues here might warrant WP:TROUTing. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, but I wish to add my own points. The very clear ongoing consensus at English WP is that failed Congressional candidates are NOT notable, unless their working career is otherwise notable - for example service in local government or CEO of a corporation. Having lots of trivial citations does not prove notability. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as cliche as that is, there's not much more I can say. Keegan (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Delete I undid my closure following a request on my talk page. I don't happen to agree that this will in any way change the outcome of what's apparently a clear SNOW, but the request raised valid points so I was willing to re-open and re-list. That said, no evidence whatsoever he's notable StarM 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per above comments. I don't see a justifiable claim of notability in terms of WP:POLITICIAN or other more general criteria. --auburnpilot talk 01:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not much else to say, doesn't meet GNG or Poltician specific guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is there even one non-trivial independent source? Drawn Some (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Russell is more notable than a typical unsuccessful major-party candidate for Congress, in that, as independent sources establish, he was involved in two hotly contested primaries, losing in 2004 and winning in 2006. JamesMLane t c 10:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being "more notable" than another non-notable person sounds a bit like being valedictorian of a special ed class. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ginny McQueen[edit]

This person is not notable or "encyclopedic" in my opinion. Wade Hunter (talk) 01:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could not find anything in a google search where multiple reliable sources discussed her. There are links to things she has written but there doesn't seem to be much written about her. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is properly sourced, subject is covered in multiple reliable third-party sources, and the notability threshold is well crossed. Google hits aren't a factor when the article is already source and "unencyclopedic" is never a valid reason for deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 08:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually "unencyclopaedic" is a long used shorthand for being contrary to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Of course, without an explanation of what, specific, part of the policy applies, it's not a good rationale. Hence the shorthand has in recent years dropped out of use. Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no avail second or third party sources and fails guidelines WP:GNG. Tree Karma (talk) 02:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article includes multiple third-party sources, including interviews by MTV and Fandomania, the latter done well before she joined its staff. - Dravecky (talk) 03:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you square that with Dravecky's statement that such sources exist and are even cited in the article? Uncle G (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject appears to pass the general notability guidelines of being covered by multiple third-party sources, if not the subject-specific guideline WP:ENTERTAINER, possibly in part because the latter wasn't really written with this kind of entertainer in mind. But GNG is sufficient to say keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A Fan's View is the personal website of Kevin Lillard, who regularly wrote about conventions and cosplayers for NewType USA and later PiQ, so it passes the self-published expert test as a reliable source. As of yet, I can't gauge the reliability of Fandomania. I also think it should be noted that the only edits to Wikipedia by the nominator is to delete this article. --Farix (Talk) 22:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The MTV link confirms her notability. Dream Focus 15:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ryukyu Kobudo. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryūkyū Kobudo Hozon Shinkokai[edit]

Contested PROD, unorphaned and no external links/sources find. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, No importance, No article Irunongames • play 01:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ryukyu Kobudo. I have come to agree with JJL: this information belongs better in the other article. I will work on this article in the next month. jmcw (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I have added material and references to the article. All the Okinawan kobudo articles need work. jmcw (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The things you added don't appear to show the subject's notability. Dekimasuよ! 01:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The organization was grounded in 1911. Can anyone name a karate organization with a longer history? Could I ask the community to consider potential rather than current state?jmcw (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I certainly consider Mark Bishop a reliable source on the matter, but surely we need more? There are a lot of orgs. out there. A redirect is indeed a way of giving it time...the history remains, and it can be un-redirected if further evidence of WP:N is found.

Added a second reliable source. jmcw (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC) JJL (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shinken Taira or Ryukyu Kobudo where it is mentioned; no evidence of notability for this org. JJL (talk) 13:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new references seem to attest to notability (though more are needed). Cnilep (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment references? I see a single WP:RS reference, plus its own web page. JJL (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JJL, what do you think a stub article needs to survive? A reliable source and a 100 year old international organisation is not enough? jmcw (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment being 100 years old isn't a sign of notability (in this regard I concur with WP:BIG/WP:OLDAGE). The Bishop reference (pg. 147 of my copy) merely mentions that such an org. was founded by Shinken Taira and then drops it--a passing reference. As far as I saw, it wasn't mentioned anywhere else (and isn't indexed). While it supports a, b is a synthesis (esp. when you look at the chart beneath this mention) and c is at best vague (did he succeed in the art, per the Ryukyu Kobudo lineage chart, or the org.?). I don't have access to ref. 2, but this isn't convincing evidence of notability. Redirecting it means the info. is here when evidence of WP:N is found. JJL (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the second edition from 1999? Would you prefer to spread the section Ryukyu Kobudo with three teachers over three articles about the teachers? Or maybe delete this article and start one about Ryukyu Kobudo? jmcw (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment no, I just have the first ed. from 1989. Is there more detail on this in the second ed.? The Ryukyu Kobudo article as it stands seems to cover much of the same ideas but in less detail--why not merge and rd there? The two articles seem redundant to me as things stand. JJL (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UIEvolution[edit]

Non-notable former subsidiary of Square Enix. The most blatant of advertising, literally stating "our software technology". Things that notable companies once owned are not inherently notable, just as a hat that Robert Redford once owned wouldn't get its own article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising and so vapidly meaningless that it's patent nonsense as well: UIEvolution software technology and solutions power dynamic application experiences for any device, platform or network enabling consumers to access their content anytime, anywhere. UIEvolution is a leader in bringing rich content and services beyond the personal computer to a variety of devices.... If it's obvious advertising, notability is a side issue at best. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason I didn't SPEEDY is the fact that it was a subsidiary of Square Enix, which is a passing jab at importance. The SPAM can be easily removed (although I don't think there'd be anything left). ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this software company article lacks 3rd party references establishing notability. Dialectric (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. [[WP:SNOW J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 20:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Avril Lavigne Album[edit]

Procedural, declined Speedy. WP:CRYSTAL \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE HAMMERTIME! WP:HAMMER. Tavix | Talk 01:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-create when the name is released Irunongames • play 01:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CRYSTAL. MS (Talk|Contributions) 02:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 03:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Take the dentist's drill when it comes rather than posting articles in anticipation of it. -WarthogDemon 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER and WP:SLOBBERINGFANBOY. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: no title, track list or release date. Cliff smith ^talk 16:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am loathe to close this debate as-is because this debate indicates that "something" rathr than "nothing" should happen here, but there is certainly no consensus emerging from this discussion. Further consideration for a merge to an appropriate target is encouraged on the article's talk page. Shereth 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/July 2006 North Atlantic Earthquake

Non notable earthquake in an area of high seismicity, all refs are dead links RapidR (talk) 00:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "There have been no reports of damage or injuries". That spells "non-notable" to me. What is this, a project to write an article about every tremor of 6.0 or greater? Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google News results for Sulawesi earthquake 6.1, July 2006:

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Sulawesi+earthquake+6.1&as_ldate=2006/07&as_hdate=2006/07&lnav=hist6

http://www.iris.edu/hq/ssn/events/view_seis/295

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601080&sid=aO.TMwRECU1s&refer=asia

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/07/23/tsunami_hit_indonesia_limps_back_to_normal/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,205146,00.html — Rankiri (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course there will be more earthquakes in areas of high seismicity, but that doesn't make them any the less notable. the sources given above are sufficient to keep the article. DGG (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bear in mind that on average, 134 quakes of magnitude 6.0-6.9 occur somewhere in the world each year, most of them being insignificant. They always get news coverage one way or another, but this quake has no historical significance at all, and I think the article is just simply recentism because it occurred a few days after the July 2006 Java earthquake. Surely, if this deserves an article, then so do all the other 2,000 odd non notable M6.0+ quakes that have occurred in the past 20 years. RapidR (talk) 03:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and the article is factually correct, sufficiently sourced, concisely written and potentially scientifically useful. I thought about it myself earlier but I just don't see how deleting the article would benefit anyone. — Rankiri (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only reason this seems to have attracted more attention than usual is because there had been a very deadly earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia the week before. I see from that same Google news search that there were news stories about an August 2006 Sulawesi earthquake, and a November 2006 Sulawesi earthquake, and a January 2007 Sulawesi earthquake, and a March 2007 Sulawesi earthquake, and a June 2007 Sulawesi earthquake, and a September 2007 Sulawesi earthquake, and a.... well, you get the idea. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of every earth tremor. A mild tremor following a serious one gets a splash of coverage as newscasters try to get viewer attention by hyping a nonevent as being like the previous serious earthquake. Wikipedia is not a mirror of everything that was covered by news media. The essay Wikipedia:News articles expresses the views of a number of Wikipedians. It says "Articles about items in the news are only considered encyclopedic if they are verifiably of significant lasting and historical interest and impact." Wikinews is a more appropriate site to chronicle everything that had anynews coverage. Edison (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the examples given on WP:NOTDIR (white pages, TV guides, etc) is even remotely comparable to this subject, and WP:NOTNEWS—at least the way I understand it—mostly refers to "two men were robbed of $50 and a cell phone" and "Madonna wears infamous bunny ears" types of events and not ones that may turn out to be scientifically useful.

As for other objectors, please recall WP:ALLORNOTHING and WP:OTHERSTUFF. Even if each and every one of those earthquakes is as well-documented as this one, 2,000 comparably sized articles would still amount to less than 5MB of actual data. If Wikipedia is running out of storage space, I volunteer to donate four of my antique floppy discs just for this purpose, but I still think that a topic that received extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources can be considered sufficiently notable to satisfy the inclusion criteria for standalone articles. — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the disturbing prospect of having 2,000 separate articles about one's favorite tremors, it would make more sense to group all of the '06 disturbances onto a page called "Earthquakes in 2006". Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notwithstanding the unmerited insinuations of your last comment, the merging proposal, however sensible, lies beyond the scope of this AfD discussion and should probably be taken to the article's talk page. — Rankiri (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'd prefer to talk about it here. Nobody has suggested a merger, although you might want to look for somewhere to save anything you feel to be important, before the article is deleted. Most earth tremors, as with most aviation incidents, and most homicides, will be mentioned in the news soon after they happen; but most do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for notability. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear, WP:News articles and WP:Recentism are only viewpoints and not official policies. And again, Wikipedia's requirements for notability clearly state that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Nowhere on WP:N does it state that tectonic tremblings must cause a certain number of human fatalities or substantial property damage in order to be recognized as sufficiently notable. WP:DELETE lists potential merging and renaming as alternatives to deletion, no a reason for it, and I'm also not aware of any policies that impose an upper limit on the number of earthquake-related articles allowed to exist on Wikipedia. Your opinion is appreciated but I don't believe it's based on any of the official WP policies I know. — Rankiri (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, the policy is difficult to find, but it's listed under WP:NOT#NEWS which is the "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" section of the policy "What Wikipedia is not". This part is not an essay: "News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." Historical notability is a matter of opinion, left to you, me and the other participants in this discussion. I don't see anything historically notable about the July 2006 Sulawesi earthquake, regardless of how well it was covered at the time. Some minor quakes are historically significant -- and perhaps there's something about this one that sets in apart from others, such as the 1909 earthquake near Zagreb, but most are just a footnote. Mandsford (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is this AfD categorized under science & technology? --Cybercobra (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's because it's all based on seismological readings. Mandsford (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquakes come under the category of Geophysics which is part of earth sciences, that and no other category seemed to fit. RapidR (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernice Baier[edit]

Contested prod. Rationale was: "Appears to be a hoax. No evidence this person exists outside WP mirrors; article's biographical info is fictitious. E.g., article falsely claims she married Maximilian II Emanuel, Elector of Bavaria in 1699 - he was married to Theresa Kunegunda Sobieska at the time." Muchness (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear hoax - probably speedy deletable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree. Lourie Pieterse 19:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TrAce Online Writing Centre[edit]

fails WP:ORG, very limited third party coverage [32] LibStar (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Third party coverage is almost nil. Reads like an ad throughout, complete with meaningless hyperbole ("trAce contributors generated an unequalled body of innovative creative work"). I say "weak" delete, because I could imagine it coming back later in a more acceptable form. J L G 3 9 2 6 01:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: at a quick glance, the article is turning into a directory. Also, being written by Sue Thomas, the founder of that organization, it cannot maintain a neutral point of view. Alexius08 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The College of New Jersey#Academics. Valid search term. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive Multimedia at TCNJ[edit]

declined speedy, bordering on spam. LibStar (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yep, the bullet points of objectives are not notable or encyclopedic Kurt (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The College of New Jersey#Academics where it is already mentioned. TerriersFan (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Scott (band)[edit]

A non-notable tribute act. Subject fails WP:MUSIC requirements for inclusion on WIkipedia. Peter Fleet (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft about a non-notable band. Possibly written by a family member of one member. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not notable. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. So Why 08:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France Sport Blowgun Association[edit]

fails WP:ORG no coverage in google news search and in French search. google search is mainly mirror and directory sites. LibStar (talk) 06:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've tried googling and found nothing that would get this kept. I tried the website and most of the links from it to other federations for the sport are dead. A few (approx. 1 minute) radio interviews are posted on the website but my French is poor and I can only imagine they are along the lines of "lets talk to someone doing something completely different this weekend." A TV clip I viewed on the website was also short, from a local news program, showing some old men with blowguns and a couple of tents. Polargeo (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. لenna vecia 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Mekić[edit]

I can find no references in WP:RS for the notability of this subject. The article appears to be a puff, possibly written by the subject, a "student assistant" and faculty representative council president who has appeared on television and runs a non-notable internet company Jezhotwells (talk) 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if we can't verify this biography. -- Atama ^chat 21:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, only a small amount of recognition that has been very brief, according to the representations made by the WP:COI editor who worked on this article. OfficeGirl (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.uva.nl%2Fdanny.mekic%2F&sl=nl&tl=en a page managed by the university of amsterdam — Meta-tag (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment - yes he studied at the University and teaches part time there, How does that make him notable? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Also he was called out as most successful young entrepreneur of The Netherlands last week: http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sprout.nl%2Fartikel.jsp%3Fid%3D1868733&sl=nl&tl=en&history_state0= Meta-tag (talk) — Duplicate !vote: Meta-tag (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Comment - and a blog site gave him a sprout award, how does that make him notable? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet notable. The award mentioned above is essentially for those who are just becoming notable. DGG (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I was tempted to close this as "no consensus" but after re-reading the applicable policies, especially WP:BLP1E, I think deletion is indeed the consensus here. Not just because of the number of !votes but regarding strength of argument. To be precise, Stephen (Grk1011) raises a valid point because to take it literally, "event" is not the same as "subject" and being notable for only one subject does not automatically make one a BLP1E subject. Jennavecia correctly points this out and while "just not notable" is generally an argument to avoid, in this case it sums up the more convincing side of this discussion, i.e. that the delete-!votes correctly argue that notability has not been established. Regards So Why 09:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sietse Bakker[edit]

Non-notable PR manager for the European Song Contest. Has written a song that was not chosen for Eurovision, is friends with the similarly non-notable Danny Mekić - oh and has given a presentation to a chamber of commerce meeting. That's it! Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I declined the speedy on this one as a non-admin because it had enough of a notability assertion to pass, but this man's claims to fame all fall under WP:BLP1E. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think BLP1E applies here, but he's not notable. لenna vecia 00:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - BLP1E does not apply since it is one subject he is known for, not one event. He also seems to be notable enough for inclusion, with sources including BBC, CNN, and the European Broadcasting Union. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The BBC reports him as running a fan site. That isn't an indication of notability. CNN briefly interviews him, and says (on camera) he has been working for Eurovision for thirteen years!!! Impressive for someone born in 1984. The EBU lists his job as a Project manager Internet. This information does not make the grade for notability, I am afraid. This fails on WP:BLP1E. The other reference on the page is a press release from his company. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Missing references or COI sources are unfortunate but are to be solved through editing, not deletion. Consensus is that this is possible. So Why 08:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerard Pieter Adolfs[edit]

No references. All content comes from one source, directly copied. Author owns website. Cargoking talk 11:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Permission received for text at OTRS:3209419. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The artist is the subject of a book but as it's written by Adolfs' granddaughter it's not independent of the subject per WP:CREATIVE. A review of the book suggests the artist's work was "generic fluff" [33], which doesn't help.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 17:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While Gbooks gives some false hits (even then other artists being compared to him implies notability), there are also some good sources such as the Dictionary of International Biography. [34] [35] Edward321 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is clear from the review and the Google Books searches linked above that this was a notable artist, if not universally appreciated. I have added a quote from the Jakarta Post review to the article to provide a little balance. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles de la Croix[edit]

Fails WP:N Izzy007 Talk 12:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's notable enough for an entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Edward321 (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inclusion in a paper encyclopedia is in and of itself sufficient evidence of notability. No further investigation needs to be done to reach a keep conclusion. The article would be better off if one or more editors did the historical research to cite sources other than that encyclopedia, however I'm sure they will have it done by the deadline. GRBerry 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be a notable figure in the history of Missouri, Kansas, and early Osage-European contacts. Information in other books includes these[36] [37][38][39] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sources have been provided above to warrant inclusion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the Catholic encyclopaedia thinks him notable, so should WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have the capability of being at least as inclusive as any print encyclopedia, and have always done so. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Tămaş[edit]

The article is most likely self-promotional, does not cite any sources, and obsesses over the books that mention Christian Tămaş' name, most of which appears to be the kind where you get featured in exchange for a fee. There is no critical commentary on his contributions to speak of, and a google search comes up with a lot of self-published material and commercial links for his book, but virtually nothing independent on his relative importance or the substance of his scholarship. The only material I was so far able to find outside these mentions is this list, published by Observator Cultural, where a very brief mention is made that one of his books was among several dozens of volumes which received government financing in 2004. The same magazine also once reviewed the first issue of a magazine Tămaş contributed to, and again mentioned his name once. That's about it, therefore failing point 1 of WP:PROF by much, and WP:CREATIVE in its entirety. For all the cruft in the article, the only notable professional association Tămaş is part of is the Writers' Union of Romania - however, it receives anyone who has published a number of books and has filed an application. No awards, no academic position, etc., so there goes the rest of WP:PROF. Oh, and: his works are all published by the same company, Ars Longa - who shares his non-impressive reputation. Dahn (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article too is written by Ars Longa. Classic example of self-promotion designed to make one seem notable when substantive evidence of notability is utterly lacking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From looking at Google Books and Google Scholar results I can't find anything that seems to provide more than a passing mention of the subject, and Google News finds mostly stuff about a namesake who plays table tennis and a few passing mentions of this article subject. The only thing that I can find that may be helpful is this article, but that doesn't seem to be enough on its own to show notability. My ability to read Romanian is very limited, coming from guesswork based on knowledge of related languages and general linguistic nous gained from having studied linguistics, so maybe Biruitorul (with whom I find myself surprised to be agreeing) could confirm whether that article gives any hint of possible notability? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Essentially, it says he'll be at a book-launching event, and then goes on to make some laudatory comments ("an enchanting interlocutor...who philosophizes without false gravity"). - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Subject does not meet the inclusion requirements at this time. لenna vecia 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment It seems like some of his work hasn't been in English has anyone looked for sources in Romanian? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. My comments above took account of Romanian and other sources, which is why I asked for clarification in one case. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Per remarks by Phil and Biruitorul. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Ross (media executive)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Insufficiently notable business executive. Person has not been the subject of non-trivial coverage by reliable, third-party published sources. Provided sources do not reach the threshold of WP:BIO#Basic criteria. — Satori Son 14:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-promotion and puffery. Biographical data that is unverifiable. Seems like a bit of a CV but this isn't LinkedIn. Delete as not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parkerparked (talk • contribs) 12:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bilal Velija[edit]

Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo^[online] 13:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 22:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer. No evidence Albanian Superliga is fully professional, no enough evidence the subject may meet WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP edit on 8 June diff replaced the article content with content apparently relating to a different person entirely, before the article was tagged for the first (bundled) AfD. I don't know anything about either person, but shouldn't we at least be sure who we're talking about before deciding whether to delete him? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything indicating he's notable as an athlete. Fuzbaby (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence that the Albanian league is fully professional so he would fail WP:ATHLETE, and I can't find any evidence of general notability. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It all comes down to the fact that there is no evidence that this player needs an article. Spiderone (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polo Molina[edit]

The author originally created this article with the edit summary "found the page on deletionpedia and resubmitted it to wikipedia". A few minutes after the article was tagged for deletion, RadioFan went ahead and prodded the article,[40] with rationale of "While he doesn't currently lack coverage in 3rd party references, all that coverage is related to WP:ONEVENT. Prior to this event, I'm seeing mentions in news articles but always in passing, not articles where he is the focus." The author went and removed the prod, and I figured that I might as well bring this to AfD per RadioFan's original rationale. NW (Talk) 15:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have no idea what the hell I'm doing so please dont be upset if I am a bit of a bull in a china closet. a bit more about my friend Polo Molina: he's always been a very behind the scenes sort of player in regards to his role with BEP but he is credited with actually putting the band together, something few people know. now, with his very visible act toward Perez Hilton I think you will find that he will be a far more public figure given that he is unable to hide away anonymously behind will as the BEP frontman. If you read his entry you will find that Polo is responsible for the creation of some very high profile hip hop, dance and urban activities and therefore is worthy of his own article and is not just a ONEVENT player. thanks. User:ivanarnold

To which I would say - dig up some reliable sources to corroborate that notability, clean the article up, include those references, and it could be safe from deletion. But a paragraph of unsources material does not a valid article make. sherpajohn (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Possible WP:COI issue. لenna vecia 00:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. +An gr 06:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Language[edit]

Article was nominated for deletion by Dreg743; with the explanation "Language that can't be spoken cannot be described by writing so the article is bý definition wrong" on the talk page. I don't agree with the reason but I'm completing the nomination, as it's unclear whether the topic is notable: no reliable sources are cited and Google search results suggest insufficient coverage. snigbrook (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be treated like others dealing with conlangs. If reliable third-party sources can be added, clean it up and keep it. If no third-party sources establish notability, delete it. There are currently no references; in the past the Earth Language web page and Langmaker (which I gather is a conlang wiki) were listed as references, but neither is a reliable source. Cnilep (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find evidence of WP:N in WP:RS. JJL (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence it satisfies notability. Newly made up languages have no inherent notability. Edison (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sapir–Whorf and programming languages[edit]

The article is pretty obviously original research, and wrong-headed research at that: The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis deals with the interpretation and intentionality of speech acts by entities (humans) who have a capacity for discretionary interpretation. This has nothing whatsoever to do with computer programming languages, since computers cannot be intentional, and their languages can't be subject to multiple interpretations or metaphors,and the ability of a programmer versed in one language to programme in another has nothing to do with Sapir Whorf at all. The article cites two references, one of which is a blog (ie non-notable) and the other makes no mention of Sapir whorf at all. ElectricRay (talk) 17:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your first argument misses the point. "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute" (source: SICP). You state that "the ability of a programmer versed in one language to programme in another has nothing to do with Sapir Whorf at all" - Programmers' way of thinking about problems is formed by their programming languages, and you will find it difficult to explain the concept of closures or monads to a pure C programmer (not to bash C programmers). --...- .-. ... / -.. .. ... -.- 19:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an essay. It just does not have the references to justify an article. Not every idea someone has needs to be enshrined as an encyclopedia article. We should not be debating here whether it is true, but whether the idea has had significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. There may be some truth in it: a programmer who started with flow charts and Fortran will approach an algorithm differently from one who started with object oriented programming and the prohibition of goto statements. Edison (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trim significantly and merge as section into Sapir–Whorf hypothesis A couple good external links, a couple decent ideas, but mostly WP:OR. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Lively[edit]

Only claim to fame is that he wrote the music for Happy Tree Friends. No references found, seems unlikely for a merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE No reliable sources, nothing indicating notability in text of article, nothing interesting in Google search. This guy is a minor, minor contributor to a handful of shows, according to this imdb entry. See WP:NOTINHERITED. OfficeGirl (talk) 19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails to meet notability requirements set out at WP:CREATIVE. لenna vecia 23:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I can't find any non-trivial sources about Lively. The show is notable. As of yet, he is not. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom Automation Language[edit]

Non-notable software product. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Erm... I'm not sure I understand why the software is not notable? It has been around for nearly 10 years and was an early player in GUI automation. It is certainly no less notable than many other GUI tools listed in the List of GUI Test Tools page (RIATest, WindowTester, to name a few that are on Wikipedia, with non-sense articles at that). The double-post was purely accidental (I am somewhat new to posting in Wikipedia, so I did not know how to delete the other one), so I am not sure I see why there is a problem...Aeroslacker (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find some independent sources to base the article on? Wikipedia content is supposed to be verifiable and based on sources independent of the article subjects. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the feedback. I am not sure what qualifies as an independent source. To my knowledge, there arent any research papers on it. However, there is discussion about it in QA Automation forums (qaforums.com, for example), and it was 'published' in a magazine via a CD insert, but I am not sure either of those would be of any use as a reference. No magazine articles that I am aware of (other than advertisements) have been written. Also, and I dont mean to sound like I'm in the middle of a 'sibling' argument (but *they* get to do it! :-), but I dont see how the RIATest or WindowTester pages have any qualified sources, as well as many of the other products in the List of GUI testing tools section. Anyway, if you have any suggestions based on the info I just provided on how this can be an acceptable article, I would be glad to hear them. In my opinion (of course, I am the author), any list of GUI test tools is not complete without Phantom. Thanks for your thoughts! Aeroslacker (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally to be avoided in AfDs. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, I'll put in my 'official' request to keep. Some external references were added, hopefully they are good enough to indicate 'notability'. They are certainly more references than the RIATest and WindowTester pages have. I noticed some articles have links to Google searches. I can add one if necessary, but I dont think that really helps the article. Any questions or thoughts, please let me know... Aeroslacker (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references to indicate notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motion Pro, Inc.[edit]

Blatant advertising. Not notable. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I'd nominate for speedy deletion but it's been gathering dust for 16 months without doing any harm so might as well give it a week to see if anyone loves the article. Dbratland (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Motion Pro is a large enough company that notable sources can be fairly easily found. It certainly needs cleanup and love, though. tedder (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that (although you need to filter out Liquid Motion Pro and Stop Motion Pro software). But I couldn't find any straight news stories about Motion Pro -- only short blurbs in "new & cool product roundup" columns. Were you able to find any stories like this for Aerostich: [41] or book mentions like [42][43][44]? To me Motion Pro, while large, is generic and unremarkable, and neither the business press nor the moto press finds them interesting enough to say much about.--Dbratland (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is obvious advertising: Motion Pro produces a line of specialty tools that are designed to facilitate difficult and time-consuming jobs. The company also offers a variety of lightweight tools for use on the trail and on the road. If it's obvious advertising, notability is not an issue. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having advert content is a surmountable problem. However, I haven't been able to find any "deep" coverage of the company itself to base an article on. tedder (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as there aren't any verifiable sources to demonstrate notability, just spam. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alive (Annet Artani song)[edit]

contested prod, does not meet WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers. Already a passing mention in the parent article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. An obvious how-to article, it was so vague and confusing that nobody could reasonably be expected to make sense of it: The cycle, starting from G have to be repeated step by step, until the root cause is eliminated. It is explained very clearly that there is the basic need to understand the difference between a symptom and a problem and how to define what a syptom is and what a problem is. To understand that a high scrap rate is a symptom and not the problem for the technicians, that is one key aspect. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G-C-E-C-P-C methodology of root cause elimination[edit]

No relevant references - assume original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be a vehicle to promote the external link. A search turns up little other than the external link noted -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and as a How to guide. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azzi[edit]

Hoax Eli + 20:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete if hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. There is no doubt that Azzi is a surname. Or is Jennifer Azzi a hoax too? As for the unsourced information in the article, just blank it. --dab (𒁳) 06:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just figured out that the Lebanese surname "Azzi" which was the focus of the hoax article is in fact Qazzī, but apparently anglicized as Azzi sometimes because the Lebanese drop their qs. The "Lebanese surname Azzi" is just a reflection the local Lebanese pronunciation of the more widespread surname Al-Qazzi. --dab (𒁳) 07:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Might be a surname, but no notability has been established for it Corpx (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not every surname is notable. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clio Magazine[edit]

I can find practically nothing to verify the existence of this French language magazine, let alone any notability. I did find this "clio+magazine"+Toronto&fb=1&split=1&gl=uk&view=text&latlng=7254849583339135474&dtab=2&ei=kJNCSs82x6GMB7qQmO0F&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=result&resnum=1 which isn't terribly useful or helpful. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no references provided. And in searching, I managed to find several Clio magazines [45], [46], [47], but none of them are this Clio magazine. -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Khumalo[edit]

NN singer, Google returns forums, YouTube, and gossip about her love life. roux 23:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Interview, and album review indicates that she isnotable, and yes, there is gosip, and curiosity which has generated continued coverage in African press. -- Whpq (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gossip about love life and notoriety, as long as it's in established sources, can make a person notable, Paris Hilton for example. Also, google news search returns over 200 articles about her. The first article returned from the Bostwana Gazette is enough to establish notability. LK (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the many reliable sources linked above, either directly or via the Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reliable sources found here, some of which I have added to the article. It could use some clean-up and expansion, though. TheLeft orium 19:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Trash (album)[edit]

Non-notable album (more like a collection of sloppy live recordings form what i've heard imo).

Note. Although Manson is notable, this album is a bootleg. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 21:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My searches showed that this is not a bootleg. Iowateen (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Simply stating 'There are no sources' and 'There are sources' is not enough to generate consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Mountainous Armenia[edit]

It's unclear as to what reliable sources this article is based upon. Seems to be just another piece of original research and non-neutral POV pushed to become an encyclopedia article.

Delete. Per summary. Atabəy (talk) 15:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone check in non-English books for references? A failed nonrecognized state might merit an article if it got sufficient coverage. See State of Franklin for a failed non-recognized state which is notable and discussed in history books. Edison (talk) 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Preferably from third-party sources which are not affiliated with the region. Atabəy (talk) 17:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reliable sources are required, but historians are often "affiliated with the region" they are about. I would not exclude British historians as sources for British history, for instance.Winston Churchill is a source for UK history, even though he was "affiliated with" the government. I would exclude a blog of a nationalistic political movement. Reviews and scholarly opinion can help us determine the status of a work. A general encyclopedia in the country would be a source to verify some of the information. Edison (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem is that the lands claimed by this article belong to more than one modern-day country. Subsequently, this becomes a classical example of historical invention driven by nationalistic sentiment. Hence, unless there exist sources from a variety of involved countries, the claim, that pretty much no one knows about, has no merit as an article. Atabəy (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several books come up in a Google book seaarch for Republic of Mountainous Armenia See [48] The assertion that the areas in the failed state now belong to several states is completely and absolutely irrelevant to discussion of the failed state in question. Edison (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you can observe in Google Books search result, there are only sources with Armenian authors which claim such "state" has existed. So, obviously, article violates not only WP:OR but also WP:NPOV. I can proclaim that entire Caucasus belongs to Azerbaijan and even find references for it from Azeri sources, does not mean, I can create an encyclopedic article to assert such claim as a recitation of historical fact.Atabəy (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very clearly you do not understand that WP:OR only applies to the work of Wikipedia editors, and not to books published by authors. The fact that they are from one country does not make them original research. We have many articles with references only from one country. Edison (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Edison, please, do refer to the first paragraph of WP:OR for clarification below:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.. Thanks. Atabəy (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no such republic. Chippolona (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The question is not "Is there?" but "Was there?" Edison (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, if the district of Los Angeles is called today Little Armenia due to significant presence of Armenian-American population, can it be claimed some 100 years later as a part of the "Republic of Californian Armenia" if someone makes such a fantastic claim? Atabəy (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single source; let alone reliable sources, this is like a fantasy-republic. Baku87 (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The republic existed and was declared but due to the brevity of its existence and lack of single accepted name for it, sources in English seem to be limited. However, despite this, Google books has hits for it which proves its existence and deserving of a Wiki article. - Fedayee (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This article does not read to me like pure invention, which is usually what is meant by WP:OR. I do know that there were a series of conflicts in the Caucasus at the end of WWI, but know little detail of them, except that there was a British invervention and somebody called Thompson (possibly Thomson) was subsequently blamed by Soviet propaganda for certain events. It might be useful to have an overview article on that, but that is a distinct question. In the meantime, this article should be kept, but strongly tagged for improvement. It might be better with the alternative title of Republic of Karabakh-Zanghezur, which is indicated to be a translation of the Armenian name for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per Fedayee and Peterkingiron. The republic existed, although it's understandable that some sources do not use the same precise wording as the title to describe, given the fact that it was never recognized. The prominent historian, Richard G. Hovannisian, clearly alludes to it in the chapter "Armenia's Road to Independence" in his The Armenian People From Ancient to Modern Times, Volume II: Foreign Dominion to Statehood: The Fifteenth Century to the Twentieth Century (1997),
"General Andranik, denouncing the Russian Armenian leaders, and his former Dashnakist comrades for abandoning Western Armenia, refused to acknowledge the Republic of Armenia. With loyal followers, and a mass of Western Armenian refugees, he marched toward Persia in the hope of joining up with the British Expeditionary Force. When he encountered a Turkish division near Julfa, Andranik backtracked and ascended into the highlands of Zangezur, where for the duration of the war he overran one Muslim village after another." (p. 300)
His other work, Armenia on the Road to Independence (1967) and the first volume of The Republic of Armenia (1967) most probably makes mention of Andranik and his efforts in greater detail.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The description asked for WP:NPOV sources. Richard G. Hovannisian, who is an Armenian-American, BY FAR does not fit the bill of a neutral source on this subject. Even the Wikipedia page dedicated to him has not a single non-Armenian reviewer. Atabəy (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Its unclear if this republic did excist or not and the fact it doesnt cite any sources only makes it looks like a myth. RetlawSnellac (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fedayee and Marshal Bagramyan. Sardur (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of credible sources. --Aynabend (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to find reliable sources to assert its existence. Sounds like a hoax. Ateshi-Baghavan 13:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since all those who have voted to Delete speak Turkish (including Elsanaturk and Aynabend who just got out of the woodwork to participate in this AFD) I present you this source in Turkish which I found in the Turkish Wiki version of this article: ^ Robert M. Cutler, "Kayfasya'daki Kriz Kaynakları ve Bölgeleri", Haz: T.C. Genelkurmay Başkanlığı, İkinci Uluslararası Sempozyum Bildirileri (İstanbul 27-28 Mayıs 2004) "Türkiye, NATO ve Avrupa Birliği Perspektifinden Kriz Bölgelerinin İncelenmesi ve Türkiye'nin Güvenliğine Etkileri", Genelkurmay Askerî Tarih ve Stratejik Etüt Başkanlığı Yayınları, Ankara, 2004, s. 107. (PDF dosyası) I suppose yall are going to change your votes now right?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Eupator WP:AGF in your comments, please. Below is the text:

1920 Aralık ayında Karabağ’ın neredeyse bitişiğinde Ermenistan’daki Güney Syunik bölgesinde Karabağ’ı da içine alan Syunik Özerk Cumhuriyeti’nin kurulduğu ve Ermenistan içinde özerk bir yapıya sahip olduğu ilân edilmiştir. 1921 Nisan ayında Syunik Özerk Cumhuriyeti bağımsızlığını ilân etmiş fakat birkaç hafta içinde bozguna uğramıştır. Yukarı Karabağ bölgesinde ismen var olmaya devam etmiş ve kısa sürede adı Dağlık Ermenistan Cumhuriyeti olarak değiştirilirken 1921 Temmuz ayında Sovyet Kızıl Ordusu bölgeyi işgal ettiğinde dağılmıştır.

The source claims that in April 1921, Syunik Autonomous Republic was proclaimed in Armenia including Syunik and Karabakh but was demolished within few days. The part of it existing in name only in Mountainous Karabakh was renamed to Mountainous Armenian Republic, though disbanded in July 1921 after the takeover by Soviet Red Army.

Apart from being a single source by energy security expert (not historian) Robert Cutler (interestingly the graduate of UMich, the center of Armenian claims), the basic facts are cited wrong. Nagorno-Karabakh was taken over by Red Army not in July 1921, but in August 1920 ("On August 10, 1920, Armenia signed a preliminary agreement with the Bolsheviks, agreeing to a temporary Bolshevik occupation of these areas until final settlement would be reached" (Walker, Christopher J. Armenia: Survival of a Nation. London: Routledge, 1990 pp. 285-290 ISBN 0-415-04684-X). Dashnak Armenia fell to Soviets in November 1920, not in 1921. Hence the claim is based solely on Armenian sources, not on any neutral piece of serious historical work. Atabəy (talk) 18:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but change the article's title to something more accurate. And try to get rid of the inaccuracies in the article, such as "In January 1919, with Armenian troops advancing, the British forces (Lionel Dunsterville) ordered Andranik back to Zangezur". That is obviously wrong - Dunsterville was in Baku in 1918 and did not play a part in this the region after the fall of Baku. Meowy 19:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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