< 9 July	11 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 delete. (X! · talk) · @178 · 03:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cortnee Howard[edit]

This young author doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines. The references are extremely thin and her publisher Paper Street Books looks like it only exists in reference to her, so quite possibly self published. Polly (Parrot) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears non-notable searching for RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions and the main trivial mentions are press releases. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Iowateen (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just chiming in here--nom and other two naysayers have it right. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 13 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) · @178 · 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Disney[edit]

Non-notable water feature at Disneyland Paris. The text of this article has remained substantially unchanged since 2006. A cursory check doesn't find any sources that would improve the content of this article beyond the definition that already exists. At best, this should be a merge and redirect to Disneyland Resort Paris#Other recreation. SharkxFanSJ (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete non notable feature in a franchise theme park. Searching via Wikipedia Reference Search turns up no indications of notability. No content in article asserts notability, it is an un-notable stub, with no hope of achieving any notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jezhotwells. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Jezhotwells. And then perhaps make a new redirect to Lake Buena Vista, Florida.Synchronism (talk) 09:44, 14 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) · @178 · 03:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of English-language pop songs based on Italian-language songs[edit]

Delete A list that has not expanded even once since creation nearly a year ago. Either there are not that many songs that qualify, thus making the need for a list unnecessary, or there is little interest in the topic. Meanwhile, List of English-language pop songs based on French-language songs has grown from one to about thirty songs in the same time frame. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; Completely un-notable and useless list. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on no improvement. I'm sure someone who has no interest in improving the article will give us the old "there's no deadline" routine, but this one was pretty well dead on arrival. Still time to fix it, but, O Sole Mio, "It's now or never" before this one goes Al Di La, Volare or even Tutti Frutti. Arrivederci. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to find English songs based on Italian songs one merely need google the phrase "based on the Italian song" and examples will be forthcoming. Why should Wikipedia help people who are too lazy or stupid to do this for themselves? Meconion (talk) 02:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, why bother using Wikipedia at all. Just google what you want to know.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs

Precisely. It's all available somewhere else, by definition. Meconion (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Mandsford. There is, in fact, no deadline. Inclusion, to my understanding, is based on notability, and there is precedence for the inclusion of such of lists on Wikipedia, so that's not the question. Stubs are...stubs. Not deletion candidates.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see your actual reason to keep this particular list. There may be precedence, but precedence alone does not make a list of two notable. I'm not too sure about the other list being notable either, but at least it has expanded within the past year. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In my mind, this is about as marginal a list one could create and still possibly include in WP. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, good example of creating a list based on a trivial intersection of ideas. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 14 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. I.e., not delete; mergers or redirects should be discussed on the talk page, not at AfD. Sandstein 09:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FV Monte Galineiro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article sketchily details the sinking of a fairly large (but not notably so) Spanish fishing vessel. No one was killed, there has been no major international coverage for any reason and it has not, so far at least, resulted in any legislation or courtcases that have had an effect on Spanish fishing vessels in general. The only "notable" aspect (using the term loosely) is the involvement of CCGS Leonard J. Cowley, to which this article should be merged. Dozens of ships like this go down every year all over the world, and this is not a notable exception among them.Jackyd101 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If there are dozens, or hundreds -- and I suspect it's more likely to be hundreds--we can deal with that--- NOT PAPER. Good sources. We perhaps need a standard for non-fatal accidents of this sort, but we do not have one. DGG (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that this is more notable than the sinking of any other fishing vessel. Although obviously not directly applicable, events like this should be held to a similar standard to WP:AIRCRASH. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is no "must be deaths" clause in WP:NOTABILITY, which this article passes. Last AfD was less than four months ago. Too soon for me to re-nominate. --Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and re-direct to CCGS Leonard J. Cowley. The "we're not using paper" reasoning never makes sense to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of shipwrecks in 2009 where the event is now adequately covered. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to CCGS_Leonard_J._Cowley with appropriate redirect. --Brad (talk) 05:49, 6 July 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 22:51, 10 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of off-roading organizations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of links. That is exactly what this article is - all external links and just five Wikilinks. If the article were reduced to only wikilinks then it would have little or no value, so I propose that it is deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nom. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Parkerparked (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:01, 3 July 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 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not The book of lists, nothing here asserts any notability or even complete coverage. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Jezhotwells. Iowateen (talk) 00:28, 11 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 deleted G12, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chamon "Truth" Gayton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chamon "Truth" Gayton

Apparent COI Favonian (talk) 22:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment already been CSD'd Jezhotwells (talk) 23:54, 10 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 Forbidden Planet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altair IV[edit]

The article subject lacks notability. The subject matter exists as a backdrop to a film, no more notability is given than that. The article content appears to be a mixture of original research and plot reiteration Alastairward (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: already covered in sufficient detail in Forbidden Planet, nothing more to be said as the subject is fictional. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Id delete it, per nom. Nothing worth keeping that isn't already in the main film article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forbidden Planet; apathetic as to whether underlying article is deleted (but be sure to di the non-free image if it isn't used elsewhere. --EEMIV (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and then set redirect to Forbidden Planet. While I agree that a seperate article is perhaps not really neccessary, I believe the current minimal coverage of "Altair IV" in the Forbidden Planet article would benefit from itself being expanded... as the current coverage there is a bit sparse and a merging some of this article would then improve the parent. Even can be nicely sourced: [1], [2], [3]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as usual just as Jack agrees. We don't all that often agree on these sort of topics, but this is really the obvious way to handle it. DGG (talk) 06:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge per all of the above. Artw (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, as others have said. If we get to the point where there's an actual Altair IV to discuss then we can start an article about the real planet, with a hatnote to the film. htom (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Forbidden Planet and add any real-world context about the planet there. In-universe information about the planet should already be conveyed in the film article's plot summary. —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Non-related Sections. I've been a major contributor to the Article. I agree that there was too much of the storyline referenced. However, if, SECTIONS NOT RELATED to the fictional planet description (other than the very basic storyline) are DELETED, I believe the Article will be able to stand on its own, being more to the point and clearer regarding this popularly known fictional planet.(Those sections have been removed) PFSLAKES1 (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is not notable independently of forbidden planet and there are absolutely no space constraints in that article at present, it can easily take all of this information. Therefore a separate article makes no sense whatsoever. Polargeo (talk) 20:17, 17 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 due to WP:ATHLETE failure. Keep arguments failed to cite policy or guidelines, except in one case (which was answered sufficiently). Leave me a message if/when he makes his first team debut and I will restore. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia Destro[edit]

A non-notable youth footballer Matthew_hk t c 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: is in the first team squad, even if he has not appeared as yet. The article needs work, though. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Destro only trained with first team occasionally, and possibly play in friendlies (which is common that youth team member play). As he is born 1991 he is the absolute member of Primavera (U20) team but no source indicate he will be a member of first team in official match. Matthew_hk t c 08:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the article. I hope you will help me improve the article instead of deleting it as I'm not a very good wiki editor yet. Also, I think Mourinho has indicated that Destro will be a part of the first team this season and will be given the chance in Serie A. Maxw93 (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he's not played for Inter or anyone else then he fails WP:ATHLETE. There isn't any wider notability at this stage either. So delete it and then make it again when he plays. As usual. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate when/if he becomes notable by making an appearance in a fully professional league. Giant Snowman 09:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete youth team player, never played with a first team. --Angelo (talk) 10:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Destro is now part of first team, he has great chance to stay with Mou. Also he took part to Under 17 European Championship, then he played with Italy U-18 and U-19. He's Flavio Destro's son. --Mutaforme (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Footballer fails notabilty for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition yet. Simply being in a squad doesn't fulfill any criteria as thousands of squad players from fully-pro teams drop into obscurity without playing. Also fails general notability due to lack of verifiable sources. Notability is not inherited either. Recreate if and when he ever does play at a fully-professional level. --Jimbo^[online] 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Suggesting he may play this season is mere WP:CRYSTAL. recreate if and when.--ClubOranje^T 14:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He will play in the first team anytime soon. I am pretty sure he will make a debut this season. Please just keep this article. Thks. Christian Liberty (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CRYSTAL Spiderone (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He got about 30 caps for Italian Youth Teams (range: under16-under19). He already played for a professional team (Ascoli) before joining Inter FC. Why deleting now if in september he will be fully elegible? Frances Bean 16:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.96.176 (talk) [reply]
- No, he has never played with Ascoli. That one was actually his father, Flavio Destro. --Angelo (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I know Flavio Destro; his son Mattia started playing for Ascoli (where he was born while the father was playing for the local team) at Youth Level then moved to Inter. Frances Bean 21:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.40.86.76 (talk) [reply]

To me it seems stupid to delete an article that's bound to be needed in a couple of months, as Destro surely will make his competitive debut soon. But if that's the way of Wikipedia, so be it. I just hope that I'm the one who gets to make the new article then... But I hope that you decide to help me with the article instead of deleting it, I see that someone has already improved it a bit.. :) Maxw93 (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You can just notify an admin to recreate it from the previous version from when it was deleted. --Jimbo^[online] 20:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily meets WP:N (which trumps WP:ATHLETE with articles in many countries about him such as [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is a fan site, so fails WP:RS. The second one is merely an interview regarding his current participation to the first team training camp in the USA (which does not necessarily mean he will actually be part of the first team). The third is a list of more than 20 players aged 16-19 the author believes to be the "future of Italian football" (needless to say it easily fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL), same for the fourth one (definitely not an independent party, it is an interview to a fellow Inter Primavera player). The Daily Mail link only refers to a rumor that proved out to be completely false regarding his possible move to QPR. Therefore none of these sources meet the WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 07:38, 17 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. withdrawn by nominator Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

José Guzmán Rocchi[edit]

Comment - previous research suggests that the former Primera A is fully-pro. I'll see if there are any references which support the claim that Guzman played for Lobos. Jogurney (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

playerhistory.com indicated two, and Dutch wikipedia said he played in Spanish 4th division. Matthew_hk t c 22:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the two best sources for Primera A (BDFA and FEMEXFUT), and this player has no entry. I did a quick check of Lobos squads from 2005 through 2008, and they used a few goalkeepers regularly over that period, but never one named Guzmán. My guess is that the matches claimed on the article are actually for BUAP's second team, which would play at a level that is not fully-pro. Jogurney (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he played for Barcelona B, which in not in fully-pro level currently. Matthew_hk t c 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no evidence that this athlete has played in a fully-pro league and the article is unsourced. Jogurney (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've changed my !vote, because FEMEXFUT does have a record for José Siverio Rocchi Guzmán and he played 2 matches for Puebla FC in the 2005–06 Primera A Clausura tournament (rounds 15 and 16). Since the FEMEXFUT website is all java based, I don't know how to link it, but you can find it there if you look. Seems like his first surname is Rocchi and that explains why I couldn't find the record before. Jogurney (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bdfa show he played Puebla FC Liga de Ascenso in 2006, but is it reliable? Matthew_hk t c 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew by Nominator Rocchi played twice at Liga de Ascenso, which footy project classified as a notable league. Matthew_hk t c 05:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:22, 11 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. Pretty good debate between Hellno2 and Niteshift36. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret cell phone[edit]

Doesn't meet the notability guideline. MobileSnail 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT; this is not really encyclopedic as a phenomenon. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: WP:NOT is a page with lots of guidelines. Which one on that page are you speaking of? Hellno2 (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable. Bordering on WP:NEOif anyone else actually uses it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Article is about a real concept, but probably falls short of being able to have a standalone article. There are probably at least several possible articles this could be merged to, perhaps something pertaining to adultery. Hellno2 (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I actually found quite a lot of sources describing a variety of reasons why people may want to keep the presence of a cell phone a secret from others, and just the mere fact that cell phone technology has enabled communication to be kept secret. Reasons are not limited to adultery as the article originally described, but also include domestic violence, secret government and military operations, and use by prisoners, among others. An article describing the concept would be perfectly fine. Searching the term "secret cell phone" does not alone reveal all the sources; other variations must be searched. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms guidelines, a new name may be a good idea (something to be discussed separately). Also note that article has been improved and references that were not present have been added since proposal was initiated and the above two deletes were written. Hellno2 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- But is using the phrase "secret cell phone" really evidence of a notable concept? Isn't it really a self-defining phrase like "concealed weapon"? Just giving people a couple of ideas about why someone might want a "secret cell phone" isn't really that notable. This sounds more like an entry for a sidebar story in Cosmo about "10 ways to know your guy is cheating" than an encyclopedia entry. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is why I recommended renaming to a more notable title. Hellno2 (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And what I trying to get across is that a new title won't make the topic more notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's true. A new title won't make the topic more notable. But it will help in conforming with the guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms. As for this article, notability has already been established with the sources provided. Source #1 especially discusses exactly the topic the creator originally described, which is about cell phones being kept secretly without the knowledge of a spouse. The other sources less so, but still, they describe reasons why one may want a cell phone to be secret. And whether this article is kept or deleted is based strictly on those guidelines listed under WP:DEL#REASON. This now does not meet any of those criteria. Hellno2 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article actually has a whiff of WP:SYNTH to me as well. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is a real topic that has been written about in published sources. Pink cloudy sky (talk) 01:26, 17 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. Moved to Dupa Biskupa. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ass of bishop[edit]

No indication at all of notability. The only references given are to 2 web sites which gives a list of games with a little general information about each, in one case a few sentences and in the other a couple or so paragraphs. By no stretch of teh imagination can this be regarded as "significant coverage".

I have also done a Google search for "Dupa biskupa". There were many hits, and I looked at the first forty of them. Of these forty only one had any connection with a card game (apart from the English Wikipedia article which is the subject of this AfD discussion). That one was a Youtube video of people playing cards. The others were varied: several were blogs, forums etc giving childish "humour", such as this one[9]; a couple showed rock climbing: I guess "Dupa biskupa" is the name of a rock; one was a page on Polish "Nonsensopedia" which, translated into English, said "You have been banned forever for the vulgar nickname. However, you can set up another account with the correct name and edit Nonsensopedię normally"; and so it goes on.

It is clear that Dupa biskupa (bishop's ass) is a common mildly vulgar expression in Polish which is used widely when one wants to be a bit cheeky and silly. Using it as the name of a card card game is just one example of this. There is absolutely no way at all that I can describe either the sources cited in the article or what I found as "significant coverage" of anything, least of all of the card game. There is in fact so little coverage of the game that it is unclear whether it is a popular and widespread or not. However, it really doesn't matter, as either way there is no way that the coverage (both in the citations and in what I have found) can be regarded as "significant".

Move to Dupa Biskupa. Although I don't know Polish and there aren't many references for this game in English, the activity on the article on Polish Wikipedia seems to establish notability. However anyone who's familiar with this game would not by the Polish name and not by "ass of bishop." Just as Shogi isn't titled by the literal translation from Japanese, "general's chess," it's very obvious that "ass of bishop" is a very poor choice of title. Piddle (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move per Piddle. As tempting as keeping that name would be (it would be a real hit with the kids, I think), I suspect it should be considered a proper name and thus not translated. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the article on Polish Wikipedia cannot establish notability. If it is kept ( and I think it shouldn't be) then I agree that the title should be "Dupa Biskupa": I doubt that anyone calls it "ass of bishop". JamesBWatson (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Poland, can i say something? Dupa biskupa doesnt mean anything in Poland other than card game. Really. Its just a game. Nothing more. No rocks as u said or sillly and cheeky something. We dont use it in language in any other way that describe CARD GAME. Thats all. NOTHING ELSE :P Dupa biksupa = Ass of bishop in reference to Card Game :P Thank you. Polish man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.115.121.120 (talk) 21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and this game is known in Poland for yeeeeeeeaaaaarssss! Its not new, Its ooooold and well-known, i think even pre-IIwar but for SURE it was known during communism times (as my grandpa said he remember that playing with my father and aunts :P). 77.115.121.120 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked in google for it... Well. in blogs etc, seems that people use nick "dupa biskupa" :P Other interesting thing I found named after this (that prolly confuse) is photography contest named that (joke photo contest for funny photo) and http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=6499 u have english translation of name (so its right :P). Well. Game exists for sure, ;) 77.115.121.120 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (and no name translation... well.. we are changing english names of card games to polish so... polish into english also i think? :P)[reply]

Comment Whether or not "Dupa biskupa doesnt mean anything in Poland other than card game", almost none of the uses found on Google have anything to do with cards. However, that is really a side issue: whether or not the word has other meanings, the onus is on those wanting to keep the article to show that there is substantial coverage, which so far has not been done. My only reason for mentioning the web pages which are not about the game is to anticipate what frequently happens in AfD discussions: someone saying "Keep, because I got a lot of Google hits". I wanted to indicate that most such hits are irrelevant. (As well, of course, as number of Google hits not esatblishing notability anyway.) JamesBWatson (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say "almost none"? lfmao... I think you cant speak polish right? :P Well, i personally found several pages in google describing this game, including those two references in article... :P 77.113.123.33 (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section it into an article on types of card games, perhaps. Can't really see WP:N. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 01:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incoherent. 2005 (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is very incohereent, and if kept will need a thorough rewrite. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Dupa Biskupa. This is just a card game. The rules are simple: the objective is to get rid of your cards. Before starting, each card is assigned a function, such as making a gesture or yelling out a word. The only "rule" or common element of each game is that one card is named "dupa biskupa" (the bishop's stooge, puppet, or other wise a king that is not quite bright), the king of spades. Cards are kept face down and in turn, each player throws one on the table. The player, who responds slowest to the last card thrown on the table, takes it. It is played until someone is left with no card, or when the players get confused what the cards mean, thus leading to chaos and fun! There are at least three Youtube clips showing people playing the game with different assignments to the cards. Furthermore, it is described in English here: a card games web site that lists "rules and information about card and tile games from all parts of the world". I think the the title should not be translated. Keeping it in Polish will discourage vandalism and removal. The current text also needs to be edited.— CZmarlin (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated this for Polish Wikipedia AfD (pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia#Dupa_biskupa). I'd suggest waiting to see how the discussion develops there. The game exists, but is it notable? That I am unsure of. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: pl wiki AfD ended in keep; the consensus is that it may not be a well documented in reliable sources, but it exists and is "known". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the decision on Polish WP, our policy is that only subjects which are documented in reliable sources warrant an article. Whether Polish WP has a different policy or whether this decision was against policy I neither know nor care: English Wikipedia is independent of Polish Wikipedia. More useful though is the fact that the Polish discussion decided that "it may not be a well documented in reliable sources". Since they are no doubt much better able to assess Polish documentation than most English Wikipedia editors, if that was their conclusion then I seems a fair bet that the game is not well documented in reliable sources. "No indication at all of notability" were the opening words of this discussion, and, seven days later, no evidence of notability has been produced by those wishing to keep the article.

Move I created this article and tbh i agree with what you stated before. Though it will sound weird in Polish title in English wikipedia but, real meaning of game can be just mentioned in article. Ptok Bentoniczny (talk) 21:29, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Montag Records[edit]

No significant coverage in third party sources (or any coverage at all, really). This article fails WP:CORP. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 19:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --this google search shows that the Wikipeida article is the only article to actually discuss the company. Every other hit is about Montang recording music. So pretty much this is the only site that's talking about the record company, (well there is a myspace about the company but that is not a reliable source.) So. Delete. (I also tried an image search to maybe find a logo and still no results) KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 20:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per KMFDM Fan. Iowateen (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:28, 12 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. There are arguments both that it is WP:ONEEVENT and that it has significant coverage during and after the event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Vedas[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Some guy OD'd on drugs while in a chatroom. A few papers published a story about it at the time. There's no evidence it has ever been mentioned in any reliable sources since then (early 2003). No lasting impact. This is a clear example of WP:NOTNEWS. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Cassidy for precedent; an unusual and/or embarrassing death is not enough for a biography even if it is reported in the papers. *** Crotalus *** 19:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has been discussed already: he gets mentioned from time to time in articles treating Internet culture, the number of google hits also indicates that his 'case' has notability. --Miacekand his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site; the fact that it received notable coverage at the time makes it worthy of inclusion. It doesn't have to keep getting coverage to stay listed.—Chowbok ☠ 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also this nomination needs to be moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (third nomination) but I'm not sure if just moving it will break inclusions etc. WP:TROUT to the nominator for not taking the time to do this correctly.—Chowbok ☠ 20:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless of how many newspapers decided to fill space by mentioning this Darwin Award candidate, it all comes back to WP:ONEVENT. It doesn't become more notable when a non-notable person does something incredibly stupid in front of an online audience. Of course you have ghits out the ass, it was an online event, so tons of blogs and discussion boards, who aren't reliable sources, will talk about it. You can see the news spike at Google News around the event and then only passing mentions of him after that, mainly when some other nitwit does something moronic online. Cite WP:NOTNEWS too. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. I can't match Niteshift36's eloquence on the matter, but this is single event. At best, a mention in an article about the concept of online absurdities or something like that (when that becomes a notable subject) is what is required for this. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, there was also a Los Angeles play based on the incident, with reviews in mainstream papers: see [10], [11].—Chowbok ☠ 02:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting....someone who ran out of ideas for community theater decided to write a play about this. Trivia is always interesting to me......but notable? Um, no. From the first link: "On the whole, it just plays like a room of self-centered drug-using losers who goad one of their number into destroying himself, and fail to get him help because they don't want to bring law enforcement down on themselves. The story itself is appalling, but the dramatization is no more moving than would be a newspaper article dispassionately reporting the tale.". "Self-centered drug using losers......" are not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Better delete Sid Vicious, then.—Chowbok ☠ 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What sense would that make? He was notable for something other than WP:ONEVENT.

Heh. Barely, he doesn't even play on the only real Sex Pistols album. Anywhoo... I would suggest a possible merge to Internet suicide, which is currently only about online suicide pacts. Hairhorn (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Strong consensus to keep in previous RfDs. Over 6 years after the fact this is still being mentioned in news articles. There are several hits on newspaper search engines for articles around the globe. Google News has articles from Spain, Vietnam, and Russia from the past year. 72.58.249.204 (talk) 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He is "mentioned" (which is trivial) when someone does something stupid. How many of those articles from Vietnam etc. are simply translations of the US wire services?
Delete, no real evidence of any coverage other than his death. Nyttend (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I moved Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (2nd nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (3rd nomination), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (second nomination) to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brandon Vedas (2nd nomination). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:10, 17 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 early per WP:SNOW, the fact that the only "keep" votes are from single purpose accounts that appear to be sockpuppets, and the request of the subject of the article. Risker (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rand Kannenberg[edit]

This article was created by COI editor User:Cjas now blocked and edited by three other editors, one of whom User:MisterMeth has admitted that all four editors shared the same computer facilities and are suspected of being sock or meat puppets, cf. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MisterMeth. The article is not referenced by WP:RS and I can find no references establishing notability apart from his authoring 2 books and a dissertation [12]. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see my note below about how article had major rewrite with details. Thank you.--CertSociPrac (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficently notable and as it stands not NPOV. NtheP (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I object. This biography of a living person (BLP) Rand Kannenberg should NOT be deleted for the following reasons (all according to Wikipedia Deletion and BLP guidelines as cited below):

According to Wikipedia deletion policy, " Once there is an objection or a deletion discussion, a page may not be proposed for deletion again..."^[1] Rand Kannenberg was already proposed for deletion and there was an objection (see: 13:44, 19 April 2007 Darksun (talk | contribs) m (390 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD a3). using TW). Again, this proposed deletion is not allowed.
The subject of this article "...is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."^[2] Rand Kannenberg has 72 references listed ("published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on third-party sources").^[3] Only eight of the references (item numbers 9, 10, 11, 25, 40, 41, 43, and 65) may not meet this criteria. 64 references, however, are without doubt reliable. All of the 72 references are "... attributable to a reliable, published source").^[4]
The subject of this article, like any other person "...is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards:... [1] has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them;... [2] has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field;... [3] is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; and ... [4] has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.^[5] Rand Kannenberg has an abundant supply of evidence that the subject meets four of the four criteria above for "any biography," "academics," and "creative professionals."
Rand Kannenberg is written with a "Neutral point of view... representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."^[6] The article includes "...all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias."^[7] "Criticism and praise of the subject ...relevant to the subject's notability...sourced to reliable secondary sources...that does not... appear to take sides...needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone"^[8] and is in this article. "Praise" material (e.g., "Awards" and "Community Involvement") includes two paragraphs of text. "Criticism" material (e.g., "Controversies" and "Personal and Family") ("Personal and Family" in this article has information about the subject's addiction to drugs and alcoholism, and estrangement from his family of origin) also includes two paragraphs. All views about the subject are presented.
"Verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added...has already been published by a reliable source..."^[9], applies to every quotation and other material in Rand Kannenberg.
Rand Kannenberg does not include any "original research or original thought...unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position....to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."^[10]

--CommCorr (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC) — CommCorr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Without currently having any opinion of items 2 to 6, point one in this list is not correct. There are three categories of deletion: speedy, proposed and deletion discussion (AfD). The rule cited specifically prohibits repeated proposed deletions; it does not apply here as this is a deletion discussion (AfD). I42 (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the points rasied by CommCorr

Already answered by I42
Notability is not based on the number of references an article has but whether the subject is themselves notable. Whether Kannenberg is notable is partly the matter for discussion here. But if you want to go by the references then let's have a look at them. It could be argued that the number here is an example of bombardment. Look at references 55–64 and 66–72. As far as I can tell these are just copies of Kannenberg's lecture notes and themselves are not indicative of notability and indeed are most definately not independent of the subject - having been written by the man himself (unless of course he's plagarising other's work). To take another, reference 35 is not independent as it was submitted to the Lakewood website by Kannenberg's employers, CJAS. I could go through virtually all the references given and come to pretty much the same conclusion. They are NOT independent having been written either by Kannenberg or by CJAS. Strip all these out and there is not a lot left. The whole section on community involvement says very little. It lists a whole raft of things that Kannenberg has proposed but doesn't give any idea as to the outcome. If all of these were successful then I can see some degree of notability being achieved. Are all businesses in Lakewood smoke free as a result of his proposal? I don't know because the article fails to tell me.
Notable standards. Rather than say all four criteria are met, would you care to supply some specifics because I don't see any of the four at all. I thought I saw one with the line ... was awarded a "Certificate of Accomplishment" for "24 Years of Distinguished Service as a trainer, mentor and addiction professional" by the National Association for Addiction Professionals (NAADAC) on June 20, 2008 but then found that the only reference was a contribution to the Lakewood hub by one Patricia Kannenberg. Would that be Kannenberg's wife by any chance?
Neutral Point of View. I had quite a lot of difficulty with this one as the article is so poorly written that it's hard to work out what Kannenberg actually does. Eventually I worked it out. The section on criticism is almost apologetic in tone and fails entirely to show what the criticisms were raised for or by and why they are relevant to - his attitude to drugs, alcohol smoking or something else? The section of his personal life is again non independent being based entirely on admissions by Kannenberg himself. Nothing to indicate that they are true. If this article were truly written in a neutral sense then the lead section would not read as a CV for the subject
Verifiable. Well yes if we accept all Kannenberg's own statements as being correct then it's all verified but that's not enough. See WP:V#SELF especially the second pargraph.
WP:OR I don't think any one is claiming that this article contains original research, so any discussion is pointless.

To reiterate this article lacks the evidence to show that the subject is notable and/or the independent sources to back up that viewpoint and as such should be deleted

As an addendum, I see CommCorr has nominated this article for GA status. If I were the reviewer it would be auto fail not only for lack of notability but for it's very poor standard of writing and failure to adhere to WP:MOSBIO. NtheP (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There also appears to be meat/sock-puppetry involved. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MisterMeth, especially this comment. --Calton | Talk 03:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable. A few obscure or local awards don't really change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Simply not noteworthy, aggressive self-promotion aside. --Calton | Talk 03:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see reliable source references in general; there are a few that may make it over the line, but if one limits oneself to those it becomes even more difficult to establish notability, which, as editors above have argued, is already a problem. Also, I agree that this is not NPOV. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No real reliable source refs, even the CO papers have given more trivial mention for a comedy club than for his role in CJAS. This has got to be one of the most absurd GA nominations ever. I'm surprised that the article has stayed under the radar for two years. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I know about this person because my kids went to the same school where he did (but many years before to tell you how old I am). My grandchildren are literally warned by their teachers (at the same school actually) about Wikipedia. They are prohibited from ever using Wikipedia as a source in their written assignments. Now I know why. I created an account to edit the page many angry editors who obviously have an agenda now want to delete. I logged in this afternoon to see if my section about Mr. Kannenberg's personal and family problems was still there. It is. But now there's a heading about deleting the page. That wasn't my intention. I just thought the article was too positive knowing that the Internet has evidence of the edit I made. I hit "What links here" and read the pages and pages and pages of nonstop efforts from one editor in particular, and many others, from his country and elsewhere, to delete this page. As CommCorr points out, an objective editor (not the ones angry about the "war" - what I read happened a few days ago) would know that your own pages say people who work together and use the same computer system with separate user accounts are not sockpuppets. I'm just guessing they all work at the local hospital. We all use our computers during lunch or break to read e-mail at my office as well! I imagine this is common these days, right? I am asking for someone with the real authority to read the article, to read CommCorr's comments seen earlier, and without personal point of view or opinion or perspective use Wikipedia's guidelines to see that Mr. Kannenberg is notable and that the article about him meets or exceeds the other three requirements. No wonder school kids are told to stay away from here. If they only knew what happened behind the scenes. What I have been reading on all of your pages and in this review is like a soap opera. How are you given your jobs? Like I said, your boss needs to read everything to see the big picture. You should be embarrassed by what you have said, how you have said it and what you are trying to do. I'll never trust a word about another article on Wikipedia. I am going to Britannica.com, MSN.Encarta.com, or Encyclopedia.com. I searched "online encyclopedia." You are listed after them. I wonder why. I will also be sending a letter to Wikipedia as soon as I can find their address or fax or e-mail contact information. As my grandchildren say, "Get a life!" I will tell everyone I know about this so they understand what really happens on this website. You are dangerous. You have too much power. You have too much anger. That's it for now so I can file a complaint with the foundation.--WRHSFan (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC) — WRHSFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem with Wikipedia, WRHSFan, is that people don't read the disclaimer that's linked at the bottom of every single page you read here. We're very honest about this website. It's user-submitted content, and it's not to be trusted without checking your facts elsewhere. And we don't pretend it's anything else.
Have fun emailing the Wikimedia Foundation, and in the meantime, we'll be deleting the page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:Notability. Article subjects need to have been covered substantially in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have. :P—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be sure to spell my name correctly in your complaint. Too many people spell is Nightshift. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep.

Improved article Rand Kannenberg as recommended by “Social sciences and society” and “Culture and society” section.
Made numerous and substantial changes in content and format.
Article seemingly mostly complete without major issues.
Article seemingly relatively important to this project.
Now well written, factually accurate and verifiable, broad, neutral and stable.
Unable to locate any images without dispute regarding copyright status.
Subject is a VIP in fields of sociology, crime and addiction.
(But, article should have probably been deleted without major rewrite. It did not talk about why he was notable.)

--CertSociPrac (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)— CertSociPrac (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: i see no improvements that confirm notability or address the non RS sources already cited. Is this another sock do you think?. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The style has improved but still lacks relaible verifiable citations. If refs 13 & 14 are peer reviews of his work then notability may be shown but as no URLs are quoted I fear they might just be original articles by the subject. NtheP (talk) 06:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I've looked through the references and the only ones that I can find that are fully independent are 24 & 28 which relate to book reviews to be found here [13] at page 17. NtheP (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Article improvements to meet keep criteria (in response to all requests above).

Added "Founder and immediate past Co-chair of the Sociological practice Association Mental Health Interest Group.
Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Reference 42 could not be verified. Removed.
Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 20.
Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 13.
Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 4.
Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added electronic source cited in Reference 3.
Agree with Jezhotwells. "Large numbers of citations to non reliable sources." Added author, editors and page numbers of non-electronic source cited in References 1, 2 and 16.
Agree with Jezhotwells. "Over-wiki-linking of common words." Removed all but ones related to subject material.
Agree with NtheP. "Better written but still lacks in independent verifiable sources. E.g 13 - a url for this would be helpful as it may be independent but otherwise still relies too much on press quotes supplied by CJAS.
Removed ((cleanup-rewrite)). Article does have encyclopaedic tone and is no longer promotional in tone because "Feel free to edit beyond this point" on page. No warning not to.
Removed ((cleanup-rewrite)). Very good prose. All text from peer reviewed, refereed and juried journals. Also, does conform to the WP:MoS guidelines. Because "Feel free to edit beyond this point" on page. No warning not to.

--CommCorr (talk) 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

http://www.flickr.com/photos/40415238@N06/3717980962/. The Practicing Sociologist Summer 2001 Page 3. Uploaded on July 13, 2009 by Community Corrections. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/40415238@N06/3717166921/. The Practicing Sociologist Summer 2001 Page 7. Uploaded on July 13, 2009 by Community Corrections. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike Creative Commons.

--CommCorr (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

Google News lists a total of 8 stories mentioning him, 4 of which are about his early 90s comedy club, 2 of which are about no smoking bans, and none of which are from outside his local area.
Google Scholar lists no other works as citing him.
Google Books lists no books by others that mention him.
PESI HealthCare's "become an author" page makes it clear that they are not a traditional advance-paying publisher.
Links to shopping carts, books in print, and slideshare.com do not count as verifiable reliable sources. And that's not mentioning links to Flickr pages photocopying journal articles.

To be fair that's probably in repsonse to my point that it was a pity that what might be an independent source wasn't available on line. I'm glad it's been supplied as it was useful to have seen it but I wouldn't have suggested using the flickr url in a citation. NtheP (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one needs to go away, if only for the reason that there's insufficient third-party sourcing to write an article about him. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DoriSmith officially, and personally because of the incessant WP:SPA promotion by suspected sockpuppets/meatpuppets. -- œ ^™ 01:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The new version of the article is now more focussed and readable, but would still need major work - in its near frantic attempt to assert notability it is full of peacock terms and is not written from a neutral point of view - indeed neutrality is further brought into question by the removal of the criticism section which existed before. But this is irrelevant because ultimately the subject is simply not notable per Dori and others, and no amount of work on the article is going to fix that. I42 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of substantive coverage from reliable sources, despite claims of our sockpuppeteer. Nyttend (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

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

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

The result was Delete JForget 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Diegos[edit]

Article about a band that lasted a week in a TV show spinoff. PXK ^T /_C 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE. It doesn't get any more non-notable than this. JBsupreme (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the speedy deletion criteria have anything to do with notability. Tavix | Talk 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure about that? I don't think you are correct. JBsupreme (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to Hollyoaks. Would have been notable independently of the TV series had a single made it into the top 40, but I've searched the three weeks after the single was released and found nothing. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible Speedy A7. Definitely fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 10:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, material is borderline CSD A7 but in any case not encyclopedic. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:46, 16 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Fallaize[edit]

Another promotional article for Gene Fallaize, the CEO of Cupsogue Pictures (afd). Article appears to be mainly original research and lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Only references outside imdb are primary sources. No indication awards are important and the Total Film award is not for Fallaize. Only notable film Fallaize is connected with appears to have him of one of at least 38 "executive producers" with the dvd possibly listing ~989 executive producers. No indication he had a significant role in it's production. (probable coi issues involved) Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I created this article as I saw there was not a page for Gene Fallaize, yet there was a few months ago. You say there is a lack of sources, but a brief glimpse at IMDb proves his validity, and his titles are for sale on Amazon.com. Just because you at Wikipedia cannot confirm his role on 'Outlaw', does not mean he did not hold a significant role, but he has produced more than that production, and if you are seeking further clarification, look on Amazon.com at his titles which prove he is a producer with released films. I would put this on the page - and did - but it was deleted. Also, the Total Film award was issued by Icewhole.com, and was to the film, not for anyone in particular, in which case awards go to the producers for producing said film. And the other award is "not important"? What qualifies for an "important award"? Please let me know if I am being unreasonable, but it appears you have taken it upon yourself to delete all the articles I have created, when all I am trying to do is add to, and help improve Wikipedia by adding information I know to be true, which can be confirmed with trusted industry sources including the production books, and also the IMDb, which works closely with filmmakers and studios to ensure it's information is totally correct. Thank you Larrywilliams101 (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Larry. Have you been taking editing tips from Graham? No one has questioned the validity of Fallaize. I'm sure he exists and has been involved in the production of some films. That simple fact does not make him notable. What qualifies for an "important award"? An example of an important award is the oscars. That award has received considerable coverage from sources that are not directly connected to the oscars. Duffbeerforme (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Who is Graham? Where can I view the policy on what makes someone notable, as I feel deleting three of my articles is a little unfair, but if I can correct them to be in live with Wikipedia's policy, I will do so. Out of interest, are the Academy Awards ("Oscars") the only awards that Wikipedia classes as being notable enough? Thanks Larrywilliams101 (talk) 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the blue linked word notable. That policy article tells you about notability and links to other more specific policies such as Wikipedia:Notability (people). And no oscars are not the only awards that Wikipedia classes as being notable enough, it was just one example. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, after looking at the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions, I'm amazed at some of the notable people that have been proposed form deletion, yet some use IMDb as a reliable source, and others don't... What is the reason for this inconsistency between editors? The page I created for Fallaize has references outside of IMDb, but the IMDb itself has verified Fallaize's credits, including appearing as himself on notable TV shows, including the broadcast of the 80th Academy Awards ("The Oscars" - which he was a guest at, and which you say is a notable awards ceremony, which can only be attended by specially invited guests and those within the academy), and 'Good Morning America'. Surely anyone who has made themselves a name enough to appear on such broadcasts as themselves and after producing films that have been released and are verifiable on Amazon.com have enough to be classed as notable, no? Larrywilliams101 (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source but is a usefull source. Sources that are not reliable sources can still be used to provide information but they do not help show notability. You say he appeared on 'Good Morning America' and the broadcast of the 80th Academy Awards. In what context? To what extent. Where is a source that verifies that? Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EXTREMELY Weak Keep Though he has a small amount of notability and good sourcing, it appears he is at the beginning stages of a possible notable career. The article is over-written and needs major clean-up. Too much puffing for a small time producer. In addition, being invited to the Oscars is not notable, being nom is. BioDetective2508 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"it appears he is at the beginning stages of a possible notable career" sounds to me like crystal ball reasoning. What might happen is not a good reason to keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being involved with a bunch of non-notable films doesn't make you notable. Nor does winning minor awards. Being executive producer might do it....if the movie didn't have 30+ other so-called executive producers. Fails WP:CREATIVE in my mind. BTW, IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No evidence that he is notable through any of the other criteria for people in the creative arts. - Whpq (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Page and content seem to be of regular debate and editing. Suggest page is removed or kept, but not kept in limbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.130.122.146 (talk) 20:17, 14 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 A7 TeaDrinker (talk) 18:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobizzle MC[edit]

Is this a Hoax? I can't find anything about him. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! Its not! I can see from someone who hasn't witnessed him in his local areas may believe it is all a lie, but i can assure you it is not! Mobizzle gave a speech the other day at the local youth centre to close and delete websites about him as he believes all they do is spread lies and corruption about him. i spent a very long time trying to convince him to let me make this page and it was only this morning he allowed me, and now for you to attempt to delete it is just unfair! I repeat what i said before on the talk page:

I think this article should be kept up because Mobizzle was a real inspiration in where i live- Moss Side and so deserves a page that everyone should be able to look at. I think everyone should be told about him because he was such an inspirational character- especially in my life. he helped me grow up into the man i am today because he had already been through a lot of bad stuff and so really knew how it felt. this helped him become closer to me and all the other kids he helped out. So please don't delete this article, it means so much to me, my family, my friends and the whole of the Moss Side community.

Thank you, Eggman123456789 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggman123456789 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interuniversal travel[edit]

No sources, just not noteworthy for its own article. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources (or any sources). As an aside, it had several spelling errors which I went ahead and corrected. Renee (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no sources, no mention of the history or coining of the term. About as useful as an article on the inner workings of a Flux capacitor at this point. -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even worth a mention in parallel universe. Completely unsourced, making up for lack of anything to say with namedropping ("Cosmologist Max Tegmark theorized that universes could exist...") and throwaways like "Such travel could theoretically be assisted by using wormholes." Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I can think of fictional occurrences or uses of such, they're so different that it's hard to imagine them in the same article. (Iain M. Banks' Excession, The Algebraist, maybe others; some of Greg Egan's physics stories Diaspora, Schild's Ladder, possibly others; and Charles Stross's The Atrocity Archives ... there are surely others.
Weak Keep Sorry for not adding citations sooner. I added a few citations. Nicholas Weiner has accused me of vandalism for some reason. It was a topic covered extensively in science fiction. Not OR just didnt have time to add citation, I felt it might be worthy of an article since it is a common theme in science fiction. Valoem ^talk 14:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just kidding around - sorry. It wasn't like I was ever gonna go past first-level warning. --Nicholas Weiner (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice to editors. The comments you made were clearly very passive-aggressive Mr. Weiner, and regardless of what you think the intention of the author is, it really isn't your place to jump on them like that. A more appropriate note would have been:

"Thank you for your contributions to Interuniversal travel. I wanted to inform you however, that the article has been nominated for deletion because it is a topic on the physics of science fiction, which would fit better under the novels that include that theme, rather than as an article in its own right"

Doesn't that read better?? -- ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 50% of real-world claims -- "Such travel could theoretically be assisted by using wormholes." -- uncited. Other claim, cited, is a few steps removed from topic. Article contains no other significant information. The topic term itself yields fewer than 1,600 Google hits (WP:GHITS; yes, I know), and rapidly degenerate into wiki sites and simple dictionaries. Just doesn't seem like a topic that's garnered significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 17:19, 12 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 'Redirected' to zombie.. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie infection[edit]

Article doesn't indicate the importance of the subject, no references. Could be a hoax. MobileSnail 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy:Obvious hoax. Seriously. This is not a real scientific infection.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Zombie. Wham, bam, thank you mam. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:56, 10 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 (A7). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Rangers[edit]

non notable sports team, speedy removed WuhWuzDat 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to see how they could be notable when the league they play for isn't and they play in a public park. Probably a joke article. However we wish them luck on their season. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gnews search isn't turning up hits for this. (Although it's possible I missed something in the flood of articles about games between the Chicago White Sox and Texas Rangers).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - totally non-notable, possible hoax or amateur effort like backyard-wrestling "leagues" --Orange Mike | Talk 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 I'm not seeing any indication of importance whatsoever. Tavix | Talk 18:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, probably a local men's senior baseball team.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:25, 10 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 Andy Shallal. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eatonville Restaurant[edit]

non notable restaraunt WuhWuzDat 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable restaurant; not every restaurant that gets reviewed by the local daily paper(s) becomes thereby notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. Probably worth mentioning in the Zora Neale Hurston article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And merge the rest to the owner per Lefty. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the most important information to Andy Shallal and maybe Zora Neale Hurston. I tried adding reliable sources but I could only find local newspapers and blogs. The leftorium 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. andy (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Andy Shallal, seems appropriate per lack of reliable secondary sources.Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:38, 12 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. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition of White Americans[edit]

Article about an unremarkable organization that is somewhat borderline for a speedy. Username of article creator is first initial and last name of one of the founders mentioned. MobileSnail 16:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, non notable organization. WuhWuzDat 16:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. No claims to notability. I don't even want to Google for notability here at the library. Hairhorn (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "The group hopes to make an impact first within its own community and eventually throughout the United States." They have to do that first. (Off topic: They would have a better chance with a different name.)Northwestgnome (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete:Per WP:A7--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Definitely not notable. Triplestop x3 18:20, 10 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. Drop me a note if you want the page userfied to your subpage. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool firsts[edit]

Unsourced, unencyclopedic list which seems to breach several major elements of WP:NOT. --Jza84 | Talk 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there is an idea here for a list, properly referenced. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands. Claims are too extravagant without properly verifiable sources to back them up. Feel free to rescue this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to allow the article to be altered into something encyclopaedic. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definately potential for a future article or subsection in a broader article (maybe History of Liverpool?), but information needs to be fully referenced first. In my opinion, it would be also be better if it was synthesised into prose --Daviessimo (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not wikified (not even properly list-wikified), no sources to support even one of the claims. OR? Cynical (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if I turn it into something like this - Science and invention in Birmingham it will be better? Unlike that article I will of course attempt to find citations. If that is not acceptable, can you flag the Birmingham article for delete also? RodCrosby (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If properly cited, that would change my !vote. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems here, guys, is that one particular administrator seems to think that an article/edit must be perfect (in his opinion), else it is his God-given right to instantly delete/flag for deletion, without going through the usual lesser stages first, e.g. ^{[citation needed]}, discussion, etc., or even waiting just a few minutes to see if citations appear. He says these are "a matter of courtesy" - in other words he is not required to be courteous to other editors. With someone like that around it is very difficult to press on with developing this article or others, because you will never know the minute when entire sections/articles will just "disappear" and you will be taunted with a highly-selective self-serving "snippet" of WP:BLP or something.... Thoughts, please....RodCrosby (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts? Be mindful of making no personal attacks please; I have Wikipedia's interests at heart here. Indeed it will be difficult developing an article when one doesn't cite their sources - a core principle of contributing to Wikipedia is verifiability. If you want to develop a page without sources, use a sandbox, don't publish your own research or opinions.

The problem with this list is.... even if it is sourced, it's not a balanced, neutral, encyclopedic article. It's clearly an indiscriminate list made by somebody with too much pride in a particular city. And indeed, what are "Liverpool firsts"? Was it Liverpool that made these things happen, or its people? Is it "firsts" by people from Liverpool, or people in Liverpool? What about negative firsts in Liverpool? --Jza84 | Talk 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making personal attacks. I am making moderate personal criticisms of your actions as an admin, which is quite different, and goes with the job I would have thought. As for "pride", I suppose that's OK for Birmingham but not for Liverpool, wrt to Science and invention in Birmingham for example. I'm sure there are other examples around and about. I've already offered to change the article title to something more "encyclopedic". I note your moving of the goalposts. First it's not sourced, then even if it is sourced it's not good enough. Taking just two fields, public health and social reform, there is a remarkable and easily verified history that has impacted people throughout the UK and beyond. What if there really is an interesting and verifiable story to tell about Liverpool, and you're the only person who can't/won't see it? Where do we go from there? As for negatives, sure, Liverpool has its fair share, in common with most other places, and I have no problem with these being mentioned appropriately. In other words, unremarkable, and certainly not "innovations or inventions", which by definition require common-purpose, vision and endeavour. I also objected to your apparent "hunting" for another article I have contributed to, Crosby, Merseyside, deleting a huge chunk apparently on a whim, and justifying it on the grounds that because you are an admin you aren't required to show courtesy. This is all crazy stuff (imho) which appears designed to create resentment and hostility. You may have had a bad recent experience with another editor (and fwiw I can see your side of that argument more than his) but I hope that hasn't jaundiced your approach to your role as admin, and you now operate on a hair-trigger. If so, it might be time to take a voluntary break for a while. Sincerely. RodCrosby (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Having given an opinion above (which I do not change) I have given more thought to the idea of this list. Liverpool is a city in which much innovation has taken place, and it is reasonable that it should receive credit for what its people have achieved. I find the idea of "Liverpool firsts" seductive. But this is not the way to do it; and indeed I wonder if there is a realistic way. Looking at the current list, the first question is "Who says?" - the fundamental principle of Wikipedia that everything has to be verifiable, which means all the claims must be cited (Wikipedia:Verifiability). The next question is "What precisely does that mean?", which means there has to be some sort of explanation/definition/clarification. Then "What qualifies?". The list includes three world premieres of pieces of classical music - only three? There must be hundreds, if not thousands - only last year there were two world premieres of what could well become classics in the choral repertoire. And then "What are the limits of Liverpool?" - "Liverpool and its environs" is too vague. Does this include Birkenhead, etc.? A list like the present one is probably uncontrollable; and would be subject to all sorts of challenge, reversions and the like. So we may have to re-think the idea. Certainly Merseyside offers the opportunity of many more stubs (preferably articles) containing information about the "firsts". I just wonder if there could be a category into which they could be collected, say "Category:Liverpool achievements", or something like that. Does anyone know how (or if) this sort of thing has been done elsewhere? Has anyone produced a suitable title for such a category? And how could its boundaries be maintained? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I have added the most significant (imho) to the main Liverpool article, grouped into broad fields, all with citations, taken mostly from outside of the Liverpool city council propaganda department! Perhaps a subsidiary article similar to the Birmingham one can be linked, with citations of course. [part of the reason we are here is because I was not really given the chance to add citations.] As for environs, etc, a broad degree of flexibility must be allowed - for instance I'm sure there would be no "Birkenhead" or "Wallasey" tunnels if Liverpool had remained an obscure fishing village... I guess if the event either happened in Liverpool or was due to activities within Liverpool, even if physically located (slightly) outside the current geographical boundary it may be worthy of inclusion. I'm not at all interested in the origins of the personalities involved [scousers' hall of fame, etc] but innovations and inventions that can be reliably traced to the city and its influence. Incidentally, I wonder why wiki calls this category "inventions, etc" - it's not a term scientists really go with. They prefer "development" I think. RodCrosby (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or "innovations" maybe - which might include inventions and such matters as social development (the first medical officer of health, for example). "Developments" might cause confusion with Category:Development which does not really include what we want. I think this should be further discussed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside, so I have copied part of this into its talk page. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:40, 17 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 Art of Chaos. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson & Catharsis[edit]

Not notable. Non-commercial release from a band with a string of albums released only through MySpace and on-commission sites like CDBaby. The band Art of Chaos may have notability enough for a page of their own, but I would encourage giving it a once-over. Their other non-release Lucid EP is up for A9 speedy deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating a disc I missed, equally non-noteable:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding the Lucid EP, which passed speedy; it's yet another non-release:

Merge I also had questions about this band, who received a lot of local press, but nothing rising to the national level. Their notability is in doubt; the non-notability of their unreleased or self-released albums and EPs is not in doubt. The pages should be redirected to the Art of Chaos page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with WikiDan61. Polargeo (talk) 07:51, 17 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 International Pro Wrestling: United Kingdom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Under 23's Championship[edit]

Though at first glance I see notability, but there are no references within the article besides a few external links and they all appear to be primary, beside one. While my search on Google didn't show me any reliable references that I am aware of. They all seemed to only be fan sites, etc. If this is as important as it is foretold in the article, then there should be a few third party refs.--WillC 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —WillC 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A young championship with virtually no history of defences and just one champion. Fails WP:N badly. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into the article of the promotion (International Pro Wrestling: United Kingdom). No need to delete the information. Merging fits with precents set in discussions of other minor titles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as above. Hate to lose the information for a title that may reach notability in the future. --- Paulley (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per above. Nikki♥311 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The question is who will merge it?--WillC 18:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging is easy, and anyone can do it. I'll take the responsibility for this one, if that's what the final decision is. Nikki♥311 18:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is and you need any help or anything give me a shout. --- Paulley (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —WillC 18:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - but it should be removed completely if it doesn't expand over the next couple of years. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:27, 14 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 School violence. Consensus seems to be that it is a inappropriate fork; however, there is no consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing school violence[edit]

Delete (or userfy). Still reads like a cross between a scholarly paper (to WikiBooks, perhaps) and an advocacy piece. No significant improvement in the past ~~month~~ 3 weeks. In all fairness, the "orphan" property is my fault, as I removed it from the #See also sections of other articles it was spammed to, but almost all of those were at most tangentially relevant, even if this article were to be fixed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boil it down, make it more encyclopaedic, and incorporate into the "School violence" article, which already has a section on prevention. The person who started the "Preventing school violence" article has done a lot of work and acted in good faith, but has not perhaps fully understood the criteria for being encyclopaedic or the reasons for those criteria. It reads too much like a how-to guide and a series of opinions or assertions. But it would be too ruthless to consign his entire text to oblivion. He said the other day he was going to start over, after receiving a lot of negativity from the main recent editor of the "School violence" article. There is an ongoing dispute between those two editors both about the usefulness of the "Preventing school violence" article, and about what can be be permitted to be incorporated into the "School violence" article, over which its main recent editor exercises tight control in what might be thought a somewhat proprietorial manner. I would like to refer upwards the dispute between those two editors so that a non-involved experienced WP administrator can read through all the relevant talk pages and take a view on a constructive way forward for achieving consensus on the integration of the two articles into a single good article. Alarics (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfork. We already have school violence. The only possible use for a fork article under this name is as a how-to guide, which is not within the scope of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this page is because there was very little about prevention about scool violence or any other kind of violence. Not only is there little about prevention one thing that got my attention was this section about arming teachers on the School shooting page. I find it somewhat ironic that this isn't being targeted for deletion but an article that focuses on preventing child abuse, bullying and promoting community organization is being targeted for deletion. To censor prevention and allow for the armed teaching arguement seems absurd. Not that I'm argueing for censorship of the armed teacher section that isn't what I ever intended what I wanted to do was to offer a more rational alternative. Also I think the name is apropiate since most people are more interested in ways to prevent these disasters than look at it as news or in some cases even entertainment. When this is used for rating boosts or entertainment it only gets worse. I'm going to put a little more work into the unofficial version which I have created pending resolution of this dispute but I find it hard to believe this is what is being targeted for deletion. If anyone is interested in what I initially intended before it was censored and rewritten it is right here: User:Zacherystaylor/preventing school violence Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, it's arguable that arming teachers and trusted students is a good way to minimize school violence, so it should be in this article if this article is to be maintained, while the criticism section is inappropriate unless Joseph Gutheinz is a recognized expert in the appropriate field (and we can find real-world consensus as to what the appropriate field is). However, my objections the present article are:
1. This is intended to be a [{WP:FORK]] of school violence, and there is no reason why the relevant content shouldn't be placed there,
2. There is very little material for which we can even find the source, much less verify whether it is reliable. Alice Miller is a self-proclaimed expert on child psychology, a related topic; none of the other authors you quote appear expert; and none of the publishers you've listed are specifically known for printing factual information (as opposed to speculation and advocacy). Most of the additional reading is too incomplete to determine whether it's reliable, and the external links seem to be advocacy sites for a specific point of view on preventing school violence (although I haven't checked all of them).
3. Finally, if it were to be a separate article, it should be at school violence prevention. But that's a minor point, which could be dealt with if there was any content that we could add.
However, I think I'll change my !vote to redirect, and merge anything we can use in Wikipedia to school violence or one of the related articles. But I don't think there's much there, yet. I agree with Alarics (talk · contribs) and Friday (talk · contribs), so I probably shouldn't have brought it to AfD, but I don't see any harm in deleting the article, either.

I may monitor the school violence article so that a #Prevention section can be maintained, but (per point 2) there's little here we can use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to School violence. No need for an advocacy/perscriptive piece, per WP:NOT. Mention of any notable concepts in the article in the school violence article is plenty, just as the arming teachers information is in the school shooting article. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to school violence those parts that are fully sourced. Undoubtedly there is useful content but it is also interspersed with synthesis and contentious POV so the merge will need to be carried out with care. TerriersFan (talk) 19:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a Wikipedia article. I agree with A.R. that there is little here that would be usable., DGG (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple reasonable options. Either rename to "Prevention of school violence", which could seem less advocacy-like, or if there's too much original research round here, then merge to the prevention and intervention section of the existing school violence article. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an advocate piece and there is little we can keep and maintain NPOV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clarify: this is a cross-cutting topic which blends with bullying or school bullying. The main school of thought at Wikipedia seems to be that changing social conditions in general is the best way to "prevent" violence. If society doesn't "make" kids bad, they won't act out. I just want to ensure that this (majority?) view does not turn into the sort of consensus that censors opposing (minority?) views. The primary alternative to the view that "society makes the criminal" is that each person is responsible for his own actions, and that parents and educators must engender this sense of responsibility. There are copious published materials explaining the latter view. --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of concern with this being an advocacy piece if this was for a questionable cause I might agree with it but it isn't. Wikipedia is designed to provide educational material for the public for free assuming the public knows how to check sources which is explained in wikipedia about. Also the section about arming teachers seems like an advocacy piece for gun rights proponents yet no one is calling for deletion of that. The person who called for deleting this page said above "it's arguable that arming teachers and trusted students is a good way to minimize school violence, so it should be in this article if this article is to be maintained, while the criticism section is inappropriate unless Joseph Gutheinz is a recognized expert in the appropriate field (and we can find real-world consensus as to what the appropriate field is)." He has indicated his opinion about what solves the problem of school shoiotings and called into doubt the credibility of anyone who disagrees with him. The article isn't calling for anything radical like shooting down students at the last minute quite the oposite it is calling to solve the problem before it gets so bad. This may be a debate about which advocacy position wikipedia is willing to take not if it is taking an advocacy position.

Also I would like to remind people once again that I did provide sources and there are more on the library shelves that produce similar arguments if you care to look up wither the sources I cited or others. I'm trying to say this as civily as I know how but to argue that Arming school teachers is more important than trying to figure out what the causes leading upto the problem are and preventing them is foolish. These sources are more credible than the ones provided by the mass media or many political advocates, they have degrees in the subject and spend a lot of time studying the subject. The majority of the discusion about this article doesn't seem to have much discusion about the subject but instead about rules and the way they should be applied.

Once again with all the articles about school violence I don't think I'm being unreasonable asking to present some informed recomendations to prevent it. If someone with better writing skills or more information about the subject wants to improve it I wouldn't object but to call for deletion is in my opinion unreasonable. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 14:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"There seems to be a lot of concern with this being an advocacy piece if this was for a questionable cause I might agree with it but it isn't." We don't care if it's for a questionable cause or not, we don't have advocacy pieces. As for the armed teachers stuff - if it's wrong, fix it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have "School violence"; we are not a how-to. This fork is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do have sections about prevention. You have many things that could be interpreted as advocacy pieces or not depending on whether you want to or not. I could target the section about armed teachers as an advocacy piece just as easily as you have targeted this. I have not chosen to do so since I would consider that censorship and I believe the issue should be adressed. I tried to adress it by providing a more rational point of view which was backed up by credible sources. This is the way wikipedia about says your suposed to do it. It claims that sometimes wikipedia articles may be slanted one way until someone else provides an opposing view. My idea of "fixing it" doesn't call for deleting things that I disagree with. With all the lists of violent events and serial killers and articles on them as well I find it hard to believe that the majority wants to draw the line when someone tries to improve material about prevention. Also another thing that some people should be concerned with is that apperently there is at least one teenager who is editing these articles about violence that has said it is because he has been involved in it. Wikipedia may be atracting attention to some people who are enfatuated by this instead of opposed to it. If anythiong this should provide one more reason why there should be more about prevention. If there is a troubled teenager participating in wikipedia and he sees something about prevention he may find a place to go if on the other hand he sees advice about arming teachers he may see this as part of the problem. The section about arming teachers ignores the fact that school shooters have been suicidal and not inclined to be detered by more violence.

If some one with better writing skills tried to do a better job writing the article than me I wouldn't object but that isn't what is happening here. I have been informed that whenever someone complains about posible censorship that people asociate them with someone who is creating an article about perpetual motion machines. If wikipedians can't tell the diference between a perpetual motion machine and censorship at the request of someone who has demonstrated a strong bias in favor of arming school teachers there is something wrong here. Wikipedia will allow dozens of lists and articles about violence but they may draw the line whith an article about prevention in a discussion that spends much more time talking about rules than about the subject at hand. The only people who have claimed to have read any of the material are also the only 2 people who have asked for this page to be saved. I have no doubt that if reasonable people read the material by the sources that they would agree that they are good sources although I wouldn't expect anyone to completely agree with them. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the ignore all rules section it allows for an exception for Wikipedia:Use common sense. It seems to me like common sence that it would be a good idea to have more about prevention. Also I didn't initialy intend for this to be a different point of view from the section on school violence. When I first write it I intended to writes a short section about preventing school shootings that offered a better sugestion than arming teachers. It seemed clear that preventing school shootings would also involve adressing other issues so I changed it. This produced a simalar article to school violence. One reason I think the name should be preserved is that it puts the emphasis on prevention. This is important since many people are fed up with just reading one article after another and little or nothing about prevention. These people would be more likely to read something if they thought the focus was to improve things. Other people may have become desensitized and in many cases may actualy look at this as entertainment. This sounds morbid but its true and that isn't the target that I think this should be aimed at. Another thing this isn't about just deleting this article but the content as well. There are objections being raised by people just because they disagree with it. These people don't seem to be checking the source or providing an explanation as to what is wrong. Wikipedia aims for neutral point of view but that can't be achieved if the most agresive people just delete things they don't like without checking the source.

One other thing I would like an opinion on as I mentioned before there is a wiki-book on how to reduce energy with a link on this page: Energy_conservation#Home_energy_consumption_averages. I don't know if that is the best way to go since it isn't long enough to justify a book but it is worth considering. If there is a book would there be any reason why there couldn't be links to it on the articles about school violence and a sumation for those that just want to take a quick look? I'm not trying to be disagreeable but there could be more improvements on prevention and the armed teachers section just doesn't seem like it should be presented as the sole neutral solution to school shootings. Zacherystaylor (talk) 16:53, 16 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 --JForget 22:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chatchai Narkwijit[edit]

Fails notability as his only appearances were in the Regional League Division 2 Spiderone (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play at a fully professional level, and fails general notability guidelines due to a lack of reliable third-party sources (most Ghits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Thailand Div 2 is not of a notable level in the scheme of things. Unless he turns up as having played for Thai national team (doesn't look good) he fails criteria.--ClubOranje^T 15:26, 14 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 Withdrawn. Redundant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack (non-admin closure) treelo _radda 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Torchwood: Original Television Soundtrack[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable soundtrack album, merely a tracklisting with no sourcing. treelo _radda 14:36, 10 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 G3 hoax. TeaDrinker (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Ullman[edit]

Hoax? I can't find anything to support this. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 14:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Seems a fairly obvious G3 to me though it is a hoax but not so blatant it could be speedied. treelo _radda 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3, as a hoax that has "literally no chance of being verified". The ILY producers are well documented and he's not one of them. Tagged with ((db-hoax)). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 10 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 16:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy Championship Wrestling[edit]

Notability has yet to be established. In my search I have yet to find a reliable third party reference, only primary sources. I am also nominating the following related pages since if this one is not found notable, then neither are these:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. --WillC 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to establish notability, does not provide sources and is almost a walled garden group of articles. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a good primary source would be a story in the Austin Chronicle that discusses the promotion in detail ([14]). It also has enough mentions in other relaible third-party sources to help establish notability per the General Notability Guideline ("If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."). I believe that I could turn this article into something worthwhile if given a chance. Putting a one-week time limit on it during an AfD doesn't really help, though, as I have no idea what the next few days will bring. I will commit to improving it, though, in a timely manner. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero sources. And watch the newspapers because they publish press releases which constitutes advertising. That requires care. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not an advertising piece. It is a newspaper story. Feel free to actually read it before commenting on it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to apologise because I was not talking about your link. I was talking about newspaper sources in general when it comes to wrestling. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 04:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you just brought up a completely irrelevant point here because...? GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IRRELEVANT??? We were talking about newspaper sources weren't we? You're being insular and that is inpinging on your ability to contribute constructively to this discussion! All you want to do is assume bad faith every chance you get just because someone doesn't agree with you. Open your mind, mate! RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 10:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the important word in GNG is significant, even if the promo has received significant coverage (which at this time it hasn't) then the belts have received no coverage, and as notability is not inherited even if the promo page can be saved the belts cannot. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Almost no wrestling titles have multiple articles written about them. I would hope that you don't believe that most of the articles should be deleted. At any rate, they can all be merged into the main ACW page quite easily. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Small, non-notable promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources. Needs sources and quick smart. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:26, 14 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 16:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Mirov[edit]

Not notable. No references of any shape form or fashion in article itself. Original author did place some refs on talk page, but they are not reliable sources (blogs). Appears to be editor of a little-noted webzine. Contested speedy. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he ever publishes his work he can have his stub back. Andyo2000 (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any reliable sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Iowateen (talk) 21:34, 10 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 already deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

چندریختی در برنامه نویسی شی گرا[edit]

Foreign language article. It has an e-mail address right in the middle. I am not even sure what to classify this as. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 13:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be related to Java (programming language). --Tom Edwards (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for obvious reasons. Andyo2000 (talk) 14:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would say speedy as well, but I don't see a category. Appears to be a summary of an academic article. Even in English this wouldn't fly. Hairhorn (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete here is the translated page. It appears to be a how-to page which is what Wikipedia is not. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting that for us.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 15:39, 10 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 --JForget 22:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra Christian Life Centre[edit]

Delete. Per WP:CLUB, individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article. Also fails WP:VERIFY. WWGB (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:CLUB and WP:VERIFY. Jujutacular (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:ORG Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no way to verify this is actually the "largest church in Canberra", of which the term is not defined. Bearian (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertising, fails WP:ORG. –Moondyne 09:18, 14 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 by Nyttend. Non-Admin Closure. CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 12:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/POKET MONEY-casa de amanet,servicii de amanet,imprumuturi rapide garantate cu aur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/POKET MONEY-casa de amanet,servicii de amanet,imprumuturi rapide garantate cu aur

Appears to be spam, about gambling or an online casino. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 11:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as spam, but this isn't the right place to discuss Wikipedia namespace pages. Nyttend (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. WP:TWINKLE brought me here for some reason. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:10, 10 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 (A3) by TexasAndroid. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kebabed[edit]

Unencyclopedic article about a nonsense topic KimiNewt (talk) 11:48, 10 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 --JForget 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samkan Promsombat[edit]

Non-notable footballer who fails WP:Athlete Spiderone (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 11:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer. Jogurney (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as well. --Angelo (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per notability. Pmlin editor 14:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 14:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Iowateen (talk) 21:39, 10 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 (G12) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uttaradimath[edit]

Procedural nomination: Tamako1999 placed an AFD template on the article (leaving a comment in the edit summary that plainly indicates that s/he wants deletion) and added this AFD page to the log, but didn't use the standard ((afd1)) and didn't create this page. Tamako's reasoning for deletion is "No context.Very badly written and references can't be found". Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind: I just discovered that it's a copyvio of various pages at http://www.uttaradimath.org/web, so I've speedy deleted it. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 10 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 CSD#G11 - Advertising Gnan garra 09:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeNeGen[edit]

WP:NOTE. Not notable piece of software. Sk8er5000 (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, seems to be an advertisement from the company. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with Casmith_789, seems to be an advert. Adamsim (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have nominated the article for speedy deletion, per criteria G11 of the speedy deletion policy. The article appears to be a advert, not just a WP:NOTE case. Thanls -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 04:31, 11 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 16:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Insurance Guide[edit]

Fails WP:WEBSITE - no historical significange, no non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. dramatic (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Gosox5555 (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom [[User:Efil's god|]] (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice advertisement. Wish there was a WikiAds somewhere, I'd put one up... but this isn't it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:03, 11 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 (G3). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elwick's number[edit]

Original research. Fails WP:MADEUP: "If you have invented something novel in school, your garage, or the pub, but it has not yet become well known to the rest of the world, please do not write about it in Wikipedia". Contested prod. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly speedy as blatant hoax, but definitely delete as hoax. This is utter nonsense. --Pgallert (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if it's not a hoax (I don't understand the mathematics well enough), there's no good reason to have a MADEUP number. It fails the primary criterion at Wikipedia:Notability (numbers), and I'm guessing that it fails the other criteria as well. Combine that with an obvious lack of sources, and it's definitely deletion time. Nyttend (talk) 12:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Zero GScholar and Gbooks hits. Salih (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense, so nominated. Although the text is grammatical, it makes no sense whatever. I could write an equally grammatical piece about determining what color a kilometer is. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:25, 10 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 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NOTNEWS. Very few English sources - it's apparently a media event in Finland and Russia, but not in the Anglosphere; wider significance isn't clear (sparked a "diplomatic row"... so?). Previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Salonen) closed "no consensus". See also WP:BLPN#Anton incident. Rd232 ^talk 09:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Oh, and this is the first time the page has been nominated under this name - there is no Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton incident - I just used the wrong WP:AFD template. Sorry for any confusion. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this article was created by banned user Petri Krohn, a Finnish activist who uses Wikipedia as a soapbox for his cause de jour. --Martintg (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is an irrelevant argument, although it is no different to editors fighting to keep Putinjugend as a soapbox for their own causes de jour. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A lot of refs; banned users created a lot of good content.Biophys (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notable does not mean "most of the sources are in English". Edward321 (talk) 13:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The refs are showing notability being met. Sources don't have to be in English, although there are enough English language sources where I don't think that is a problem. Tavix | Talk 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Let's try to avoid using non-valid arguments here. The number of English references is irrelevant. Wikipedia has a global point of view, not an anglophone one. Who created the page is also irrelevant; only content matters. Personally, I think the incident itself is notable enough, but I don't know if we should have an article about it. I also do not like the biased way this article is written in. Offliner (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please elaborate on the "biased way"? I just re-read the article and thought it very carefully included both Finnish and Russian sources and comments. Almost every sentence is solidly referenced. Should we be less neutral about this topic, then? -- Sander Säde 21:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, sources don't have to be English ones, but lack of them does create a WP:V issue. I can't verify what I can't read. Should I just believe when someone tells me that's what the article says? AGF only goes so far and I've found plenty of English sources that were misrepresented. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it scrapes by on notability. Close to WP:BLP1E, but just squeaks by IMHO. ukexpat (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant international events can arise over relatively trivial causes, and this is one of them. DGG (talk) 01:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly the point - what evidence is there that it's a significant international event, i.e. significant enough to overcome WP:NOTNEWS? Rd232 ^talk 18:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no requirement for sources to be in English on WP so the nominator's rationale is flawed and irrelevant. The event has caused a diplomatic row between the two countries, and is more than notable for inclusion as a stand alone article. WP:BLP1E is not a concern either, as per Elian Gonzalez affair. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the event caused a diplomatic incident, then perhaps it could be mentioned in Finland-Russia relations, but it is certainly not notable for a stand alone article. Unlike Elian Gonzalez affair which was widely reported in the world media, no one has heard of this event outside of Finland or Russia. --Martintg (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to WP:BIAS. --Russavia ^Dialogue 10:36, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion here. The nomination is not because there are few English sources (although this is an indication of relative lack of notability). It's because of WP:NOTNEWS - this is essentially a news event and its significance has not been demonstrated. As a standalone article it belongs on Wikinews, not Wikipedia. Rd232 ^talk 11:41, 11 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 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMS-Helmets[edit]

Tagged as an orphan since April 2008 and still no articles link to it. Poorly writtend and unsourced despite claim to be brand leader. Biker Biker (talk) 09:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The CMS-Helmets are a subject of many reviews at specialized moto web sites. CMS-Helmets is not the world's leading brand, but it seems to be a well known company in the motorcycle world and surely deserves an article here - it may be useful for our readers. I've added external links, check it, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed a couple of your links, but thanks for adding the others. The article itself is badly written and contains little or no information. For the article to be kept it needs to be expanded, possibly using information from third party sources such as the reviews you posted. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cooperation, Biker. Btw, the brevity of the content is not reason for deletion - we call those articles stubs. Notability is an important topic for us. And the CMS-Helmets meets the criteria, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, multiple reliable sources are now present in the form of the webbikeworld.com and all-motorcycle-helmets.com links in the current version. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 10 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. It's clear from the comments that most people believe that Debbie's relationship with Michael Jackson makes her inheritently notable. (X! · talk) · @183 · 03:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Rowe[edit]

Fails notability per WP:BIO and WP:NOTINHERITED which explicity states that "a relative of a celebrity should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative". I fail to see anything Debbie Rowe has done that is notable in it's own right that isn't connected to her famous ex-husband Paul75 (talk) 09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - largely for the reasons given by the nomination. I was actually reviewing this myself, and my sources search to date yields nothing that isn't related simply to the fame of Michael Jackson - the quantity is not in doubt, but the quality to satisfy the non-trivial coverage required of WP:N and WP:BIO is. That said, a redirect to Michael Jackson (or an appropriate subsection of the same) would seem appropriate, since the pertinent information exists there already. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is wrong with that article? It's well referenced and informative, and the separated information is no harm for Wikipedia, especially when we speak about such an important person (Michael Jackson). Their relationship is very important for mapping of Jackson's life and the detailed information is useful for the readers. The circumstances of their common life are covered in notable media. If we delete this, we should delete half of Wikipedia. Btw, I'm not a big fan of Michael. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is that if it is an important part of Jackson's life, it should be in one of Jackson's articles, and indeed is detailed in Michael Jackson itself. The issue here isn't the existence of information, but whether she has notability of her own (since notability is WP:NOTINHERITED) sufficient to justify an entire biography on her. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any relevant information into Michael Jackson, and probably a redirect there. The section on the second marriage seems to be the place for the information to go. It seems that nothing notable apart from the marriage has been done by the individual. -- Casmith_789 (talk) 13:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Paul75 raises an interesting point, that she has no notable "existence" outside of her relationship to Jackson and the kids, but I think Ms. Rowe is notable because of the power she has to create news. Her actions regarding the kids will be under intense media scrutiny, no matter what she does. That is power - the power to create a media frenzy at will. That kind of power IS notable. So I, for one would disagree with the statement that "notability is not inheritable." It certainly is.

Let's take Prince Harry as an example. This guys notability is exclusively inherited! But, you might say, he's a prince. So what. He's not the first or even the second in line to the throne. His title itself does not give him any powers. But his actions have the potential to create newsworthy events, to cause a media frenzy. If he goes to a costume party wearing a Nazi swastika armband, the world takes notice. My and your actions do not wake up the world - we're not notable.

By extension, Debbie Rowe's actions also have that power, and that makes her notable. So do Jackson's kids, for the very same reason.

Another example are the pages and pages of entries devoted to the people related to the death of Anna Nicole Smith. There is a page for Howard K. Smith, who has no notability outside of his relationship to her. There is a very long entry about her son, Daniel. There is an entry for Larry Birkhead. These people have no notability whatsoever outside of their relationship to Smith. But they still have entries because they were newsworthy. So is Ms. Rowe, and the kids. Jgroub (talk) 14:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument supports the notion that she has no notability outside of her realtionship with Michael Jackson, and thus fails the relevant clause of our notability guidelines for people. I feel you are muddling up the real-world and Wikipedian definitions of notability, which are not the same. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't feel terribly strongly about it but I do feel that it deserves to be kept. She's very much in the public eye at the moment, especially with the whole custody battle just around the corner. Tris2000 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a policy or guideline that you can cite in support of retention? At the moment, people are saying that she is not notable because her "fame" such as it is, is derived from Michael Jackson, and notability is not inherited. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, and giving birth to two children allegedly fathered by a celebrity is not sufficient to justify an encyclopedia article. Absent the giving birth and the marriage, she would definitely not have an article, Appropriate to mention her in an article about Jackson, since that its the basis of any press coverage. Fails WP:BIO.
Strong Keep She has a notable life story which has been covered by the mainstream media. I made a comment to my wife while we were watching the (neverending) news coverage of the Jackson story that, "She is the only person in the story that we are allowed to hate." I feel that lots of people do hate her. I will not go so far as to say that this includes WP editors (whom I don't know), but hate her or not she is notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you indicate to me which part of the notability guidelines says that we can include an individual if they are hated by somebody? Also, you said to your wife that she can be hated because she was being covered as part of the Michael Jackson story - that means she was being discussed by the mainstream media only as related to Michael Jackson, and notability is not inherited. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Adolf Hitler was only notable because of his relationship to other people. Darn I just lost the argument. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Notability isn't inherited" is a slogan that tends to get thrown around without a second thought. She is notable only for her connection to Michael Jackson, it's true, but I find lots of independent, third party press coverage of Debbie Rowe; and these are articles about her, not MJ. Being known only for a connection to a notable person cannot always be a disqualifier, otherwise we'd have no entries like, for example, Michelle Obama. Hairhorn (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, talking about someone who holds some vaguely official position (First Lady of the United States) is admittedly getting into tricky territory because she can only hold that position through her husband. I'd contend that there are sources about Michelle doing things on her own, independently of her husband, whilst Rowe has done little of note that isn't intricately bound up with Jackson even in the sources that exist. But we'll descend into an argument about Obama if we go down this route, which won't be profitable :) Fritzpoll (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a better example is Michelle before the election, when she didn't hold any office (but still had a wiki page). If I were more clever I could think of a better example... Hairhorn (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - I still think it's a dicey way to argue because of the old "other stuff exists" chestnut, because (before the election) I might have found myself able to argue for deletion on the "not inherited" line of argument as well (I don't know, I never reviewed it in the slightest). Fritzpoll (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I complained about this being a slogan, it was used in a much more bizarre way. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. WP:NOTINHERITED is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and this is a good example of why it should not be policy or guideline. Rowe meets the basic requirements of WP:N by a country mile. Maybe even a country light-year. Notability may not be "inherited," but that doesn't mean that the "heir" of a notable person can't develop independent notability. Paris Hilton would have been ignored by the media if she weren't the child of notable parents, but that didn't make her non-notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better link into a guideline with the same essential meaning is WP:NRVE - the notion of non-inheritability is contained therein, and merely expounded upon in NOTINHERITED, which, as you say is simply part of an essay. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. Very notable public figure. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She was non-notable before she married Jackson and her notability is based solely on the fact that she bore him children (who don't get their own articles because of lack of notability, they get a group article or redirects). That's not notable. Almost all coverage I've read about her stems from her notable husband. Becoming an oddity by marrying a notable oddity doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many Ghits over 4.7 million are found in the search [15]. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how many of those hits are items about Jackson and Rowe gets mentioned in it? How many are blogs, fan sites and forums? Come on dude, big numbers don't prove anything? Aside from the fact that Debbie Rowe isn't an incredibly unique name (I went to high school with a Debbie Rowe), when I searched Google for "Debbie Rowe" and excluded "Michael Jackson", that 4.7 million dropped to 280,000 right off the bat.[16] And the top Ghit for that? A photographer by that name. Others in the top 10 results: " Is Debbie Rowe an absolute pig face? - Yahoo! Answers", some blogs and linkedln. Yeah, I can see the notability already. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In Google, there are over 34,900,000 hits in this search, also 21,900,000 in Yahoo. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GOOGLEHITS, "a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." WWGB (talk) 03:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that typing "Debbie Rowe" -jackson into Google leads to under 200K hits. 2help (message me) 05:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- You have to focus your search using quotation marks and +/- signs. And look at those results.....from those esteemed sources like bitchpleaz.com, everyonelovesascandal.com and hollywoodbackwash.com. You also fail to take into account that the AP does a story, 100 papers publish it and you get 101 returns on it. Saying the same exact thing 101 times doesn't make you more notable. The yahoo search? Return #1: Wikipedia. Again, look at how much the numbers plunge when you remove his name from it. Without his fame, she'd be another dental hygenist you never heard of. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that Wikipedia is the #1 search result for some topic has nothing to do with its notability or non-notability either way. The #1 Yahoo! search result for "Texas" is Wikipedia. The #1 Yahoo! search result for "Bill Clinton" is Wikipedia. On the other hand, Wikipedia might also be the #1 search result for some nonsense word a junior high school student added to Wikipedia yesterday (hypothetical example -- I'm not going to bother to search for one). The question for AfD is whether the topic has sufficient coverage outside Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if someone can explain something she has done that is notable other than "marry" Michael Jackson in a sham marriage and given birth to two children, then I'm all for keeping the article. She has failed all notability requirements for Wikipedia, no matter what the rest of the media say about her. Paul75 (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit like asking why Neal Armstrong is notable besides as a pilot and astronaut who went to the moon? ChildofMidnight (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the wifes of presidents? Bib (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because Neil Armstrong was the first human being to walk on the moon. That is fairly notable. If you see this acheivement as equal to a sham marriage with Michael Jackson, then you need help. Paul75 (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided. I'm interested in the subject but think it should be merged into or made a sub of M. Jackson's bio.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While granting that the subject is only famous because she married Michael Jackson and is the mother of two of his children, the publicity associated with her doing these things is so extensive that it warrants having an article about her in Wikipedia. While notability is usually not inherited, once in a while it can be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Metro makes an excellent point. I think the extensive media coverage warrants an article, although that will not be true in a year. For now, many people will be coming to Wikipedia for info on her, separate from MJ. For the sake of convenience, let the article stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.23.147 (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Who is going to be raising his kids? Do they have their own articles? Let's not give anyone an excuse to make Michael's article any bigger than it has to be.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At least until further court orders, Michael's mother Katherine Jackson will have custody of Michael's children, and she has her own article, even though she is notable primarily for her relationship to her celebrity children. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I figured it would be some other family members. Nevertheless, anything to give information about the kids some other place to go.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sad to say, she has had extensive media coverage as a well-documented celebrity. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked to see if the kids had an article, and it seems to be in more trouble than this one. But the information will have to go somewhere.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly. As per Vchimp, Bearian and others. She is definitely notable by Wikipedia standards IMO, but the recentism and vaguely speculative media coverage don't help. Though as time passes the importance of much of the article's content might decine, just her having fathered a child of Jackson's warrants inclusion in some way. —Coralmizu (Mizu onna sango15)^{Drop a line} 07:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, the WP:NOTINHERITED thing is a fine argument if there's nothing else to make her notable. It keeps wikipedia from spreading to cover everyone who ever knew anyone famous. But this woman has received widespread coverage in legitimate media. Sometimes, I think, you can if you are closely associated with someone of certain degree of fame, that you gain a degree of notoriety all your own. Ask Monica Lewinski. CarbonX (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep, Clearly a large figure in the media and has been for well over a decade. Article is plainly notable for encyclopedic purposes. Per above as well. Additionally, the consensus above is pretty clear. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An enyclopdic and well sourced article that meets WP:GNG. Her prior relationship with the deceased musician made it easier, yes... but the coverage meets the inclusion criteria and is now her own. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Michael Jackson because Notability is not inherited and to protect Rowe's privacy. In these cases we should be really careful with Wikipedia:Libel because it's WP:BLP. Algébrico (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There are a lot of larger issues of parentage and custody involved in her case which have and probably will continue to make news and its helpful if a (better written) article clarifies these for those who will come looking for the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 17 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 (G3). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Ace Orense[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ace Orense

This is weird. The article appears to be a biography of someone named "Ace Orense", but it bases everything on religious original research. Goes on about Jesus in a spaceship appearing in May 2007 to this guy and other (similar) complete bogus. The only claim to notability appears to be the aforementioned original research. Article is completely unreferenced. I can't make much sense of it myself, so I'm taking it here. —LedgendGamer 08:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy DELETE Nonsense hoax. Teapotgeorge^Talk 08:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3 - hoax. --Oscarthecat (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 13:56, 10 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) · @181 · 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enoch Cronin[edit]

I feel that this person isn't notable, but that isn't the main concern. The concern is if you google this person YOU GET NOTHING. This person doesn't deserve to have a page because this guy obvious is not a notable actor Fire 55 (talk) 06:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per no Ghits found in first few pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:BLP. A search under all the names offered in the article find nothing that can substantiate the assertions of notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the above !votes. Iowateen (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is a non-notable person. Brian Reading (talk) 22:18, 13 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. WP:SPA nonsense. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tropicana Casino and Resort Atlantic City[edit]

Just another non-notable casino that clogs up Wikipedia. Anyones Else For Nutley (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Um, your joking right? The Tropicana is very notable as is all of the other casino/hotels that are located in Atlantic City, New Jersey, I also question the this validity of User:Anyones Else For Nutley since they are a newbie and only created their account at 05:47GMT on 10 July 2009 and have no other edits on this or any other Wikipedia project, I think we should consider removing this Article for Deletion request instead of letting it go through the required 7 days. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 06:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow ball keep. Do we really need to explain why this is notable? If nothing else, the license revocation is notable. I undid the vandalism done to the article when it was tagged for nomination. Anyones Else For Nutley appears to be a single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete give me a break just because it lost their licence doesn't make them notable. Messing with sasquatch (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mention of the casinos are already made in the city's main page no need to have a separate article. Bandlsittinginatree (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as requested by nominated don't see any real reason it should be there. BostonBakedBeanBob (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Primarily because its commercialization. Amy and Kif Kroker (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Single purpose account. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suspect that these Single purpose accounts came from the same person or at least from the same IP address and should be excluded because it is apparent that someone is trying their hardest to have an article deleted that is notable and does not violate any of Wikipedia's criteria in fact it meets the criteria. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I smell sockpuppets. Article is sufficiently referenced and appears notable. —LedgendGamer 07:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, claims of being the largest in its state are sufficient alone. P.S., I really enjoyed the parade of redlinks above: really creative, if single-sided, thinking :)) NVO (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepErrr... how is it non-notable?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 08:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. What's that smell? Someone's dirty socks? Subject is clearly notable in any case. ReverendWayne (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keepRcurtis5 (talk) 14:30, 10 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. Nominator has withdrawn but I think this discussion has been open long enough for a full "keep". (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Londonstani[edit]

Article on non-notable book (per WP:NB) mostly consisting of a plot summary. Nableezy (talk) 05:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to passing admin (or anyone else capable and interested): Nominator has agreed to withdraw the AfD--see message on my talk page. Thanks, and thanks to the nominator, Drmies (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to do it, but delete. It's available at major libraries (King County Library System has at least a dozen]], but that's all it has. Worldcat shows many results. Unfortunately, a library search doesn't make it meet WP:NB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to Keep per improvements. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per WP:IINFO. --Jza84 | Talk

- Keep satisfied by recent improvements to page. --Jza84 | Talk 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gautam Malkani, the author. Enough notability (substantial coverage in reliable source) for book and author to warrant including together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad article, and possibly a bad book, but it was noticed plenty and should be plenty notable. A Google News search delivers dozens and dozens of hits for reviews and articles from very reputable sources (Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph, Washington Post, LA Times...), and Google Books shows a number of books have already cited and discussed this work (one of those entries is indexed by the MLA also: Mitchell, Michael: "Escaping the Matrix: Illusions and Disillusions of Identity in Gautam Malkani's Londonstani (2006)" In (pp. 329-340) Eckstein, Lars (ed. and introd.); Korte, Barbara (ed. and introd.); Pirker, Eva Ulrike (ed. and introd.); Reinfandt, Christoph (ed. and introd.) , Multi-Ethnic Britain 2002+: New Perspectives in Literature, Film and the Arts. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Rodopi, 2008.). Clearly this was a novel that had an impact. Did I say keep already? Please reconsider, all you deleters... Drmies (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of books are reviewed by a lot of reputable sources, I do not see how having the book reviewed by sources makes it a notable book per WP:NB nableezy - 06:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, they are, and those books are notable. The very first point of WP:NB says: "The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." If you took the time to look at the sources found using that Google search you would see that this requirement is easily met--and the other naysayers should realize the same thing. To use your own words, which I can now put in the affirmative, "having the book reviewed by sources makes it a notable book per WP:NB." How would you argue that an entire chapter in an academic book published by Rodopi Publishers does not count a reliable source?
    In fact, WP:BEFORE urges you to "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Well, they exist and I had no trouble finding them. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually saw those reviews, thought they fell under trivial works. If that is not the case I have no problem withdrawing the AfD. nableezy - 07:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to be that the sources found by Drmies speak for themselves in this article. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely meets our notability criteria. Ladyof Shalott 03:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as keep. Obviously meets notability guidelines. Bongo matic 09:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly notable, and the article covers much more than a plot summary now. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:33, 15 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. Nominator has changed vote to keep and no other delete votes are present. Smashville^talk 18:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telestream[edit]

Bundling in this editor's other recently created pages. There are probably more:

By WP:COMPANY criteria, Telestream appears to be a non-notable software company that does not need its own encyclopedia article. References given in the article (blood drive, volunteer fire department support) in no way demonstrate notability. Company does make one well-known software title (Flip4Mac), but as far as I know, in Wikipedia, notability is not inherited.

As far as I can tell, the contributions of the article's primary editor have been directed to increasing the exposure of Telestream and its products. --Tetromino (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you can say that Telestream is not a notable company. Have you looked at some of their partners? Here is a short list of some you may know: Avid, Pinnacle, Sony, Dolby Digital, Real Networks, HP, IBM, Kodak, and Microsoft. I realize that they have one big product, which is Flip4Mac, but I believe that the other products are just as good; maybe not as well know as Flip4Mac, but still good. Please let me know why you have a problem with these pages, it can't just be because you haven't heard of the company, is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballplyr86 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how Telestream satisfies the criteria in WP:COMPANY. In particular, have a look at the "Primary criteria" section. Has Telestream (the company itself, not just Flip4Mac) received significant, non-trivial, and non-press-release coverage in national or international media? Are there books, TV specials, or scientific articles that talk about the company? As far as I can tell (I googled a bit), the answer is no. IMHO, a short article in a county newspaper about a blood drive cannot serve to establish notability. Tetromino (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw my hat in the ring on this discussion. Flip4Mac is and always has been a product of Telestream the company. Historically a perception existed that Flip4Mac was a company unto itself, which is untrue. In short, no Telestream = no Flip4Mac. Therefore, since it is software, and not a company, and the company that makes it has literally millions of customers and users, by definition Telestream has merit and is notable, just based on the following:

Quoting from WP:COMPANY:

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations."

So, according to this entry, entertainment is a valid area of notability and size should have no bearing. Therefore, on this basis alone, the Telestream article should stand.

From MacWorldNews

It took Telestream six years after its founding in 1998 to cook up an Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) application, but some 15 million Mac owners are glad it did.

But we will go farther and post references from secondary sources that support notability for Telestream, especially our industry firsts for product development in video capture and transcoding. Please hold our pages out of Speedy Delete mode. This will give us enough time to show how Telestream and it's products are notable and will hold their own, using the primary criteria as a guide.
--Mcwikits (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC) — Mcwikits (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Mcwikits makes the point that I wanted to make. I and millions of people who use Telestream's products (including Flip4Mac) on an everyday basis would say that it is notable. I understand not wanting to allow random, unknown companies and software to be able to advertise or whatever on Wikipedia, but I believe that we have a strong case to keep these pages, and we are not alone. I was talking to an admin, User:Graeme Bartlett, and he said,

"There seems to be a strong case for Telestream to be kept."

on his talk page,User talk:Graeme Bartlett. I would like to know what Tetromino thinks about what has been posted here. I have been doing my best to and more credible sources to the Telestream page, and also all of it's product pages that are also up for deletion.--Ballplyr86 (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Telestream article has been improved, and all three articles (Telestream, Episode/Episode Pro and Episode Engine) now have references to reliable sources demonstrating notability. Ballplyr86, thank you for doing this work. I now vote for Keep. Although I had nominated the articles for deletion, I believe that an admin will need to close the discussion.--Tetromino (talk) 03:58, 15 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) · @181 · 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Lenora Borden[edit]

Delete. Not notable in own right, notability is not inherited from family member per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Family and WP:NOTINHERITED. Also fails WP:SOURCES. WWGB (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emma is notable, if not as notorious as her sister. When in 2008 a second picture of Emma as an adult was found, it was newsworthy.[17]. Given how few known pictures there are of her, the number of image results in Google for her is surprisingly high.[18]. As recently as 1984, and probably more recently, people have been publishing theories that she was the true criminal. (See page 286 of [19]) She is still a subject of scholarly discourse. GRBerry 16:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per GRBerry. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 11 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bhai Sahib Satpal Singh Khalsa[edit]

I've been watching this article for a while after tagging for notability and as unsourced BLP, but my tags keep getting removed without addressing any concerns. I've searched a bit to find any resources to back up the tall claims within the article, but nothing at all. There's one trivial mention in the Indian Express and that's all in reliable source news coverage. There's mention in a local Indian journal in LA, caption on photo, so nothing significant, and the two pieces on the website in the external links section aren't exactly newspieces, but event stories. Otherwise, ghits are blogs and event reviews. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Google search under "news," "books," and "scholar" and there is absolutely no mention of this person. Also, the article itself contains no secondary sources. Delete as non-notable. Renee (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not the sort of topic where psources are likely to be found with google. What other sources did you try? DGG (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (and response to DGG). My focus on searches has been the honors and accomplishments within the article:

1 - NRI Gold medal award by the British High Commission. If I use the search string as a whole or in piecemeal, the only hit is this particular article; British HC events are generally covered by the media in India.

2 - Bhai Saheb title is conferred by the Jathedar of the Akal Takht and can be a bit difficult to track, however, a search on Gbooks and Gnews shows that many others were conferred the honorific.

3 - Knighthood - the only hits I get are Wikipedia and mirrors including this Boston Univ Theology page

4 - Congressional recognition from Rep Berkley/Sen Reid - these are likely letters of commendation from individuals, so no coverage on Gnews and nothing on the Congressional pages of either of them.

In addition, as far as general notability for a living person, there's one reference in Indian Express which quotes him in a large article, that's all I've been able to find. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed in the full Honours lists for both the Birthday [20] and New Year's [21] honours for 2007 that he was not included-neither for a knighthood or a lesser honour-nor would it seem reasonable that he would be DGG (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @199 · 03:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:24, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M95 Gas Mask[edit]

IMO this article does not meet the relevance criteria, because it is not specified why this gas mask should be on any significance or importance to have an article on it Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:57, 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, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete exactly per nom, there's nothing to denote any significance of this product over any other. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @199 · 03:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication it satisfies WP:N Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information , nor is it a directory of Finnish military gadgets. In which war did this gas mask play an important role? Edison (talk) 05:04, 10 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 as heading to speedy keep. LibStar (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl-Fredrik Algernon[edit]

fails WP:BIO. lack of significant third party coverage [22]. whilst rear admiral is a high naval rank, that in itself isn't enough to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject was not just a rear admiral, they were a lead investigator in the Bofors scandal who died violently during the investigation. There appear to be several independant sources available on GBooks. [23] Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Edward321. /Slarre (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Completely nonsensical nomination! Rear Admiral, head of an indepenent government agency, and one of the figures in a much publicised scandal. Absolutly no lack of sources. "Sources" is not equal to googling for English language online sources. Tomas e (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please assume good faith, google news includes some (but not all) foreign language sources. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Edward321. Iowateen (talk) 03:37, 12 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 Habbo. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Habbo China[edit]

Non notable website that isnt even up anymore. Why is this any more notable then other countries's Habbo? Blake (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Seems like it should be redirected to the main Habbo article. And anythign worthwhile included there? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-I dont think there is anything worth putting in the Habbo article, but I agree that it should redirect. I was just wondering if that one reference about it closing due to the economy in China was enough to keep the article alive. --Blake (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say Merge and redirect. if there is anything worth merging. It seems well written, I would hate to waste it. I feel that Habbo deserves an article. However, Habbo China does not. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:27, 11 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) · @180 · 03:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria–Malta relations[edit]

neither country has an embassy. a lack of third party coverage of actual bilateral relations mainly multilateral especially previous coverage of both being new entrants to EU [24], and a state visit in 2001 [25] does not make for 1 article. LibStar (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not likely to be notable any time soon. Preslav (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No actual notability about the relationship between the countries. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability asserted, implied, sourced, found, or likely. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage secondary sources = fails WP:GNG = delete. QED. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources discuss these relations. Fails WP:GNG. Johnuniq (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice the rescue tag has again be placed on this with zero attempt to improve article. LibStar (talk) 03:05, 16 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. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr P.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr P.C.

This does not have any real assertion of notability and is much too promotional in tone. It was written by one "User:RightFirmRightNow" who appears to be a COI. Triplestop x3 02:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising. One could also argue this as an A7 speedy. I really don't see any assertion of notability. Reso lute 02:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely advertising spam. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Bobak (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 01:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mia (Days of Our Lives)[edit]

This article does not cite any real world sources, and fails to meet general notability guidelines. ~~Suggest merging it with Minor characters of Days of our Lives~~ There is already a section on this character at Minor characters of Days of Our Lives . Rm994 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom merge to Minor characters of Days of our Lives. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 06:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Nominator wants a merge, this is not the right venue for that. Edward321 (talk) 14:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has clarified that there is enough info at Minor characters of Days of Our Lives that they feel there is no need to merge. Thus, I am stiking my previous comment. Edward321 (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms revised statement; already covered. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above … listing at Minor characters of Days of Our Lives is sufficient … Happy Editing! — 138.88.7.48 (talk · contribs) _{14:04, 14 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. Cirt (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outlook Festival[edit]

Contested prod. Spammy article that claims this festival is the biggest of its kind, but its kind doesn't sound very notable either. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and mention in Dubestep article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @135 · 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A redirect and mention in the Dubestep article might be a good idea if any reliable sources at all can be found. The leftorium 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that said article has just been deleted. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What article are you talking about? I meant this one. The leftorium 09:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Leftoriuym and Child of Midnight have both misspelled dubstep as "dubestep" -- Whpq (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently selective-consensus is that festivals with only 1 Ref are Notable. But that is not my opinion. No significant RS's = no Article. Merge what you like to dubstep. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 19:48, 15 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 blatant advertising. Technically, the G4 request did not apply as this version was substantially different than the other, but the majority of this article was designed as a promotion, and spent more time promoting the company's founder than it did the company itself. Reso lute 03:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insite Security[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This thing has been spammed and speedied 5 times. Creator posted it today at an alternate title and Quadell moved it here over protection/salting without realizing it. Can we please have an AfD to get this gone once and for all. No evidence whatsoever it's notable or passes WP:CORP. StarM 02:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ETA also deleted at afd once before. StarM 02:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt Reposted page; tagged as such. Triplestop x3 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But...but...it has a YouTube reference! Delete for good. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 10 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 Jedi Prince. There is a strong consensus among the uninvolved editors in this discussion that this character has insufficient notability to warrant an independent article; and should be redirected accordingly. I have left the edit history intact to allow a selective merge of content; but that fact should not be taken as a license to revert the redirect again without gaining consensus to do so - the redirect will be protected if it becomes necessary. ~ mazca ^talk 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trioculus[edit]

Plot summary and original research for a marginally significant character. No sources independent from the franchise/licensee indicate any notability. Teeny blurb of marginal interest ("greatest moment" thing) can be sufficiently covered in List of Star Wars characters, which is appropriate target for Trioculus to redirect to -- but the topic itself fails WP:GNG, the content failing WP:OR and WP:PLOT. --EEMIV (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized the article is a blatant copyrig violation from Wookieepedia. I've restored the earlier redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 10:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've forgotten the templates to smack down to close an AfD -- which seems appropriate here, since there's no earlier non-copyvio article history subject to discussion. If someone can go ahead and close this... --EEMIV (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the redirect, which inadvertently conceals the AfD notice. Frankly, getting this article removed, rather than having the blatant copyvio exist in the background (and beneath the redirect), seems a far better avenue of pursuit, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:CP. When a copyvio exists, the preferred course (when available) is to revert to a previous non-copyvio version. I've *again* restoring the redirect. Since my earlier post asking for someone to apply to AfD closure templates apparently wasn't clear enough: consider this a withdrawal of the AfD nom, since AfD isn't necessary. --EEMIV (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing the nom here and putting it up for CSD. --EEMIV (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You might want to set a link to that CSD here, so that folk following the chain of events can be clearly led to the appropriate forum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed the speedy, as wookiepedia is creative commons licence thingy. I've added the attribution. I think it would be best to let this AfD run. That said, if I've misunderstood the copyvio/licensing from wikia, then it's speedy deletable. Ged UK 19:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The character on this article is notable and should be kept. He is as notable as Jacen Solo or Thrawn just some peple don't see this as seeing they have very biased views which shouldn't come into Wikipedia. Plus characters on here like Jacen Solo isn't very notable so I don't know why that's up. Plus if there is anything wrong on the article, I'm sure any one can help to fix it. --Victory93 (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this character from my opinion is notable. He is somehow what shaped the Star Wars universe to which was the birth of the Imperial Warlords. The only reason why people (not including authors or any official Star Wars people) say he's not notable due to the series not having much popularity like the Thrawn series and all those. So yes, this article should stay and as I can see is bit too long so someone could clearly help to fix the article. --Trioculus1 (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) — Trioculus1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Wow, your very first edit, and you came here to vote on the article already? Hmm, am I the only one who finds this somewhat...suspect? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know, I should do something else besides butt in this argument. Just that this guy here on this article is one of my favs and I beleive he's notable. --Trioculus1 (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::I am not sure you are qualified to render an opinion on the matter, seeing as you've been here less than 24 hours. Your first votes are curious in that they seem to follow - almost immediately - those of another user, Victory93. I am sure someone else will ask the question, but I am going to ask you to review our extremely strict policy regarding sock- and meat-puppetry. If, after reading those, you wish to redact your votes and comments, little else will come of it. If you wish not to , certain processes will be set in motion that will have some unfortunate consequences. Please read those polcies I linked and act quickly. Consider this your sole notice in the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jedi Prince; seems an obvious choice. Is a deletion discussion really necessary? Powers ^T 13:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um no. This character is a major character in the Star Wars universe. From what I've seen reading the Jedi Prince series, he's as major as like Issard and Thrawn but strange that there isn't an article about Issard. Plus if were to be redirect (which I hope not) should redirect to the T section on the Star Wars character list page. --Trioculus1 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, he's not. Unlike Thrawn, his impact on subsequent stories has been virtually nil, to the point where retcons were necessary just to keep him part of the EU. And it's not strange that Issard doesn't have an article, because only the most notable Star Wars characters have articles. Thrawn has an entire trilogy named after him, the events of which have repercussions throughout the EU. Issard is a step down, and Trioculus is even farther below her. As for the redirect target, since he really only appeared in the one series, the article on that series seems the most appropriate redirect. Regardless, my point stands that deletion is wholly unnecessary because there will need to be a redirect of some sort. Powers ^T 02:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject isn't notable, and largely copied from other sources. The particulars of the article and the subsequent defenses of it by brand new SPA's stink to high heaven. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge as usual. Agreed that he isn't nearly notable enough for an individual article. But he's still worth a mention--how long or short I leave to other people.. None of the arguments for deletion explain why there should not be even that. DGG (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic is already sufficiently covered at the List of... No content here worth merging; no need to retain edit history. --EEMIV (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Yeah, DGG - sorry for not having mentioned that. There isn't anything in the article that isn't either a copyvio or covered in the List article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So just redirect it. Why bother with a deletion? Powers ^T 13:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Well, I've no problem with that, save for the vestigial information that in essence a cut-n-paste copyvio. We could simply delete all the contents, remove the edit history, and then redirect it, but that seems like a lot more work than deleting the article and subsequently creating a simple redirect. My concern is the copyvio being presented by an accused sockpuppet set. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is a copyvio, then it should be speedily deleted and a redirect can be created in its place. Powers ^T 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did redirect it, several times. A tendentious editor continued restoring the content, so I brought it here for quick, time-constrained community input. --EEMIV (talk) 14:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't actually want it deleted? Powers ^T 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plopped in the redirect as an alternative to deletion. Because that didn't stick, screw the alternatives; yes, I wanted it deleted. There is no content worth retaining or merging. --EEMIV (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @115 · 01:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partial merge and redirect to Jedi Prince as this character lacks real-world notability, is very poorly cited, and is full of original research. Some of this information still belongs on Wikipedia, hence the partial merge, but most of this is beyond the scope of reliable sourcing. Them From Space 06:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, preferably to Jedi Prince but List of Star Wars characters works as well. To my knowledge, Trioculus doesn't come up in any significant way outside the Jedi Prince series, which itself is a youth-oriented series that is not particularly significant or even referenced much in other Expanded Universe works. Thus, he falls pretty short of the notability bar I'd expect for a Star Wars character article on WP. No reason to delete a viable search term though (and hopefully an AfD consensus to redirect would help to make it stick this time). BryanG (talk) 21:27, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxley gin[edit]

I removed the spam tag, as I don't see any advertisement anywhere, but don't think it fits under any criteria (possible hoax though). I'm assuming this is a home-made recipe. Not notable, Gsearched it and found no relevant searches. Zoo Fari 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hard to classify though. -Falcon8765 (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam, probably copied verbatim from a press release or other promotional material. I recommend adding Cold Distillation to this AfD, since it's clearly related spam for the same nonnotable product. Despite a single report in a possibly reliable source, both articles fail WP:NOTADVERTISING and WP:N. Deor (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it also appears to be original research seeing that the POV is not neutral. There is some WP:HOWTO involved as well. Zoo Fari 15:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the nominator's removal of the ((db-spam)) tag, this still looks like blatant advertising to me, and there is no attempt at showing notability through third-party publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks All for your comments and concerns on this page. I'm keen to make appropriate changes so that information on Oxley Gin can be published. Oxley is a gin, a new product and therefore new brand which is now available to buy in small quantities in the UK and the US.
We have published a press release, which states similar things as i have added to the wikipedia text in debate, but this is all correct.
Recipe 38 is the recipe of the gin, this section of the text was intended to provide more information on the make up of the gin and how it is produced.
Being a new product, there are very few other online references to it, other than links to purchase in and some press coverage we have got. I'd appreciate your comments on what else can i add or change to improve the text. Thanks Tomjefferies —Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 15 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. Cirt (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World peace festival berlin 2010[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTALBALL Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nope. It's real. Notability, I am not certain of, however. Reso lute 03:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although this event is real, it isn't scheduled to take place until more than a year from now, and even when it does occur it may not be notable. Going by the general notability guideline, since this event has received hardly any coverage from independent reliable sources so far, the article should be deleted at least for now. If the festival does attain notability in the future, the article can be re-created (preferably under the title World Peace Festival). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I call crystalballitis. No references, nothing, a few sentences saying this is going to happen and it's gonna be great. I want to call speedy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:06, 10 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. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Li[edit]

This pianist may become notable in the future. But for now the article fails WP:MUSICBIO (the competitions are not "major") and the WP:GNG (see Google news archive search for relevant period which does not demonstrate any nontrivial coverage). Not that WP:COI is an argument for deletion (it isn't), but it is worth noting that the article was created by a user who claims to be the subject's father. Bongo matic 01:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A promising young pianist, but no major competitions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A very talented young man. But I don't think he's established notability as a musician yet that is sufficient to meet our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--the kid played at Carnegie Hall, and that's not enough? Look, Miles Davis may have played there, but he never got to perform for Martha Stewart! I sense a conspiracy. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess when you compare articles to Claw Boys Claw and the articles on their albums you're starting with the lowest conceivable standard for notability. But are you suggesting that everyone who has ever performed at Carnegie Hall and on Martha Stewart is notable? Perhaps you can add that to the GNG guidelines... If he had appeared on Lingo (Dutch game show) that would be a whole different story. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:36, 14 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 A7 - no assertion of notability. Reso lute 03:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nestor velazquez[edit]

Possible Hoax? If not, non-notable. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability - could have been speedied for lack of content too imho. A quick google search does show a reference, but it only lists him for minor leagues. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg | log ] 01:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Non-notable person. Agree with user above. MS (Talk|Contributions) 01:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence or even claim of notability. JJL (talk) 02:14, 10 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:G3 by User:Parsecboy--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World war zoo[edit]

Possible Hoax? Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 00:55, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ontd ai[edit]

Non-notable web forum; violates WP:ADVERT; WP:WEB' WP:SPAM mhking (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community is actually very notable as one of the largest spinoffs from ontd_proper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.176.28 (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non notable group. Most of the sources are primary, most of the remainder are blogs and the two remaining don't mention the group at all. I42 (talk) 16:31, 4 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) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since there are no references that establish this even remotely as a encyclopedic topic. A speedy is indeed still possible, I think. Drmies (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete on A7 (web). Only thigns that tote notability are the blog page itself - the Livejournal community. Apparently, some celeb from American Idol sees it. That's it. This doesn't make an LJ community notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:32, 10 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. BJ^Talk 19:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jetset (video game)[edit]

Seemingly fails to meet notability guidelines, has had templates pointing to that for quite a while, but was still left dangling. I couldn't readily find any information about this program in a web search. LjL (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A1. No information on platform, publisher or author; therefore the subject cannot be identified. Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - googling throws up references tyo it as a programme distributed as a listing in BYTE magazine around 1979 [26][27]. It's possibly historical importance as the first PC Flight simulator is also mentioned. I've thrown a Rescue tag on to the article, with the hope that more sources can be found and that it can be properly expanded. Artw (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice hunting. But as a type-in program it's unlikely to have any reliable third-party verification. The Moby Games submission claims that its publication date was November 1982? I remember typing the BASIC code for this into my ZX Spectrum :> Marasmusine (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My third link had the 1979 link, but got rejected as a spam site. :-( And of course none of those links are actually usable as refs). It appears to have been reprinted a number of times, which adds to the confusion, and It seems to have also gone under the names 747 and Jet Simulator Electronic Trainer. Theres some documentation for it here from a 1982 BYTE, and a bunch of mentions on messageboards, but I'm yet to turn up something that nails down 1979. I'll do another ound of googling tonight. Artw (talk) 18:43, 8 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) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and figure out appropriate merge target. Doesn't need to be lost from flight sim history. Just needs to worked in appropriately somewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is it part of flight simulation history at all? Was it influential on subsequent flight simulation software in any way? Was it often cited as an example (doesn't seem so if I have to judge from the scarcity of references on thge web)? Also, what sense does it make to "keep" and "merge" an article that's barely one sentence? If information about this game needs to be moved into another article, one may as well rewrite. --LjL (talk) 13:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevance of anything like this needs anchoring with secondary sources, if nobody else has written about the significance of this program and slotted it into the history of the genre then we can't do it ourselves. There are numerous books and magazines which delve into the history of video games, and what they uncover is what the focus should be on. No evidence of notability due to the lack of secondary sources, not a potential merge since nothing has been verified. Someone another 22:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a reference to it from the Sydney Morning Herald in the 80s: [28] Fences&Windows 23:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%2BJetset%20%22flight%20simulator%22%20&um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&sa=N&tab=sp. Fences&Windows 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - obviously, it's difficult to find sources for such an old and obscure computer game. Bearing that in mind, I think the references found by Fences & Windows above are sufficient to keep this stub. It's pretty borderline, but the references show that it did at least exist; and theoretically this article could be expanded to say more about it. Robofish (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who nominated this article for deletion wishes to Withdraw the nomination.
Uninvolved editors are asked to review the debate and close it as Nomination Withdrawn.
It seems that some users have found some (weak) references, and although I don't believe the references that have been found assert notability in any way, I'd like to give interested people more time to research this for now. Thanks, LjL (talk) 21:48, 16 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 00:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yancey E. Lovelace[edit]

Unsourced WP:BLP. No verifiable notability. Contested PROD by OE with no reason given and no improvement. Wperdue (talk) 00:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Of no interest whatsoever. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 10 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, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Vicera[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vanessa Vicera

An earnest but ultimately non-notable person, ghits dont seem to show any achievements since 2004 plus all the text, which hasn't been updated since last November is a clear CopyVio from www.acs-england.co.uk/student_life/peaceprize/winner_04.htm. Was speedied and then tags removed MNewnham (talk) 04:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has a long way to go, but it has potential and the person is notable in that she has started a project and is a philanthropist. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:23, 10 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) 00:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, commendable what she has done, not notable. I could only find trivial mentions on Gnews and in local news. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We're not here to fluff a commendable college student's resume. Award is great; good for subject. Hope she proves me wrong some day. Would like to hear from page creator, whose only two edits are to this page. BusterD (talk) 13:12, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before My End[edit]

What makes this band notable? Cannibaloki 04:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. I'm not seeing them meet any of the requirements. Tavix | Talk 20:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this band is notable because it meets at least one of the criteria for notability, mainly Section 7 of the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. Before My End has become the most prominent representative of the local scene in Selma, Alabama, which can be verified by this newspaper article. --Wmt814 (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This newspaper article sounds like an advertising with no encyclopedic content.--Cannibaloki 23:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BAND - if there's any other sources apart from a myspace page and a youtube video to prove me wrong then I could be swayed towards keep but I couldn't find the necessary multiple third party references Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may sound like advertising to you, but that is only your opinion. The article does have encyclopedic content, and I believe it shows that Before My End is the most prominent representative of the local scene in Selma.--Wmt814 (talk) 23:49, 6 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) 00:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I hate to say it, in this case, but Cannibaloki is right. One newspaper article does not significant coverage make (though I disagree with you here, Loki: it's good enough, but not enough), and I couldn't find anything in the local paper here either. But I'm getting the CD while I can. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done and for only $6! Loki, get yourself one! And come see the show on the 12th...you can stay at my place... Drmies (talk) 01:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are one of the most popular Death metal bands in Selma Alabama and they have their own Myspace page. I just watched them here [29] on Youtube. How is a band that rocks out like that non notable? 134 views already!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Put your money where your mouth is boy and order the CD. Loki, I see we have another fan, but you were here first so you get the futon. CoM, you're in the bunkbed, and my kid snores. But that is a fascinating video...sometimes two lights are bobbing up and down, sometimes one.... Drmies (talk) 03:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 08:29, 10 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Pay[edit]

Per the reasons that were listed in this PROD tag which was removed without any explanation. ╟─Treasury Tag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the profiles in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph linked from the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... the article has, of course, changed since I nominated it. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 19:37, 5 July 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, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources. Tavix | Talk 02:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, as evidence by the fact that she has been noted in the press. Does the nom.'s comment indicate an interest in withdrawal of the nom.? JJL (talk) 02:20, 10 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, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ventus Software[edit]

Prod was added and removed by same editor because I was working on article. It looked promising when I first googled the name of the product with over 1600 hits. After going through the list I ended up with one non-self published link. Even this one which i first thought was a review is just a reiteration of the software info and a place to add reviews. The rest of the hits are for a software company in Finland. Can not find anything to say that this product is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. All that I could turn up were directory entries like [30] and [31] -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 9 July 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 00:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 08:25, 10 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, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Corbin[edit]

He runs investment funds totaling $80 million (in 2001) according to BusinessWeek. God knows what they're worth now, but even the 2001 sum doesn't seem like a lot. Ghits few and rather generic. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is pretty much promotional, feels like the guy is tooting his own horn. Smells like WP:COI. Not much in ghits, and David Corbin could seemingly be anybody. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:30, 10 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. Fails the relevant notability guidelines due to a lack of substantial coverage. ~ mazca ^talk 17:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Holter[edit]

Non-notable vanity page, created by subject User talk:F1steveuk. Unreferenced, nothing to support notability beyond authorship of one out-of-print book. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no notability, no sources.--Talain (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:19, 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) 00:56, 3 July 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 00:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, one book published is not sufficient for notability. --Pgallert (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Iowateen (talk) 21:44, 10 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Card[edit]

lacks third party coverage [32]. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply searching for "hero card" gives a lot of irrelevant results, and searching only for "herocard" gives too few. The solution for a lack of sources is adding them, not deleting the article. For example:

San Jose Mercury News (behind paywall, but it's still coverage)

The Deseret News (paywall again)

[http://www.giszpenc.com/doc/thesis/noemi-giszpenc-ced-thesis.pdf Cooperation among Cooperatives: A System of Mutual Exchange in the Northeast] (A master's thesis)

Money

Organizing for community controlled development

.....etc. Hairhorn (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 05:38, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rewrite. The article feels promotional in its nature, so I don't quite consider it viable in its current state - ergo the rewrite. The paywall coverage is a start, but it's not really free - ergo the weak. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Mercury News —> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4182/is_19990406/ai_n10127842/

The Deseret News —> http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/04-97/04-27-97/f03bu278.htm — Rankiri (talk) 15:19, 10 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.