< 13 July 15 July >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consider discussing a merge on the appropriate talk pages. Shereth 16:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Van_Cat_Naming_Controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Van_Cat_Naming_Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This entry has been created as a pov fork to contain unsourced OR material of dubious quality that had been previously been removed from the Turkish Van entry [1]. The entry's creator was quite open about that being the sole reason (quote: "started page as resolution to dispute on Turkish Van page") for creating the entry. Meowy 00:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree slightly with the rename - it was members of the US and UK cat fancies, not the Turkish government, that called the cats Turkish Van (originally they were registered just as Turkish cats in the UK), to distinguish them from the Turkish Cat or Angora [1]. Although if it keeps the peace....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A "Van cat" and a "Turkish Van" are two different things: A "Turkish Van" is a specific breed of domestic cat found in the Americas and Europe, whose name was coined in the 1970s by cat fanciers, and whose quite precise breed standards and required pedigree are set by those fanciers. The "Van cat" is a domestic cat found in the Van region of present-day eastern Turkey and that has existed in that region for centuries. That is the true "naming controversy", not the fabricated content of the current article. I don't think there is anything in the current Naming Controversy article that is possible to merge with another article - even in its hacked-down state it's all low-grade, unsourced, OR, POV material. Meowy 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::I do see what you mean, however the article Turkish Van already confounds the two. It would perhaps be better to have one article on the Van cat, which references the "Turkish Van" and also discusses the current situation of the cat in its native region. And mentions the relationship between the native Van and the native Angora.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious flaws withing the two articles are not a reason to make the situation worse by merging them - a "Van cat" and a "Turkish Van" are two different things, so will continue to require two separate articles. Anyway, this is off-topic for this discussion. Returning to on-topic stuff, what content do you think is valid for a merge (be it into the Van Kedisi or the Turkish Van article)? The "some Kurds have referred to the Van as a "Kurdish cat", a symbol of Kurdistan, and even referred to it as the "Kurdish Van" rather than the officially endorsed name" claim is not valid content because it just comes from a blog. Nothing else in the article is actually about a "naming controversy". Opinions on the evolution of the domestic cat are off-topic for either article, and "The Van cat may therefore have a much more ancient origin than any of the current populations in the area" is just a pov claim made by a Wikipedia editor. Meowy 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've hacked it and read the other articles, here's pretty much nothing in this article that's worth keeping. The German cat rescue piece is from 2000, there's a blog, and the others are just statements of the blinding obvious, and fairly irrelevant at that. Somewhere it ought to make the point that the native breed is an old one and may go back to the Stone Age, but that's a different story. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I'd really like to say that there's NO reason to DELETE an article simply because of personal opinions. The blog quoted is, of course, a Kurdish nationalist blog, and its not as if its the only blog mentioning that either, frankly, there may be hundreds (I've found at least as much...). At least teh Kurdish internet culture is rather into the argument, and that is proven already. That's ALREADY enough for the article to be valid. On top of that, I'm well aware of the debate OUTSIDE the internet, not that you guys really care. Either merge or delete, whatever. If I remember correctly, this article was created as a compromise, and the info, as part of the Kurds vs. Turks conflict, is valid. And as the article mentions, its not only Kurds and Turks in on the debate, as Europeans also pipe in.

The article can be IMPROVED, yes. A lot. HOWEVER, simply deleting it is pointless, as if you don't want the information on a valid issue that is important with regards to the Van cat on the wiki. And yes, there is POV, its a debate, of course. The three POVs are supposed to be all portrayed in the article, so you can edit it to make it so if you feel necessary. However, as I stated before, THERE IS NO POINT IN SIMPLY DELETING IT, AS IT IS A VALID ISSUE.

As for the merge issue, frankly, I think its really more of a political article, and as certain people have their own... objections towards politics and cat fancy being mentioned together on an important page, I don't think the merge will really be very popular, though I could be wrong... --Yalens (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the above editor is mistaken. I created an article titled "Van Cat", which was then hijacked and misused by another editor and renamed Van Kedisi. It seems Elen of the Roads aspires to do the same with the "Turkish Van" article. Meowy 00:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
False implications are being made by the above editor. The Van Cat as created by Mu5ti was simply a POV redirect, a redirect to the "Turkish Van" article. I created the Van cat article but initially had to call it Van Kedisi because of the pre-existing redirect (and being a new editor I didnt know how to remove the redirect). The article's name was later changed to Van cat, but at an even later date changed back to Van Kedisi by a Turkish Van-owning administrator. If you examine the talk page, and edit summaries, I have on a number of occasions argued for the article to be called "Van cat" and attempted to get it changed to "Van cat", never once did I argue for it to be called "Van Kedisi". Meowy 15:40, 24 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. Nominator summed it up. Black Kite 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary & St. Abraam Church, Ain Shams[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St. Mary & St. Abraam Church, Ain Shams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

coatrack for news event. Duffbeerforme (talk) 23:37, 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 redirect to University_of_West_Alabama#Greek_Life. ... where the article is duplicated. Black Kite 22:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at UWA[edit]

Greek Life at UWA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Article does not comply with the notability requirement in WP:UNIGUIDE. --Scpmarlins --Scpmarlins (talk) 23:50, 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. Valley2city‽ 02:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Eckardt[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ralph Eckardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of a previously deleted page, still no indication of notability. The article is essentially a resume for Mr. Eckardt. I can't see the previously-deleted article to compare, but there's no indication of notability here, other than a listing in a top-250 list of an industry website. The same editor Iesc08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) apparently also had attempted to recreate Mark Blaxill, another associated page that had also been deleted. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not speedy delete this one?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did try that first, but it was declined. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty project[edit]

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

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. No coverage from independent reliable sources. Algébrico (talk) 23:41, 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 Jonas Brothers tours. There's no strong consensus here, but several editors seem to agree that merging is a good solution. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Brothers World Tour 2009[edit]

Jonas Brothers World Tour 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A tour does not require it's own page, especialy for this short of an article. Not to mention the absence of sources. Some information could be merged into the album article or the band article, but there is very little information. Gosox5555 (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC) i do not agree with you all world tours should have their own page their is more then enough information maybe not on wikipedia but on other sites —Preceding unsigned comment added by King007ofrock (talk • contribs) 18:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC) We should keep it its gone too far to much hard work to quit now[reply]

Merge and redirect I think a merge with the jonas brothers (or Lines, Vines and Trying Times ) would be more than appropriate here. When more information becomes available a fuller article could be developed Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about we put this back in jonas brotehrs tours and we put up when theirs more information —Preceding unsigned comment added by King007ofrock (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *YES! 21:56, 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 at G12. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial robot organism[edit]

Artificial robot organism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Even though this article has photographs and seems really cool, it is unfortunately original research published on Wikipedia. The sources used support my claim that this is original research, since they are spun together to build a case for artificial robot organisms without actually using the name or the particulars of the entities pictured. The main article for this seems to be Swarm robotics. Abductive (talk) 20:34, 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, SilkTork *YES! 21:41, 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 no consensus. Relisted once, no strong consensus as of yet. No prejudice towards speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concurrent relation[edit]

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

Little evidence the term is actually used. The "having element p" in the definition makes no sense. If the range and domain are the same and the relation is transitive, as in the examples, it's a directed set, which appears to be the standard name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the article by copying the definition from the source, as the article creator mangled it to the point where it doesn't make any sense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking more closely, example 2 in the encyclopedia doesn't make any sense, either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:23, 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, SilkTork *YES! 21:35, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lobello Jr[edit]

Anthony Lobello Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This speed skater has very limited notability. Apparently (the article gives no sources) he competed in the 2006 Olympics but did not medal. The remainder of the article is useless, self-promotional prose. It could be streamlined to salvage a useful nugget, but I don't think it's worth the effort given notability being borderline anyway. Chutznik (talk) 21:17, 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 deleted by Nja247, CSD G12 unambiguous copyright infringement. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Gallagher[edit]

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

Unsourced article - does not assert notability —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 20:31, 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. Shereth 20:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micaela Johnson[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a person that does not indicate notability. Lack of sources does not allow us to back up this information. The article is written out of NPOV. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 20:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's our problem here on Wikipedia. We ask for citations before introduction of articles, and then, we're not consistent, and say, "what the heck? It's our problem now. We'll fix it." ESpublic013 (talk) 14:26, 21 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. Strong consensus to keep (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein al-Araj[edit]

Hussein al-Araj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds (talk) 20:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness - he is much more notable than I thought. This is the al-Araj who served as Deputy Minister of Local Government in the PA government -- see the programme for the Tel Aviv University conference "REGIONAL COOPERATION THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENT: LESSONS FROM EUROPE, PROSPECTS FOR THE MIDDLE EAST" (spirit.tau.ac.il/government/downloads/RigiCooperBooklet.pdf ) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC
I actually just used that source in the article. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're two different people with the same exact name, although this guy's middle name is apparently "Abdallah" according to one of the sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I added some sources, clarified the info, and added a little more info. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:11, 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. As I have not yet been granted the "fire and storm" bit, deletion will have to suffice for now ... Shereth 20:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assiti Shards effect[edit]

Assiti Shards effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable sci-fi neologism, really. I see no mention of it as a plot device outside the work of Flint himself. Ironholds (talk) 20:21, 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robin (descriptive word)[edit]

Robin (descriptive word) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:DICDEF. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:18, 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 merge to University of Florida. SoWhy 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at the University of Florida[edit]

Greek Life at the University of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Article does not comply with the notability requirement in WP:UNIGUIDE. --Scpmarlins (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who was an active member of an undergraduate social fraternity at Florida, I don't have overwhelmingly strong feelings about it. However, given the historical strength of the UF Greek system (around 15% of all undergrads or 5,000 student at any given time), it would seem to be a topic on which many folks, especially incoming students, would want to have some information. Within the Wiki landscape, there appear to be few school-specific Greek system articles. Perhaps we should fold a well-written paragraph or two regarding the UF Greek system back into the main University of Florida article (Student Life section). IMHO, if we are going to do it, links to individual fraternity events of marginal general interest (Derby Days, Bed Race, etc.) need to be excluded, and lists of fraternities and sororities can be easily be relegated to footnotes. If we do this, it should be done right, and some real and meaningful information should be provided. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:33, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acefi[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that supports the assertion that this novel is "acclaimed". A Google search for Acefi Pierrot results in about 180 pages: all press releases, forum posts, and bookshops.

I am including the article about the author A. Pierrot in this AfD, since the only claim to notability there is having written this book. ... discospinster talk 20:01, 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BostonDirtDogs.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:
BostonDirtDogs.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources given, no establishment of notability. Seems like mostly original research and work drawn from primary sources. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:58, 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 Florida State University. Not notable enough for its own article, but no reason not to include it within a broader article. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Life at Florida State University[edit]

Greek Life at Florida State University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization within a university with no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Indiscriminate list of fraternities and sororities. Article does not comply with the notability requirement in WP:UNIGUIDE. --Scpmarlins (talk) 20:00, 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 - does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Wilkes[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP for which I can't find any reliable independent sources, fails WP:ARTIST. Contested prod. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unreferenced, seemingly unnotable, article written in a completely unencyclopaedic style. More promotion than encyclopaedia article. That's before the conflict of interest comes in. Canterbury Tail talk 14:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JNW (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

talk

KEEP-None of the information presented on the page is for promotional use-- it is merely factual. Mr. Wilkes' works are notable and have won several awards. Let more edits be done to the page before deleting it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwilkesgallery (talk • contribs) 14:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while it may not have been your intention to be promotional, that is how it reads - see WP:SPAM. There also appear to COI and spamname problems too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn, seems to be a named location in India, and long precedent establishes that such places are notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pallavaram[edit]

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

It seems that this article keeps turning towards political attacks, or something like that, no matter how many times people fix it. Hi! How are you? 19:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment cleaned up the wording, grammar, structure a bit. I haven't fact-checked it or turned the many ELs into citations, and don't know if I will get to spend the time just now.- sinneed (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ah, now I see. This is the latest step in an edit war. There is a great deal of dispute over water. Lakes have been replaced with living areas, and there is ethnic, economic, and political strife. Editors have been attempting to put this conflict into the article (often rather badly), some at least with a strong PoV. I don't think I am going to get into that one.- sinneed (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, anything related to water in Madras is likely to cause trouble! I did remove a lot of the POV stuff earlier this morning, I'll take a look at some of the earlier revs before this edit war started to see what can be added back, the structure of the article looked like it should have had some good content at one point in time. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:28, 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. author blanked page Plastikspork (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatmaking[edit]

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

Short article referenced only to YouTube. What information there is already turns up in Hip hop production, where I tried to redirect this article. "Beatmaking" is not a commonly used term in hip hop (not as common as say "DJing" or "rapping"), and the article fails to distinguish between making beats and production as a whole; there is already a good production article that includes discussion of beats. (Although neither entry mentions the Amen break; maybe I'm too old.) The largely unnecessary section "Emergence of Female Beatmakers" also promotes the entry author's non-notable project, "Beatnik8" Hairhorn (talk) 17:27, 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 keep. Additional work and ref's have helped establish meeting WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Ackerman[edit]

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

From Notability/People and WP:ATH "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." (emphasis added). So, I interpret this thusly: merely being an Olympic athlete, even the sole competitor for the UK in Wrestling is not sufficient grounds for notability. But, we'll let an AfD decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.97 (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently unable to complete AfD; hopefully another editor who agrees with the absurdity of this claim to 'notability' will complete the process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.35.97 (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken my own advice and re-written the article. Cnilep (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here: [6] Zagalejo^^^ 18:14, 19 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, with a redirect left behind to Panay Giant Fruit Bat. If someone digs up a better target, by all means change it. Shereth 20:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giant bat[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced and not notable. Unreferenced tag has been on page for over 2 years with no new references added. Possible fancruft as well. Googlemeister (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can at least probably pull up where they appeared in D&D... :) BOZ (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the now extinct Panay Giant Fruit Bat.--Lenticel (talk) 06:39, 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 G3 blatant vandalism, which is evident from looking at the histories of this article and that of Theory of a Deadman. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 22:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wall (Canadian band)[edit]

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

Not notable --Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 16:26, 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 keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ateya El-Belqasy[edit]

Ateya El-Belqasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable footballer, can be restored if and when he makes an appearance, a PROD was removed for no valid reason Spiderone (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a source that proves the Egyptian Premier League is fully-pro? If it isn't - as I suspect - then he will fail WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do you have a source that proves that the content of Egyptian Premier League is wrong? --Ilion2 (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he's not on this [8] Spiderone (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You want to tell us that there are no more than six Egyptian Premier League professional players? And from this six players that are listed on this website, not even all of them are players in Egyptian Premier League. Mohamed Zidan e.g. plays in Germany, Essam El-Hadary plays in Swiss. As far as I know even today there are eleven people in one club, the league consists of 16 clubs, at least in league 2008-09. --Ilion2 (talk) 19:03, 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 G10/snow --B (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Nicholas Hall[edit]

John Nicholas Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD (tag removed by article creator without reason) about a person that only seems notable per WP:ONEEVENT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:18, 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 keep. Meets WP:ATHLETE by multiple by being member of national team AND playing in pro league (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ihab El-Masry[edit]

Ihab El-Masry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer, only claim to fame is being in the Egypt squad but not playing Spiderone (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a source that proves the Egyptian Premier League is fully-pro? If it isn't - as I suspect - then he will fail WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he's not on this [10] Spiderone (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are far more than 6 Egyptian professional footballer players. That is clearly not a comprehensive list. Jogurney (talk) 03:46, 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. 10:40, 19 July 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) deleted "Kiere Khoh Benjamin" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kiere Khoh Benjamin[edit]

Kiere Khoh Benjamin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An attempt to create publicity for a not very notable person. A previous attempt, "Kier Khoh, Benjamin", was speedily deleted on July 13, 2009. Favonian (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G4 is for articles that have been through a previous AfD. Anyway, delete, barring better claims of notability. Hairhorn (talk) 14:27, 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, though if anyone has evidence that he has played in the Premier League, I'll restore. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niwet Petchchamrat[edit]

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

Hasn't made any appearances and fails WP:ATHLETE amongst others Spiderone (talk) 15:50, 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. Meets WP:ATHLETE as player in Premier league (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Reda Bobo[edit]

Mohamed Reda Bobo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer, lacks text Spiderone (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - no indication that Bobo has ever played in the Egyptian Premier League. Being on the books of a club is not enough to establish notability. Jogurney (talk) 17:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment do you have a source that proves the Egyptian Premier League is fully-pro? If it isn't - as I suspect - then he will fail WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:35, 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Wils[edit]

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

non-notable youth player Spiderone (talk) 15:42, 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. Meets WP:ATHLETE as player in Premier league, and meets WP:N as shown (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Mensah[edit]

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

Non-notable player. Should be recreated when he makes an appearance, also Akwety Mensah may fail Spiderone (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Egyptian Premier League isn't professional Spiderone (talk) 07:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - according to WP:Footy that is still under discussion. Suggest AfD's on Egyptian Premier League players suspended until a consensus first reached on whether the league is professional. By putting them up for AfD to 'test the waters' all you're going to get are the deletion addicts in their usual deletion frenzy mode. 8lgm (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair point, however since the Algerian and Libyan leagues definitely aren't professional then many of their players fail WP:ATHLETE Spiderone (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that the Mensah article could pass WP:N if someone looks for sources. He's been called into the Ghana national football team camp before (although I'm not sure he has played), and will have significant coverage from his playing days at Haras El Hodood. Jogurney (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why a source can't be found to prove it's a professional league though. I admit it would be a shame to see an article like this go though if that was the case. Spiderone (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my whole point. If it's a shame to see an article go then we don't have to delete it just because it doesn't meet the strict wording of a guideline. Guidelines are there to guide us in our decisions about what's best for the encyclopedia. They are not binding laws. It's perfectly normal for there not to be sources readily available in English to say for certain whether a league is fully professional - even for a country where English is by far the majority language we find it hard establish this for certain, so why do you expect such sources to be readily available in English for a country that doesn't use the Latin script? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youssef Fawaz[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE having never played a game of professional football Spiderone (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to mean never played a match of professional (or even semi-pro) football. Since there is no evidence the player has, he doesn't appear notable. Jogurney (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If and when it's nominated on those grounds, we should discuss it. Nfitz (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the reasoning but I don't know if I'll have to renominate now Spiderone (talk) 08:15, 18 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. Deville (Talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Participationism[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this is notable. None of the pages linked to by the article mentions "Participationism", and no other citations or references are given. Also searching has failed to produce evidence that there is a notable art movement of this name. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:31, 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 16:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NWA Charlotte[edit]

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

Does not seem very notable. The promotion lasted less than a year and didn't do much during that time. I didn't find any reliable third party sites during my search, just mostly primary and a few non-proven ones. I am also nominating the following related pages:

NWA Charlotte Heavyweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Mid-Atlantic Heritage Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Women’s Banner Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Charlotte Tag Team Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
NWA Charlotte Cruiserweight Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Queen City Tag Team Classic Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

If this is found not notable, then the template (Template:NWA Charlotte) should be deleted along with it.--WillC 15:21, 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Ahmed Abdullah[edit]

Dr. Ahmed Abdullah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable dermatologist, article created as part of an apparent promotional campaign WuhWuzDat 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obvious biospam. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - spam placed by his PR firm - author now blocked as role account for PR firm. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Seems to read as spam Ottawa4ever (talk) 16:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Blatant attempt to put CV on WP. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 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 Hypnotherapy#Cognitive.2Fbehavioral_hypnotherapy. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Behavioural Hypnotherapy (CBH)[edit]

Cognitive Behavioural Hypnotherapy (CBH) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject already covered in Hypnotherapy#Cognitive.2Fbehavioral_hypnotherapy, also written like a research paper. [mad pierrot][t c] 14:28, 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 by nominator Recent additions gave it enough to make it barely pass enough that I'll withdraw the nomination. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Mongolia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Canada–Mongolia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing actually notable about this random pairing. It survived AfD a year and a half four months ago with the implication that there was more notability. Mongolia has an embassy in Canada, but Canada hasn't bothered to put one in Mongolia. The article cites support and donations from non-governmental organizations as evidence of a significant relationship between the nations governments. Canadian companies are investing in Mongolia, and the govts. entered into one trade agreement that facilitates that, but that seems to be about it. One pretty mundane agreement isn't saying WP:N to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, that's not WP:OR. It's called an opinion and believe it or not, not only am I allowed to have one, but they are acceptable in AfD's. Notability is not always a cut and dried matter. It is often a matter of opinion. We talk about "consensus" all the time, which is defined as the opinion of a group. That is the purpose of these discussion. Next time you want to make a bad faith accusation, please at least have it right. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you could clarify where I accused you of bad faith. I honestly am not sure of where I did such a thing. (Take it to my talk page).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right where you started accusing me of WP:OR. Having an opinion in an AfD is not OR. That's what these discussions are for. There is no brightline rule that seperates what is or is not notable in this situation. There will always be debate over whether or not coverage is significant or not etc. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to accept. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pointing out that your comment consists of original research is not an accusation of bad faith. Please assume good faith in the future yourself.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not OR! WP:OR refers to content in the articles, not opinions expressed in an AfD. OR is not allowed, so if it applied to everything posted in an AfD discussion, every comment you've made requires a verifiable, reliable source. Do you have those? Why is this concept so difficult for you to understand?
  • I took what you were saying to mean that you equated your personal opinion that the agreement was mundane with its non-notability per wikipedia's WP:N policy. That to me still fits the description of OR (because to say the agreement is unnotable implies either that the agreement is improperly unsourced, or that you know personally that the agreement is unnotable for some other reason and you are using yourself as a source). I understand that you think OR only applies to the article mainspace but I disagree. If you used your own personal knowledge to influence debate on a talk page about the inclusion of material in an article, I would call that original research. That is essentially what you are doing here too. You are using your own unsourced opinion (that the agreement is unnotable or mundane) as an argument against inclusion of sourced information (the deletion of this page with result in the removal of sourced information from the mainspace). Perhaps there are arguments on both sides here. I hope you beleive me however that my comments were not meant to accuse you of bad faith.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I accept your explaination that you weren't making a bad faith allegation. I do not, however, think you are interpreting OR correctly. We're not talking about article content or an article talk page. We are talking about an AfD discussion whic is, by it's very nature, going to be base largely on opinion. It is not OR, not in violation of any policy and is perfectly acceptable. Your repeated attempts to brush it under the heading of something that is in violation of policy is wrong-headed. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I accept the fact that Afd's are often determined by personal opinion, I think that there should also be an attempt to look at the article as objectively as possible in accordance with the policies in place. For example, we seem to be having constant disagreements about the notability policy. I for one would like a little bit more clarification about what constitutes "significant coverage". Since the interpretation of that policy seems to leads to consistent disagreement, I think the policy should be clarified. I see the logic of your argument but I also don't see where it says WP:OR does not apply to Afd discussions. The issue seems to me to be undetermined at this point. Many things to be clarified.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, here comes the smoke and mirrors again. I don't see the notability. Period. That is the perfectly legitimate rationale. I have never made it a practice to notify everyone involved in a previous AfD. I'm not required to. I notify the author of an article if I nominate one. In this case, the author is banned, so he was not notified. Notification is not required, it is suggested. I take part of the suggestion and leave another part. I think that is a silly suggestion and since that is only a suggestion, I am free to not implement it. You left me a message about it on my talk page. I responded to it. Now you bring it up here. Pick which place you are going to whine about the topic and stick to it so I don't have to respond to you twice over the same topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you don't want to tell the people who just spent a lot of time debating this that you are throwing out their result because you disagree with it that's your business. And you're right. It's not required. It's just WP:CIVIL courteous. Have a nice day.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere does WP:CIVIL say or imply this.Yilloslime TC 22:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True. But of course, WP:CIVIL doesn't say anything about notifying editors who are substantial contributors to the page. However, it explains at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people that "it is generally considered courteous" to do so.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why are you citing WP:CIVIL when it doesn't say it? And why isn't User:Fire 55 over here screaming about the error in capital leters? Further, I don't consider people who just participated in an AfD to be susbstantial contributors to the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you know if there is a change in consensus or not if you don't ask the question? I've seen articles re-nominated in much less time than 5 months, so I'm not sure why you are spending so much time complaining about this nomination.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I didn't vote in the last one, you might want to re-think your statement about me "just not liking it". Smells a lot like an accusation of bad faith to me. I don't believe the notability is there. I nominated it. Get past it already. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I just walk in to some rhetorical knife fight I was not aware of? When I said you didn't like the result of the last debate, that's what I meant. Am I wrong? Did you renominate this article for deletion on the exact same grounds as the last debate, the result of which was a keep, because you liked that result? I have assumed good faith that you didn't like it because you disagreed based on the notability policy. That's not bad faith, that's the truth. It looks like you misread what I said before and you accused me of bad faith. When I tried to clarify that my previous comment wasn't even about you (voting in the last one), you immediately accused me of bad faith for something else and of using strawman arguments. (P.S. Just in case you think I'm a Admin, I am not. I am not sure if you were referring above to me or Bituitorol). I hope we can put this entire issue behind us and move on.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're making it sound like I voted in the last one and just didn't like that it was delete. I didn't even participate in the last one. I read the article and decided to nominate it before I ever even knew there was a previous AfD. I only found that out while I was in the nomination process. This isn't just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as you would have people believe. This is a matter of my belief that there isn't sufficient notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify in case anyone besides Niteshift36 actually thought otherwise, Niteshift didn't vote in the first debate (Bituitorol did). I must assume (per WP:AGF) that Niteshift's reason for renominating this article did not result from WP:IDONTLIKEIT which refers to not liking the subject matter of the article, but that he nominated the article for deletion because he didn't like the result of the last debate. He disagreed with the consensus found there that notability had been established. I am pretty sure this is what I said before. Sorry if I was unclear.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what encyclopedias you have, but mine doesn't have an article devoted solely to the relationship between Canada and Mongolia. Please tell me which print one of yours does, then we can use it as a source. And that logic almost sounds like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:31, 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. Black Kite 12:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nalini Sharma[edit]

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

Unremarkable TV meteorologist for local-market Canadian TV station. Single reference is a link to bio at station website. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:50, 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. Clear keep, possibly confusion on part of nom, but will WP:AGF. Meets WP:MUSIC#C1 (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignitor[edit]

Ignitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This article is clearly written by 1) The band about which it is written; 2) Fans and friends of the band In either case, the authors text lacks objectivity. It is promotional, not encyclopedic; more like advertising. Also, the content is not neutral in tone.

Ignitor lacks notability, per Wikipedia notability guidelines for music and recording acts. No nationally or generally recognized product releases No nationally or generally recognized awards No nationally or generally recognized media presence — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreenEyedWarlock (talk • contribs) 2009/07/13 22:48:57

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (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. This is simply a local news story about a campaign to reduce a speed limit. Editors should not be persuaded by the fact that BBC local websites have covered it. For example, if I look at the BBC local news website for my area at this very moment, prominent stories include "Eviction threat for grandparents" and "Sharp rise in recycling figures". These are the equivalent of local news stories, and as such WP:NOT#NEWS comes into play - this story is simply has no historical notability outside its local area and timeframe. Black Kite 22:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin jenkins campaign440[edit]

Kevin jenkins campaign440 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article has a total POV problem, and is not very clear. It doesn't have much context, though I think it has some, or at least enough to avoid speedy deletion, because I can tell that it's a political campaign to get something done. My problem is that it would be impossible to rewrite without the POV issues. Gosox5555 (talk) 11:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: whatever else can be said about the matter, it no longer seems to be an unsourced and unreadable mess. I'd still wonder whether this is too local or ephemeral a matter to sustain an encyclopedia article, even if it has been noticed by the BBC. Then again, we do cover equally quixotic and misguided "movements" like 8664.org, and this may be as durable as that one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC TV feature on Campaign440 BBC NEWS | England | Hampshire | Campaigners in 40mph limit call.webarchive

by User:Kevinfp1 - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:35, 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. Black Kite 12:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walk with a doc[edit]

Walk with a doc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:ORG, there are over 9.6 Google search hits and there are no searches about the organization. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:23, 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. Black Kite 12:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorsten Willer[edit]

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

Non-notable person, does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Though the article has 45,400 Google hits. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:03, 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 Userfy. Moved to User:Rafevl/Sackboy (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sackboy[edit]

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

Article does not yet meet guidelines on notablility or verifiability. Suggest userfying the article to User:Rafevl/Sackboy (as the main contributor) until it meets the criteria for inclusion in main Wiki. Then redirect Sackboy back to LittleBigPlanet. Chimpanzee - User | Talk | Contribs 09:30, 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. Black Kite 12:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Menno Baars[edit]

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

Contested prod. No evidence of notability - simply a couple of stunts. Far too few ghits to imply notability and no references in this article that show it. Being a publicity seeker doesn't make you a notable artist even if you have painted the nose of a small aircraft. Doesn't make you an expressionist either, but that's another story. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of these links to "detailed coverage" consists of press releases from Volvo, which IMHO is definitely not non-trivial coverage, the other is to Dutch sources that can't be evaluated by non-Dutch speakers so we don't know if it's non-trivial but I note that there are not very many stories anyway. Where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources" that's required by WP:N? GHITS is perfectly valid if there's nothing else to go on, which there isn't. In fact it may be valuable "as a negative test of popular culture topics", as in this case. andy (talk) 19:02, 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parsec Awards[edit]

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

Questionable notability and no sources Wade Hunter (talk) 03:48, 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, Nja247 07:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a techincal term here. Read WP:N. Artw (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at the very least Tracy Hickman, a best-selling sf author, is a notable member of the award committee. But since notability is not inherited, it is better to look for independent sources. As is pointed out above, there are a smattering of sources. Debate should center on if these are enough. Abductive (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source from Steven H Silver and the SF Site lists the Parsec nominees on a page with other award nominees for the year, some of which have articles. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 21:46, 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 keep. A rename could be considered, but that should be discussed elsewhere at this point. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009[edit]

Causes of the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page has been created by one editor to represent the causes of the Subprime mortgage crisis and the Financial Crisis of 2007-2009. The article is loaded with ambiguity, selected speech excerpts, original research and bias. My personal opinion is that the article serves no purpose other than to promote user:Farcaster's opinions. Scribner (talk) 07:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Team Selene[edit]

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

Notability unclear. Was tagged for speedy deletion. Lunus (talk) 05:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Alderson[edit]

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

article lacks notability, lacks cited 3rd party references and reads more like a resume then a biographical article. Bidgee (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Alderson, IS a celebrity in Ireland with three BBC documentaries charting his life as well as the movie and independent film. They are worthy enough to grant him a wikipedia page due to a lot of irish backing and interest in his story! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep im sorry can i ask what is moondynes problem? he knows nothing of the company nor the work they do, he seems bitter and intent on ridding articles of people with talent and good accomplishment, it just comes across malicious. i think moondyne needs to stop tampering!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 09:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Atrocity Exhibition... Exhibit B[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Atrocity Exhibition... Exhibit B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The ritual for the creation of this crystal ball was made in 2007 [obviously a violation of WP:DEADLINE]; it survived an AFD [pathetic], and this album is only expected to be released in 2010 [huh?]. (wonderful quote to prove my blah-blah-blah: "The band will enter [really?] the studio in November 2009, anticipating an [possible] April 2010 release.") Cannibaloki 04:41, 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. Black Kite 12:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlies (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Article has been marked as unnotable for over a year. There is no substantial content and have been no non-vandalism edits in attempt to revitalize the article. The content of the article seems to be more of a menu or catalog than an article. Mpdelbuono (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rcurtis5 (talk) 18:19, 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. Sufficent time has passed and positive arguments made on both sides of the debate have come forward. With no-one advocating that the content could live within another article there is no consensus to delete - no consensus leads us to a default keep accordingly. Pedro :  Chat  10:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living With Fibromyalgia[edit]

Living With Fibromyalgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NF no RS for this film, only reference is dead link and i can not find any independent sources. I think it is advertisement for a film selling on Amazon but it is not reviewed in any RS. RetroS1mone talk 04:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Fails WP:NF. Blogs aren't reliable sources and you can find mention of anything somewhere in a blog. BigDunc 20:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment, that is probaly BC the Houston International Film Festival has ~ 200 award categories, it gave 872 awards in 2008, top to bottom Grand Award, Special Jury Award, Platinum Remi, Gold Remi, Silver Remi, Bronze Remi. 2008, it was 9 Grand Awards, top prize, 67 Special Jury Awards, and 199 Platinum Remis. There are 3 Documentary categories and 7 documentaries got Special Jury award and 7 got platinum Remis. This film was one from 3 films that got a platinum Remi in it's documentary catagory, after two that got Special Jury Award. So this film, at one independent film festival was in the top 14 documentaries and top 275 awards. RetroS1mone talk 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We" may not, but that doesn't mean to say Joe Public doesn't. Also take into account that a film like this won't have the marketing budget of even low budget Hollywood films. Also the fact that it is the first and only film of its type means that it is notable in its own right. There's a good argument for applying WP:IAR and WP:PAPER in this instance because it falls between the gaps with regard to WP:NF and various other usual conventions. Also please don't forget that just isn't a 'film' per se, it's a documentary. --WebHamster 13:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do you guys realize that in 2008 for example, the festival awarded out nearly 200 Platinum Remis? [56]--Slp1 (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was spoken of above at length. Of the 4500 entries in various categories, and the numrous awards in various categories, only 7 Plantinum Remies went to documentaries. Kinda puts it in the top of its class, as competition must have been fierce. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every year, all over the world, there are many, many international film festivals. At each one, year after year, many, many awards are given out. Does that mean that every single one can be considered to have won "major award for excellence" ([per NF)? Does WP need or want articles on every single one? I don't think so. Most especially, as, apart from this award, precisely zero independent reliable sources outside a very small number of (not the greatest) sources from the Fibromyalgia world/employers of the filmmakers/calendar announcement, have noticed the film in any way. --Slp1 (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about a specific film and a specific festival, not every single film that ever won an award anywhere. WP:NF lists some major awards, but specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". In this specific instance, we consider this specific film. The criteria at WP:NF IS "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking"... so if the festival is notable per WP:GNG (and it well is), a first place award at that notable festival would apply, and be in context with the film type and festival type. This is not a publicist-hyped multi-starred boxoffice blockbuster created and promoted by a major studio. It will never play at your local cinemaplex... but guideline accepts that. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not paper provided that notability is ok. This is the case I think, but the topic is quite unpleasant. Brandt 19:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm always a bit cautious when WP:IAR (above) and WP:PAPER are cited; Irrelevantly, I wonder why would you say the topic is "unpleasant"? I can think of way more unpleasant medical topics than this!!!--Slp1 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Competition was not "fierce" i think, there was 125 films screened at festival, not all was documenteries, and 23 documentaries got awards. 7 documenteries got Platinum Remi, 3 in the same catagory with this film, and 7 docu got a higher award then Platinum, the Special Jury Award. Platinum is a catagory award, Special Jury is a festival award. How many docu was there in the 125 films, i am wondering, does any body want a bet, all documentaries got awards? RetroS1mone talk 02:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, you're repeating what was discussed above. The festival received over 4,500 entries in multiple categories. The Platinum Remi Award is a jury award given to the 1st place winner in each category. That the documentary won 1st place in its category is no less notable simply because there were other winners in other categories. It was a huge field after all, and not all the 4500 entires won awards or were screened. Please, and since this has been discussed in depth above, is it really neccessary to repeat ourselves? On a side notem thank you for the assist on my new aricle on the National Fibromyalgia Association. I appreciate your help. Best, MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how can it necessarily be the first place if it was one of 7? I suppose you mean as a subclass of documentaries? Divide anything into enough classes and quite a lot will be first in its class. That's the normal way festivals are able to give multiple impressive sounding awards--its a publicity trick. DGG (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were 7 winners in this film's categories. As I do not know any festival that lists the losers, I cannot find out how many were in total competition for this category. Receiving one of 3 Platinum Remi winners might lose persective, but the win surpasses the Gold, Silver, and Bronze Remis awarded in this category. Does a 3-way tie for the Platinum diminish its worth? Does sharing an Oscar diminish it's worth?
Worldfest's entry fees range from $45 to $90+ and more (dependent on film length and time of entry), so I'm sure it was profit that had them accept submissions from 4500 films... knowing that only 2% would be winning prizes and that they could only screen 125 of the 800 winners. But heck, even the Academy Awards are done-for-profit, so making money is not a strike. Personally, I think they are getting too big for themselves. Despite this, Worldfest is one of the grails for independent fimmakers... and every one of that 4500 entered into competition hoping they would win. On their website, they explain that "WorldFest is 12 Major film & video competitions in one event, unlike Cannes, Sundance and Toronto, which are just 2 competitions for shorts and features only. Because of our 12 major competitions and the 200+ sub-categories, WorldFest does give a lot of awards, but they are both earned and deserved. No awards are given in any category unless the scores from the juries are high enough to place for honors."
True or not, trick or not, that credo has garnered the festival the notability required by guideline... as The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. We may be volunteers here, but festivals exist in the real world... one where Bigger, Better, Faster, Newer, Tastier, Smarter, Prettier are all used as hyperbole to sell a product. It is that hype and that press that guarantees article notability for any low-quality fast food with a clown or king mascot.
However, I will be glad to take part in those future and inevitable Wikipedia discussions that attempt to finally determine what constitutes a major award. Until that is decided, all I can go on is common sense and guideline. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the time for this to get closed but IMO it would be no consensus so default to keep. BigDunc 09:15, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Davey[edit]

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

article lacks notability, lacks 3rd party references and reads more like a resume then a biographical article. Bidgee (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is blatantly self-promotional and needs a drastic overhaul, however looking through all that I think the subject may actually be notable as a dancer. If independent, reliable sources can be found I would be willing to keep this, but not as it is at present. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save the article has good cause to stay, its relevant to dancers and to people who understand art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firesigns (talk • contribs) 05:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)— Firesigns (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Save im sorry , but these all sound like , especially the last comment, all quite bitter...! i do believe the roles are significant and i have on good authority to let you know that the other independent film has been premiered in the uk for which the said person is the star of. And second of all the second person Alderson, IS a celebrity in Ireland with three BBC documentaries charting his life as well as the movie and independent film. They are worthy enough to grant him a wikipedia page due to a lot of irish backing and interest in his story! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep why on earth would you rid more articles about artists and the arts, especially ballet! are you kidding, in response to mattibgn, why dont you help the article instead of just getting rid of it?! and moondyne, New English Contemporary Ballet got extremely rave reviews from all the major spreads and major mags The Dancing Times and Dance Europe included, although im not sure how much they put up on their web pages, otherwise it would be pointless them releasing a mag, but i will try and get a hold of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

note but you did bring his name up in this conversation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)— 81.96.70.252 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

note actually i havent. i live with three other people and they were around when i did this, i spoke to them and they took it apon themselves to write what they thought.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

how old exactly are you? im guessing under 21? we have a comunal computer in our house, as its easier as we are all doctors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.96.70.252 (talk) 15:27, 19 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. Invoking WP:IAR to close early. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipert[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Completely unsourced neologism. Already listed at Wikipedia:WikiSpeak, would've suggested redirect but that would be cross-namespace, so delete. -- Ϫ 03:32, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echuca College[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a non-notable school. No evidence to suggest that the school is in any way notable even if judges at the Rock Eisteddford are moved to tears! Mattinbgn\talk 02:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt WP:SCHOOLS is one of the "most ignored inclusion criteria" because it failed to attain consensus! WWGB (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Techgeek2007, please read Wikipedia's notes on original research. However, being connected isn't a bad thing- can you help find reliable sources on it? tedder (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tedder, sorry, I have added a reference to do with the buildings and will try and use references in the future. techgeek2007 (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (AEST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficient good references for notability DGG (talk) 03:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lightfoot[edit]

Steve Lightfoot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Comment Also, his comments in the press regarding River Phoenix suggest that he is not simply notable for one event, but several.
A Google search for "Steve Lightfoot" and "River Phoenix" only gets six hits. One of them is this AFD. The rest mention the two but not in the same sentence.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How about this? Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 12:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, one fleeting reference in an article that just mentions Lightfoot. That doesn't back up your theory that he is notable for several events.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steady on, captain! At least I looked at the "six hits". And I think it's quite clear in the article that Lightfoot, in his van, shows up to assert his theories about River Phoenix's death. I don't think I was ever suggesting that it should form a major part of his biography, but it's certainly another example of Lightfoot making the press. If he is notable, and I believe he is, then it is first and foremost as an activist and theorist about the causes of John Lennon's death and Stephen King's role therein. I'd like to think that I've made that clear above - to to re-iterate: most of the time Lightfoot makes the press is during various of his publicity stunts to raise the awareness of his cause. Thalweg & Nimbus (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at all the links--I missed yours because he's simply referred to as "Phoenix" instead of "River Phoenix". Its such a brief reference, and I was looking for something bigger since you claimed that Lightfoot was notable for it.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments put forward above by the author of the article do not relate much or at all to Wikipedia policy. For example "Steve Lightfoot has been around for a long time": so has my grandfather. And then "His numberous [sic] publicity stunts to raise awareness of his beliefs have been published in both local and national newspapers": yes, but, even if the coverage were substantial (which it isn't), saying that making publicity stunts give someone a right to a WP article makes no sense: that would be tantamount to allowing WP to publish self-promotion. In short, none of this is about notability in Wikipedia's sense. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:55, 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 delete. Nothing to merge, fails NSONGS, redirect pointless as anyone searching for the song is going to find the main article Black Kite 12:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Can Make You a Man (Reprise)[edit]

I Can Make You a Man (Reprise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NSONG and does not cite sources. Any reason why this song is important enough to have it's own article? Gosox5555 (talk) 02:08, 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. It's not about guideline vs. essay; if it passes either, it's notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Isom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeff Isom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Athelete (assuming that applies to managers and coaches as well). Also, no sources cited. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I agree that WP:ATHLETE has a higher status since it reflects Wikipedia-wide consensus, while WP:BASEBALL/N reflects the consensus of WikiProject Baseball. The problem, however, is that WP:ATHLETE can be difficult to interpret; for example, it doesn't explicitly talk about managers or coaches, and there is long-standing controversy whether the low minor leagues should be considered "fully professional." That's why the WikiProject drafted its essay to help clarify our interpretation of the broader notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple independent sources plus his professional/college playing career have been added. I see no problems any more. Royalbroil 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But managers are. Spanneraol (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me and not to WP:BASEBALL/N. Local coverage about the home team don't really sway me. Local papers are supposed to cover local events. That's what they have to do to sell papers. If I took over the team tomorrow, they'd talk about me too. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:22, 19 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 – B.hotep •talk• 08:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of the bloodthrusty[edit]

Rise of the bloodthrusty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No hits on Google. Fails WP:NF AND WP:N. MS (Talk|Contributions) 02:00, 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. The main argument of the nominator is that this zoo doesn't exist. It has been demonstrated that it does. However, there hasn't been a lot of discussion about its notability. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wishes to discuss its notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bestzoo[edit]

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

Possible hoax. I can find no sources to prove existence. I am saying hoax because of the title. Best Zoo is probably just implying that some zoo is the best. Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the article from the Dutch Wikipedia. The zoo seems to be mentioned in this travel guide. And some of these news results might be relevant. (But again, I don't understand Dutch.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bestzoo.nl/ is the website of this zoo. It does exist, is really called Best Zoo (since the city is called Best). I don't see any reason for deleting the page. Michaelfan—Preceding undated comment added 09:33, 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 deleted G11 by User:Nyttend. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6030 features[edit]

Nokia 6030 features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a personal product review of the Nokia 6030 mobile phone. The article has been deprodded by the article creator. There is no appropriate content here at all. Fences&Windows 01:49, 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. I was going to close this as no consensus, but upon further evaluation, I've determined that the keep "votes" don't really address the core of the nominator's concerns (as well as those raised by the editors in favor of deletion). "It's notable" or "There is coverage" are generally weak arguments without much evidence . Again, a very borderline case, but this decision is within admin discretion I think. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paraguay – South Africa relations[edit]

Paraguay – South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination, noting that South Africa decided to close its embassy in Paraguay over a decade ago. Lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral and football. [57]. the two countries played a football match in the 2002 World Cup. this result is adequately covered in 2002 World Cup but I know of at least 1 editor who would think this is worthy of inclusion for advancing relations between nation states. clearly not. LibStar (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Didn't pretty much 3/4 of the civilized world have embargoes against SA over apartheid? That seems more like "one of the crowd" than notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was the opposite--Paraguay was apparently one the few countries that didn't respect those embargoes. So their relationship w/ SA may be somewhat atypical, vis-a-vis SA's relations with other countries. But at present, I'm still not convinced that this constitutes a notable relationship. Yilloslime TC 17:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy for a country to disregard a sort of general embargo against another country if they don't really have any relations anyway. Drawn Some (talk) 23:21, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active Release Techniques[edit]

Active Release Techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining G11 speedy deletion. The news archive hits make me doubtful that we can get an article out of this, the topic and the language are considered promotional by most Wikipedians, and I'd be very surprised if there's no WP:COI here. On the other hand, there's room in Wikipedia for neutral articles for massage techniques, so maybe some of this material could be merged, I don't know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:53, 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, Cunard (talk) 01:26, 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 merge to Syracuse, New York#Performing arts. Seems like merging is a good option, as there's wide agreement that the topic is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red House Arts Center[edit]

Red House Arts Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable arts centre. No assertion of notability, nothing in a Google search or in a Gnews search that amounts to significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:20, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:13, 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, StarM 01:12, 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 redirect to Vijaya T. Rajendar. Systemic bias is a very real problem on Wikipedia, but the editors in the discussion appeared to give due weight to the problems involved in evaluated foreign language topics. I have redirecting without deleting the prior contents to allow for expansion should improved sourcing become available. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Thangai Paasam[edit]

Thai Thangai Paasam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A series of non-notable films - same director/actor and also page creator. The articles themselves are one liners that could possibly be A1/A3ed, but there's a basic assertion of notability and PROD was contested. I'm currently nominating four (a limit I'm setting per AfD). All films have extremely trivial coverage in the context of an actor saying "I acted in that movie" during an interview, or in the case of (Monisha En Monalisa), it's someone making her debut in this film, with a couple of RS sources adding that the movie was a flop. Also, since it comes up at these AfDs often, there isn't any systemic bias in this nomination, I have watched parts of a couple of these movies, and watch and follow Tamil movies regularly. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following, for the above reasons:

Monisha En Monalisa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
En Thangai Kalyani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samsara Sangeetham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Response. Thai Thangai Paasam is featured in the list of videos book (which I didn't consider as anything more than a passing mention of an available video/DVD), the Encyclopaedia entry is actually for two different films (Thai - mother and Thangai - sister are common title words for Tamil films). For Monisha en Monalisa, I went through a lot of listings and all 17 Gnews listings, 15 of the Gnews just had it as Mumtaz's debut movie and two others called it a flop (but given that there wasn't any critical review of either the movie or the actress in the movie, I don't think it's a notable flop), En Thangai Kalyani (which I have seen), the mention is again part of a filmography, and not an article for the movie (which is the case for notable movies), but it does mention that the movie was a hit, so my nom for that might be misplaced; Samsara Sangeetham (parts of which I've seen), the entry is again a filmography listing (the director is clearly notable), so I don't believe the movie is indeed notable. All gnews entries in either English or Tamil, are in the context of so-and-so acted in this or in interviews of actors. --SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree... you'll never see a film from India reviewed in the New York Times. Such are rarely notable to the west. Sure wish I had access to archives of newspapers in those languages... and then of course wish I could actually read those languages. These are likely films that only have notability to that part of the world and can only be proven so by those who have access to those sources. I only offered what few English language sources I could find. Like I said... even if possible, it'd take a lot of work to be brought into line with en.Wikipedia notability requirements. I accept that there is no bias in your nominations, and that they are made in the best of good faith. Sadly, films such as these underscore the systemic bias that is unfortunately built into the English Wikipedia guidelines... a bias that en.Wikipedia even recognizes in such places as WP:UNKNOWNHERE which notes "Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population", and WP:CSB which urges a wider view and acceptance even if something is dificult to source in English. Sometimes it is simply impossible to meet en.Wikipedia guideline, but we do what we can. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 04:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd normally be ok with a Merge/Redirect, one reason I didn't do the redirect myself, is the no of one line pages - xxx is an old T. Rajendar movie. T.R. Silambarasan was starring in this movie. all created by the same editor; all PRODded and dePRODded with no explanation/improvement. There are 10 such pages that I counted, and two more for future films (one of which I see on AfD currently). I haven't gotten to checking the remaining six yet, but given that except the xxx there's nothing different in all these pages, I found a blanket redirect to be a bit problematic. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 05:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any of the articles have nothing worth merging, then a simple redirect of the film name to the filmmaker's article suffices quite well to direct readers to the only place where the film would then have encyclopedic context. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've redirected the others, but I'll let this AfD run its full course for these four, at least for the finality of the process. I'm still not convinced that a redirect is the best option here for these numerous titles, but I'll live. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 14:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles look better for sure, but still, the reference is Cinesouth which is an IMDB equivalent for south Indian movies that shows that the movie was made, not notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 21:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Cinesouth may look rusty but do believe me, it's not the equivalent of IMDB. Films recorded are written down by that website, who are an official website for tamil film - (user's can' edit as per IMdbB) Universal Hero (talk) 10:57, 20 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. Deville (Talk) 04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard as Hell (album)[edit]

Hard as Hell (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN album, no charting. →ROUX ₪ 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:37, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live At The Cardiff Capital Theater[edit]

Live At The Cardiff Capital Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg album. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The album has been officially released this article is not about an illegal bootleg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakecrane (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And contrary to the nom, the album is an official release on a major label. Of course, the spelling of the title should be corrected. Rlendog (talk) 15:18, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Wheeler, Inc.[edit]

Mel Wheeler, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about an owner of a few radio stations in Virginia. I know from my own knowledge that this company used to own a television station in my area. However, my own knowledge doesn't suffice for actual research. It is very poorly written, with little to no research done on it. I tried to find further information to help the article on Google, to no avail. Their website says it's under construction. I can find no record of their headquarters in Texas. Seems like somebody from the company wrote this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlh56880 (talk • contribs) 2009/07/07 11:08:17

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UMMM... just because there are no listed sources does not make it non-notable. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 02:50, 15 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) 00:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: One of the limitations of Google searches is the tendency of people to use (for example) "mel" + "wheeler" + "inc", which naturally would return a whopping lot of hits, instead of the considerably more accurate "Mel Wheeler, Inc." in advanced search. Unsurprisingly, that reduces the number of raw hits by a hundredfold. What remains is the aforementioned non-working website, the Wikipedia article, the websites of the radio stations in question and a bunch of business directory listings. Reliable, independent sources describing anything at all about this company other than its mere existence and address are unforthcoming (this having just burned ten minutes of my life).  RGTraynor  09:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done my sifting ... not enough out there to support the RS element. Delete although I have a feeling that a much better Article will eventually be made. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 04:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Splendid; of course, no one was suggesting that this company did not exist. That still falls short of WP:CORP's primary criterion: "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Mere "This station was bought by this company" articles do not establish notability, nor does being the second biggest fish in the pond in the 154th largest radio market in the US.  RGTraynor  20:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you brought up the straw man that "no one was suggesting that the company didn't exist", because I was responding to the suggestion that sources didn't exist, and I completely disproved that. Now you are claiming that the sources don't have significant coverage, and that being in the "154th largest radio market" somehow makes the company non-notable; but WP:CORP says "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," and articles such as this one in Mediaweek do seem to have significant coverage of the subject. The 35 articles in the Google News search, even if each one by itself weren't enough to constitute "significant coverage", together are enough to write a substantial article about this company and its history. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." That's exactly what we have here. DHowell (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the suggestion that sources didn't exist" was not implied... I looked at the same sources you did during my look. I didnt feel that I could craft them togeather to a Article that would imply any WP:N of its own. If you feel that you can bring togeather some of the more reliable of the sources to do that job convincingly, by all means, please do so. I know, I could not do so. I cannot even make sense of the FCC Document you put forth. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 08:29, 20 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. Nominator (and only delete voter) withdrew nomination in light of new sources. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mad Cows[edit]

The Mad Cows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band with no apparent notability. Difficult to search Google News for, but a "The Mad Cows" - disease search produces little more than passing references (e.g. [67]). Gonzonoir (talk) 13:06, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 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. Arguments for retention seem at least partly based on the previous AfD, and don't sufficiently address the issue of notability. Though three months between nominations is a bit too speedy, the article should be judged on its own current merits. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Singapore relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Romania–Singapore relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I looked at the previous nomination and was far from convinced. a number of people were swayed by WilyD's references which refer to one state visit in 2002 (in a tour of 5 countries), this visit didn't last more than 2 days. so to say this means ongoing and notable relations is a bit of synthesis. there is still a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral. [68]. there's this more recent article but $US100M trade is a small fraction of Singapore's economy, 300 Romanians in Singapore is not notable, and exporting microchips...well Singapore exports computer technology everywhere. LibStar (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cdogsimmons, you seem to be confusing WP:VERIFY with WP:NOTE. Yes, some of the factoids in the article are verifiable with WP:RS but that doesn't make the topic itself notable. Think of it like this, you might have a congenital chromosome disorder that is verifiable and has an article on Wikipedia, but that doesn't make you yourself notable for inclusion in our encyclopedia. Review the guidelines I linked to carefully and you'll see what the rest of us are talking about in this discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject matter's existence is verifiable, and the 3rd party independent sources show the subject matter is notable. Those issues have been addressed. I am well aware of what our policies say. Please read my previous post again. You might try checking out the previous time this article was nominated for deletion, and kept.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that 1) consensus can change and 2) with 8 delete !votes, 12 keep !votes, and 1 merge, the last AfD should probably have been closed as "no consensus" rather than as "keep." (And yes, I know determining consensus is not as simple as just counting !votes). Your implication that this re-nomination is inappropriate or an abuse of AfD doesn't hold water: there was certainly not a strong consensus to keep the article, and 3 months have passed since that result. If it had only been 3 weeks, or the article had been overwhelmingly !kept, or if the nominator was on spree of re-AfDing articles that had been previously kept, then I'd be more sympathetic to you point of view. Yilloslime TC 00:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The correct place to raise issues with the previous Afd is in a deletion review. It is inappropriate to restart an Afd so soon after a determination has been made (three months doesn't sound like a lot of time to me). It looks like you're just trying to redo the Afd because you didn't like the first result.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
where is the rule that says is inappropriate to restart an Afd so soon after a determination has been made . If you had it your way, no article in Wikipedia could ever be renominated. Deletion reviews relate more to improper closure and are not really meant to judge on whether WP:N is met. Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, the first AfD is no consensus in my opinion, I don't question that. LibStar (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
maybe if you concentrated your efforts on finding say 15 additional reliable and independent sources instead of arguing and pleading to save this, I would reconsider this. LibStar (talk) 00:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I bet there would still be certain parties that would argue that the subject matter was still notable, that the sources were "trivial". Even if I found 100 sources. There's no specific time that says renominations are inappropriate, but the policy cited above says "Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." So what's "a certain amount of time"? A day? A week? A month? A year? On the other side there is the policy that consensus can change. Here's what I think should happen. First, I think Libstar should notify all the people who took place in the first debate that we are rearguing what they thought had been decided (that's only polite). Second, maybe we can decide (in some other discussion forum) with a consensus what an appropriate amount of time we should give these articles before they should be renominated for deletion after they are kept, or if there was no consensus.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cdogsimmons, come on. First, deletion review is for debates that have just closed, not debates that closed over 3 months ago. Second, zero effort was made during the intervening time to improve the article (not that that's possible), so the case for deletion remains strong. And I hope more March-April AfDs, like the one for this masterpiece, are reopened as the year goes on. WP:CCC is, after all, an official policy.
As for your substantive points: yes, it's verifiable that Romania and Singapore have relations, a fact already documented here. However, the third-party independent sources positively do not show "Romania–Singapore relations" to be notable; they show that the Romanian President once stopped over there for a day. When you actually find independent coverage of "Romania–Singapore relations", rather than what you might think those to be, let us know. - Biruitorul Talk 01:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See my above comment. What is "just" closed? A day? Three months? It's debatable. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree with above, Biruitorul, could you do a search in Romanian for us? LibStar (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Just now the Foreign Ministry's site isn't working, but I have a cached version of their Singapore page. We're told that relations exist and when they began and, tellingly, that Singapore's ambassador to Romania was based in Moscow, and only from 1987 to 1989. And then the famous 2002 visit is mentioned, as well as trade volumes (pretty small, as you can see) and the usual double-taxation avoidance agreement. I also found that in 2007, Loredana Groza sang at a party at the Romanian embassy to mark 40 years of relations. And that's about it... - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, it's convinced me even more of the delete argument for this. perhaps Cdogsimmons can prove us wrong and find some substantial non trivial coverage? LibStar (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cdogsimmons, I see my explanation didn't help. Sometimes the first step towards understanding something is just realizing that you don't understand it so you have an open mind and can see clearly. Also you seem to be confused about AfD and deletion review processes as well as the notability guidelines. Maybe LibStar can explain these things better than I can. Don't worry, you're not the only one in this situation. Drawn Some (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drawn Some, this is for future reference. You are coming across as demeaning and insulting. I will assume that that wasn't your intent, but that is how you are coming across to me. Your comment adds nothing to this discussion (besides possibly biasing readers' opinions about both of us) so it would be more appropriately placed at my talk page. Also, if you want to tell me that I misunderstand a policy, you should tell me how you think I misunderstand that policy. Then we can be on the same page. When you simply accuse me of misunderstanding the debate or a policy and leave out the details it comes across as a personal attack. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be defensive, no one knows everything or they would be an omniscient god. I tried to word my comment in a nice manner and even pointed out that you're not the only one. I have always found it helps to keep an open mind--we never stop learning. Cheers. Drawn Some (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a bit more going on between the two countries. I have added some content. Minor, routine, but noted by reliable independent sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of repeating myself: verifiability does not imply notability. Do Romania and Singapore have an open-skies agreement? I'm sure they do. Is that a notable aspect of a notable relationship that's actually been the subject of in-depth coverage outside Wikipedia? Not so much. - Biruitorul Talk 22:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a question of how information should be organized in the encyclopedia - small very focussed articles or broader ones. I put the content I found into both Foreign relations of Romania and Romania–Singapore relations. I prefer broader articles like Landmarks in Buenos Aires or Inner Terai Valleys of Nepal, but I have no problem with more focussed articles like Monumento a Giuseppe Garibaldi or Chitwan Valley. Once an entry in a list-type article grows beyond a certain size, a separate article is justified. In this case, I have no strong opinion apart from a preference to redirect rather than delete. Perhaps the relationship will heat up, although I can't imagine why. But if so, I see no reason to discourage editors making a full article. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might want to reexamine the material I removed. That "In March 2008, Romania ratified Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks.[2]" has absolutely, postively nothing to do with Romania–Singapore relations. The Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks is multilateral agreement signed by dozens of countries and ratified by 13 countries so far including Romania.[73] It's only called the Singapore Treaty because that's the city where it was agreed upon. Just as there is nothing Switzerland specific in the Geneva Convention, or Sweden-specific in the Stockholm Convention, it's only a coincidence that the Singapore treaty bears that country's name. That this has escaped other editors is telling of the slipshod research at work in these articles. My other removal[74] simply took away a redundant reference. All the information being sourced to that article is also contained in the next reference, so that reference could suffice for both statements. I don't see the point in sending the reader to two references when one will do. The is a principle that I have long applied. Yilloslime TC 02:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yilloslime and have removed it, the name "Singapore" is only because it was signed there, much like Kyoto Protocol, Geneva Convention, Rio Declaration. it's a classic barrel scrape though. LibStar (talk) 02:26, 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. (X! · talk)  · @187  ·  03:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester Futsal Club[edit]

Manchester Futsal Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor sports club with no sources covering the subject in depth. Notability not established. Quantpole (talk) 21:47, 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 00:15, 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. Per G10. Even companies can be attacked and as such, G10 applied. SoWhy 07:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocamotive[edit]

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

unencyclopedic rant WuhWuzDat 00:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the AfD tag, this is so vandalism, and whether or not it gets delete is really not up for debate. Like you said, it's just a rant. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD notice replaced, discussion is still open. WuhWuzDat 03:37, 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+Redirect to the City of Holroyd - Peripitus (Talk) 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holroyd Youth Services[edit]

Holroyd Youth Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ORG. a non notable suburban organisation. very limited third party coverage [75]. only reference in current article is its own myspace page which is not preferred as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Brazilian[edit]

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

There is no evidence of the notability and no consent for this article. Yes, may be there are Armenians in Brazil, however it must be very small minority as it is useless to open for each tiny minority new article. Also there is no sources to back up this info.--NovaSkola (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grün, Roberto (July 1996), "The Armenian Renaissance in Brazil", The Americas, 53 (1): 113–151, JSTOR 1007476
  • Pereira, Liésio (2004-01-24), "Diáspora Armênia traz para São Paulo os primeiros imigrantes", Radioagência Nacional, retrieved 2009-07-07 (already cited in the article)
I'm not sure I believe the population figure of 143,000 as the Joshua Project is definitely not a reliable source (see this discussion, for example), but size has nothing to do with notability. cab (talk) 10:33, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 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. Smashvilletalk 16:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morningside Drive (Washington DC)[edit]

Morningside Drive (Washington DC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this short street is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 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)  · @187  ·  03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bed and Sofa (musical)[edit]

Bed and Sofa (musical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this musical is notable; no refs and barely any context in this one-liner Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Reviewed by the NY Times, though I haven't found any others. Perhaps the best thing would be to have an article on the 1927 film (more clearly notable) and include info about the musical. Very difficult to find an RS that isn't based on the movie, which seems to comprise most of the 18,000+ ghits. If the film had an article, I would vote to merge. Matt Deres (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC) update: I have created an article about the film and brought over what little there was in the musical in a separate section. I am still neutral regarding the deletion as I'm still unsure of notability of the musical on its own. Matt Deres (talk) 20:08, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have switched from neutrality. The article about the film covers the topic decently and there's room for further details if needed. Should the play take off or a bunch more info become available, then a split can always be done. Matt Deres (talk) 01:07, 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. Deville (Talk) 03:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adolescence[edit]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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 00:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chasing Arrows[edit]

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

Band fails to fill any of the music notability guidelines. Only has one self published album, does not have major news coverage, and none of the members independently qualify as notable. Major contributors to the article are Single Purpose accounts , and the few other edits indicate that they are probably the band members themselves (edits to the fraternity the members belong to…to add themselves as notable alumni, university they went to add the band). In short WP:SPAM Coffeepusher (talk) 22:55, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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 redirect to List of Constellation missions. I've reconsidered over the past month, and I've decided that I misjudged consensus here. (X! · talk)  · @347  ·  07:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (X! · talk)  · @187  ·  03:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orion 17[edit]

Orion 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is a clear violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The policy notes that 'scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place', and uses as an example that 'the 2020 U.S. presidential election ... is not considered appropriate article topic. Clearly if something as inevitable as the 2020 election isn't notable; something as unlikely as a 2020 moonshot by an as-of-yet unbuilt rocket in an as-of-yet unfunded program is not notable. I see no reason that List of Constellation missions shouldn't suffice for this page (and likely any other launch after Orion 2). Prod removed with comment 'Please make an Afd if you want to delete. Let the various standpoints be presented'. Nfitz (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is way too far into the future with too many unknowns and variables for it to not be WP:CRYSTAL. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE. This is 10 years away! Far too early to be starting a wikipedia page. magnius (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepsies ;) It's not fictional, just tentative, and even if plans change, it was still planned. Needs rescuing, me thinks. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 04:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see WP:CRYSTAL grounds here. Artw (talk) 23:11, 13 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) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The analogy to the 2020 presidential election is flawed. We don't know who will be running for president please, don't let it be Sarah Palin, but we do know details about Orion. Undecided. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so. We do know there is going probably going to be a 2020 election. We have no idea if there actually will ever be an Orion 17 moon mission - the whole thing seems highly unlikey with the current US President having campaigned to cut back the program. I can't think of a better WP:CRYSTAL example to me. Nfitz (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Furthermore, I can't see any references that actually support this ... the page doesn't provide any references; NASA's website doesn't mention this; the best I've found is an old planning document, that also notes that Space Shuttle Atlantis was retired in 2008, even though it's scheduled to fly through STS-132 in 2010. So not only is this WP:CRYSTAL I can't even find evidence that it meets WP:V. Nfitz (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmmm ... just where are the details coming from? It needs references badly. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL - clearly not "almost certain to take place". ukexpat (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Constellation missions until more substantial information is available. (And perhaps retitle that article to "List of planned Constellation missions" or something else). Kusma (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into List of Constellation missions (which should be re-titled "List of planned Constellation missions", per Kusma). The alleged planned of Orion 17 is 2019, and too much could happen in the meantime, including scrapping of the project due to budget cuts or a disaster. Somewhere in the middle, perhaps around 2014, there's a grey area, but 2019 is WP:CRYSTAL territory. In addition, according to Orion 17 "A landing site has not yet been chosen, but it is likely to be at either the lunar north or south pole, where NASA has decided to build a Lunar outpost" - and if the polar Lunar outpost is scrapped then Orion 17 would probably be scrapped too. --Philcha (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It seems like almost all of the planned constellation missions have their own page--why did you single out Orion 17 for deletion? It would be strange to have all of those other pages but none for Orion 17. 174.153.175.72 (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect for now. I think a reasonable test is whether there are significant resources assigned to a particular planned mission (with reliable sources that can be cited) -- say crew member are assigned and in training or significant special hardware is being built that's unique for the particular mission ("Orion 36 will be the first mission to use the $100 million solar powered rover being built by Zorch Co."). Once that happens, there may be a notable current activity that can justify an article, regardless of whether the activity ultimately comes to fruition.--agr (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see that redirect may be appropiate. I don't see any material to merge; it's all the generic mission plan of a typical moon mission. Though I'm still not sure even a redirect meets WP:V. Nfitz (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect seems most appropriate; the odds of this projection being accurate a decade in advance, or of having the confidence even to say for certain there will be an "Orion 17", seems pretty low. We should also figure out what to do with all the other "Orion xx" missions. Shimgray | talk | 15:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having done a bit of research, the usefulness of this page is best shown by the fact that "Orion 17", in the most recent projection, is going to be a flight to the space station in 2020, not a flight to the moon in 2019. Yes, we could salvage this article... but if it's been that unloved and unnoticed since February, when the projection was released, who's to say it won't have the same problem again? Far better to redirect to one page, which might be vaguely maintainable; we can always split it out again once there's something firmly known, once a crew's been named or some metal's been bent. Shimgray | talk | 16:45, 20 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Michael Wright; Sally Walters (1980). The Book of the Cat. London: Pan.
  2. ^ "Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks - Ratification by Romania". World Intellectual Property Organization. March 25, 2008. Retrieved 2009-07-16.
More