< 11 June	13 June >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. George Asian Business Association[edit]

Non-notable organisation, deprodded after 7.15 days by a spa. Abductive (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 04:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-controversial deletion, per above. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ORG 龗 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MovieCodec Forums[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Unnotable website that fails WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:PROMOTION. It was created and hit with sock/meat puppets with a thread on the site asking people to come keep the article going[1] The only three reliable third party sources are purely about the "I am lonely" thread and its creator, Oliver Burkeman, and primarily mention MovieCodec in passing as where he started, not because the site itself is significant. At best, the three sentences on the "i am lonely will anyone speak to me" could be made to create a possible article on Oliver Burkeman as he appears to be an at least somewhat notable newspaper author (who, FYI, is a writer for the Guardian article making that source also a non-third party source). This particular site has already been spammed and deleted three times under moviecodec.com[2], with this new version apparently trying to claim that the forums are notable apart from the actual unnotable site. CSD was twice declined (tagged by two different editors), because it does at least contain marginal third-party sourcing. Original version was pure spam, containing dozens and dozens of links to the forums, a copy of the forum rules, etc and notes that the forum members have been asked to come expand this article.[3]

This site completely fails WP:N (coverage noted above is not signifcant nor about the site, but about Burkeman). It fails all criteria in WP:WEB: The forums have not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" beyond the single thread which, again, was more about Burkeman and had nothing to do with the site itself. As noted in this first crtieria, the coverage does not include this type of event. The site has not "won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." nor is the content "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor correction to my above note, Oliver Burkeman did not create the thread. It was an anonymous person. So the thread's slim possibility of notability is also now gone. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Collectonian's arguments are compelling. While the article clears the WP:GNG hurdle on the surface by citing three sources, the articles are about the thread and not the forum. The forum itself isn't notable outside of the thread. Whether you argue that it's outright non-notable or is only notable for one event, it falls short of the depth of coverage expected for an article. Since the "I am lonely" thread does not (and probably should not) have an article, merging is not an option. —C.Fred (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN and the "I am lonely..." is a single event at best. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant third-party coverage. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it should be noted in case of a lot of new members suddenly appearing that in the MvC forum[4], the creators of the article have now asked their forum members to come do meatpuppeting at this AfD and "try and fight the battle for us" to "save" the article. (I've print screened the thread)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I'll go ahead and say it for anybody new to the process: This is a discussion, not a vote; all users are welcome to participate; discussion should focus on the merits of the article or lack thereof; the closing admin will weigh the merits of the arguments presented; and the closing admin will also take into account edit history, to the extent that lack of one could suggest an account create just to inflate the !vote count (and along those lines, may discount votes from IP addresses as possible double-votes). —C.Fred (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non notable website, no evidence that it passes the minimum criteria for inclusion as spelled out at WP:N and WP:WEB. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, for another argument. You want sources where it mentions moviecodec correct? Well here is the list off one of the referances http://www.alexa.com/site/linksin;0/moviecodec.com. 100 sources where it is mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiDiscoDhaos (talk • contribs) 01:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not sources. Just because someone links to the site or someone has the link in their signature doesn't mean those are all sources. Please see WP:RS to understand what a reliable source is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it makes the site more relevant, as it gets traffic from said pages. Even if said signatures or links are not published in a magazine doesn't make it any less relevant, after all this is the information age, the internet is a better source for knowledge than a magazine you might fine down from at your local shop, and this is a site that kind of compounds said information, am I right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChibiDiscoDhaos (talk • contribs) 01:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. As note multiple times above (and in the lengthy note I left on your talk page), Wikipedia has notability guidelines for what is and is not included. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place that compounds every drop of information available. WP:WEB spells out what criteria are used to determine if a website is notable for inclusion or not. And no, links from personal sites are not relevant, nor is how much traffic your site gets are not signs of notability. Coverage by reliable, third-party sources is.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Alexa rank is based largely on people coming to the site to download codecs. It has nothing to do with the forums or this sites one minor claim to notability. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are many online sources which are as reliable as print magazines. The key is the editorial policy of the publication: are articles vetted and fact-checked? That's why news sources (e.g., Wired, the Wall Street Journal) are reliable but blogs generally are not. As for Alexa, longstanding consensus is that Alexa rank is not an indicator of a site's notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per chibidisco.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collectonian's well put reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:WEB. The "I am lonely thread" is probably notable, but that doesn't make the site notable. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I guess it's fair enough to say that the "i am lonely thread" is whats notable not the website.Omegakingboo (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB Zzzzz (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically the "i am lonely will anyone speak to me" thread, it has 4 notable mentions in magazines and newspapers, so would that be applicable for a wiki page? Or the The Lounge alone, since that is the home of the thread and a couple others such as the "Goku vs. Superman" thread that served as a popular place for debating the popular debate. Please tell me.Omegakingboo (talk) 00:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N 龗 (talk) 01:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, I am a frequent poster there (as well as a moderator for some sections), but after seeing your guys' reasoning I don't think we need a page yet. I do think it's stupid you guys are banning some people from Wikipedia because you think they are the same person. Me and some of the other mods have done IP checks on the suspected "puppets" and found neither were from the same address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.229.172 (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the thread should be deleted. My only regret is that none of this was brought up in page discussion so that it could have been fixed before a problem arose and people wasted time on a futile venture. (User:Derdev789 (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles D. Bell[edit]

Seems to be a classic case of failing WP:PROF. Currently an assistant professor, he got his PhD in 2003, no books, and an h-index of 13-ish. His field is well supported by WoK indexing. No non-academic sources that I could find. Abductive (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It seems likely given his publication record that he will eventually pass WP:PROF. He has papers with good although not yet spectacular citations. The issue for me is less the citation record and more that it's hard to disentangle his work from that of his more notable supervisors — for instance on his most well-cited papers he's in middle position showing that he contributed but is not main author. Time will fix that problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROF 龗 (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Deducing information from the order of authors on a paper is fraught with difficulty as conventions vary so widely (alphabetical order, reverse alphabetical order, seniority, contribution to paper, include the whole research group on any of its papers, being the boss, honorary publication, student-goes-first (even though the student may have done no more than plod through the steps of a recipe written by the supervisor and guided every step of the way, etc. etc. etc.). Reliable sources are needed for claims about author order but I doubt if they exist. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Greer[edit]

Subject of the article isn't notable, low-profile journalist, author of four obscure books. Johnnyturk888 (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Johnnyturk888.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Although I have not yet found any reviews, these books have been published by major mainstream religious presses, and are held in about 100 Worldcat libraries each. That's not totally obscure.
Delete. I've never put a lot of stock about how many libraries have the book. Libraries often receive books as donations, sometimes by the authors themselves. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[5] is about one of her books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does that support her notability? Maybe it is a small start on making the book notable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable per WP:NOTE and WP:CREATIVE specifically. Drawn Some (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently the University of Alabama thinks she's notable as they have an entire collection of her papers and photographs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because she donated them to the University perhaps? Not sure how that establishes notability either. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to just a manifest of an archive of articles this person wrote. I would like to see some independent sources that wrote about her. Chillum 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. speedy, snow, unreferenced BLP, etc. Cirt (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Jackson (Kid)[edit]

Another non-notable child of a celebrity. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This child has mostly been kept out of the public eye. (Incidentally, I would like to go on record as saying that "(kid)" should be avoided as a qualifier for disambiguation purposes.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a BLP violation magnet, no need for this. Nate • (chatter) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. WP:NOTE requires substantial coverage in secondary, reliable sources, which, as the discussion showed, is not present. Ruslik_Zero 15:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Surkov[edit]

I can't find any reliable source which would confirm that Surkov even existed, and the main claim for notability (kill count being 702) actually conflicts reports in reliable sources such as sniper books. The current sources in the article are two websites written by Russian military hobbyists, as well as a memoir in which the author indeed claims to have met Surkov. However, the more notable apocryphal sniper, Erwin König, was known from the memoirs of Vasily Zaytsev. Prolog (talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about this [6], a 1944 information bulletin by the Soviet embassy mentions Mikhail Surkov, and calls him a famous sniper, one of the first to cut the 100th notch? Unfortunately only a snippet preview on Google Books, and not sure how reliable an information bulletin by the Soviet embassy in wartimes is. Andrei Rublev (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not the most useful or reliable source indeed, but at least it confirms that Surkov is not an Internet hoax. Prolog (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is quite mysterious. This google book search for "Михаил Сурков" Снайпер [7] gives a few more hits. Again, not sure about the reliability of these sources, but allmost all of these books were published in the Soviet Union. This could mean either that Mikhail Surkov existed or that he was a fictional propaganda hero. Either way he would probably be notable, but given the uncertainty we have given the lack of good and accessible sources it is not clear how we should proceed then. Andrei Rublev (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you found appears to be quoting a Sov commander about a sniper called Surkov with 100 kills - so I think he existed; not sure if he can be notable though on this basis. Its strange -- perhaps he is a real sniper who enjoyed mention in the dispatches but with a much lower number (than 700) kills -- not sure where this leaves us notability wise as all we can say is that he existed, was a sergeant, and a sniper with gt or equal to 100 kills. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its very strange --- I can find a scan of a clipping purporting to be a foto of the man; doesn't give his number of kills though which seems to be the purported claim to fame. If he is a real sniperist or even fictional sniperist that enjoyed substantial Sov coverage then I agree the article should stay --- but I am baffled that there isn't more given his alleged prowess and the Soviet wartime "cult" of the sniperist! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is the same memoir that I mentioned in my nomination. It contains some interesting information, but with memoirs, it is always unknown how much is fact and how much is fiction. However, I rewrote the article and mentioned the sources in the article text so the readers are able to judge their credibility. Prolog (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job --- I agree memoirs can be misleading and they can also cover a fair bit of minutiae --- all the additional research merely underlines the subject's lack of notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, cannot find any reliable sources for his notability; not in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia (http://slovari.yandex.ru/dict/bse/%D0%A1%D1%83/24?q=) Given the lionisation of Vasily Zaytsev; I find it quite absurd that a man with allegedly 150% of the number of Vasily Zaytsev's kills under his belt has no sources of reliability. I suspect this man didn't exist. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked in a couple of books I have and a website that has a very good list (but wouldn't cut it as a WP:RS ) and I can't find the guy. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I found several sources within the first page itself: http://HOTELhistory.TABLE101.com/article.cfm/simo_h_yh__the_greatest_sniper_ MilitaryHistory, Wapedia and other military history websites such as [8]. I really can't understand why he is "unnotable".

Note- The link appears to be blocked by wiki's spam blocker. To visit that informtive link, replace HOTEl-with military and TABLE with suite . --Roaring Siren (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those are just mirrors of the very article that we are discussing! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to above, the first one also seems to be a user-generated content site, which are generally not considered reliable. Prolog (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

probably Keep There are two people by this name: one is the sniper linked to in the GB link above, who probably warrants an article. I think one of the links had him a a reipiant of the Order of Lenin, which I think we recognize as the highest rank The other , who certainly does, Mikahail Surkov, a major general, secretary of the All-Army Party Committee in the 1990s [9],. Oddly, I can not find him in the ruWP under the transliteration Сурков. They could be the same, but I doubt it . DGG (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Curious -- The General Surkov was allegedly involved in the attempted restorationist coup against Gorbachev -- now he *is* notable. Unlikely the same Surkov though -- he would've been a very old Major General in the '90s. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- I don't think being awarded the Order of Lenin makes you notable --- the Order was awarded more than 400,000 times and some individuals received it multiple times. If something reliable can be found about his sniping career -- in particular his number of kills that would do it for me. I am surprised that if he was as "prolific" as claimed that there are not more Sov sources available -- they really lionised their snipers; more than any other belligerent in WW2. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for the Order of Lenin claim only brings up the Wikipedia article and its mirrors. Interestingly, there are even less hits when searching in Russian. Prolog (talk) 10:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (again) --- one of the russian language websites purported to quote a 1983 book "Last Stand in Berlin" by a I.L. Roslogo and says roughly: "One of the best snipers we had was a sergeant called Mikhail Surkov - the "Al" of the business... he had by his own account, killed more than 100 enemy soldiers and officers". Two things here -- its by his personal account (confirmed kills always were much lower for snipers) and the number was 100 -- not 701! Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tippingpoint Labs[edit]

There are some unknowns here and at New media life cycle, which I'm bundling into this AfD. Is the user named Davis the same Davis who runs the company? Is this mainly an internet marketing company? (We get a lot of those.) Are the recent mentions at CNN.com and in large newspapers a flash in the pan, or indicative of notability? - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New media life cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete New media life cycle for sure, the phrase has only 40 Google hits. Tippingpoint Labs itself does not seem notable to me, and the article is pure spam. Abductive (talk) 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'DElete as vanispam...ment Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Delete New media life cycle is a legitimate topic, the fact that it is not yet widely debated and search on Google doesn't make in any less valid, does it? [10]. If agencies like BoatHouse and Razorfish are notable - why not Tippingpoint?.
- Actually, "not yet widely debated" is the definition of not notable. These other agencies may or may not be notable; you are free to look into the deletion process for them. Abductive (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn spam. Ray^Talk 00:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy redirect to Michael Jackson. redirected, but history deleted as poorly sourced. Cirt (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Michael Jackson ll[edit]

Notable only for being the son of Michael Jackson. Especially for a young child, there's no reason for us to have this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Michael Jackson (eesh, that sounds dirty), nothing worth keeping in a solo article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Michael Jackson, standard course of action for relatives of notable people who get incidental media mentions. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as Chiliad22 pointed out. --Julle (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. At worst, redirect as suggested. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - filled with BLP violations; unlikely to become notable on his own any time soon. Bearian (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Per all above.--gordonrox24 (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy close Not an articles for deletion issue. I have pointed the nominator to WP:RM, which is where this issue should be taken. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Denny-Brown[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I want this disambiguation deleted so the neurologist (currently at Derek Denny-Brown (doctor)) can be moved to this title. The disambiguation only has two people on it, a doctor and a software engineer and I believe the doctor is way more notable than the software engineer. You don't become an OBE for nothing, this guy made some major contributions. The other guy was an employee of Microsoft, but while he created some things i just don't see how he can be as notable as the neurologist. I have created a hatnote on the doctor's article so that someone trying to find the other guy will be able to find him. I figured this would be uncontroversial, but apparently not as my G6 tag was declined so here we are. Tavix | Talk 20:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny .S.[edit]

Contested prod. Unreferenced since its creation over two years ago. Trying to find references is difficult with such a generic name. --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Between reference issues and the long-term lack of references, it's time to toss this one away.Tyrenon (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland[edit]

Unsourced dicdef and OR, no attempt to source since 7/07. I see no way of expanding beyond the current state of "Heartland may refer to this part of the country or this part or this part or this part". Suggest deletion and moving Heartland (disambiguation) to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, but consider it for Wiktionary.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary has had heartland for two years, now. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced musings. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electromagnetic theories of consciousness[edit]

The whole thing appears to be yet another crank theory by a non-physicist who allowed misconceptions of physics get the better of him. Read the article for a good laugh. 99% of the refs are cranky, personal, unpublished papers. Watch for doozies like "topological geometro dynamic theory" and "solitonic singularity formation." Dmitry Brant (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though I know little more topology than elementary fixed point theorems; I can spot this as a cranky piece of nonsense. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There seems to be the kitchen sink in there. How does this compare to other fringe theories? Bearian (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((Afdrescue))

Strong keep. The theory is very fringe, but it has received some coverage in reliable sources, e.g. Wired article, a chapter in a book by McFadden proposing what he calls CEMI. The article needs heavy work to weed out the self-published work and non-peer reviewed science, but it can be salvaged without deletion. Book search, Scholar search. Fences and windows (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article some order to make it easier to work on, and highlighted two sections I think should be excised from the article. Fences and windows (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Persinger is another who has ideas in this area, e.g. [11][12][13]. The first link has vanished from the journal homepage[14], possibly they realised how odd the paper was after they published it, but it's unusual just to vanish a paper like that. Fences and windows (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more articles:

Lindahl BI, Arhem P: Mind as a force field: comments on a new interactionistic hypothesis. J Theor Biol 1994, 171(1):111-22

Steele RH: Harmonic oscillators: the quantization of simple systems in the old quantum theory and their functional roles in biology. Mol Cell Biochem 2008, 310(1-2):19-42.

Lipkind M: Consciousness enigma: the "hard problem"--binding problem entanglement, "extra ingredient" and field principle. Indian J Exp Biol 2008, 46(5):395-402.

Laberge D, Kasevich R: The apical dendrite theory of consciousness. Neural Netw 2007, 20(9):1004-20.Fences and windows (talk) 23:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have heard of Penrose Hameroff and quick GOOG search reminds me

something about anesthesia. I have also corresponded with Persinger in the past and I think this is one of those areas where fMRI may not have proven anything yet ( or course you may have seen the Vul Voodoo papers LOL on a related topic). As you probably know, brain-independent mind would make it possible for things like spirits and ghosts and an origin of conscioness theory would go a long way towards proving something about religion( is there a soul?). What is interesting of course is that the article needs to document the known state of knowledge about an obviously open and controversial issue. There are plenty of theories, and maybe they are all fringe. Everyone who thinks has some theories. I wouldn't scrap it based just on some passing refs I noted as AFAIK these are credible but I wouldn't throw out an article on cold fusion quickly either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 00:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re jargon, this is a great place for an idiot to hide :) But, in

this case, when dealing with something new and confusing, it is possible you need to start with the pompous until you get a better understanding. In particular, solitons and nonlinear phenomena look like a good place to look- either for real emergent traits, real consciousness, or pretenders and false starts. If you concede these are all fringe theories, but yet notable and maybe even eventually a step along the way, I'm not sure I would worry too much about merit. If a wiki reader can use this as a starting point, even to see how bad the field is,that is the job of an encyclopedia ( without actually being a review article maybe). Also note, related to merit, are coo-coo clocks intelligent social creatures? Afterall, Entrainment_(physics) . My point being that small nonlinear effects can produce things that are macroscopically notable and many people never get past the first Taylor term...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources Fences and windows found. Nice work. Dream Focus 02:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to sources found; the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally call for a delete for entries on crank theories. If the entry is going to stay, it should make clear that it's a crank theory (in the most NPOV way possible of course).Hairhorn (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the theory, most theories of consciousness are speculative. The main theory of Pockett and McFadden isn't complete kookery, it does have some merit as a theory, and they're not the only ones to suggest that fields might be involved in consciousness. So "crank" wouldn't be the right word to use - try "fringe". Fences&Windows 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would you treat the "Theory of Spontaneous Generation" now known

to be wrong? There is a wiki entry on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation , because it is notable and in retrospect everyone can rationalize "gee, how could these people distort the evidence enough to believe this stuff" but at the time deductive logic hadn't gotten there to inform those silly people. Or even alchemy or astrology? When you don't have a periodic table, you have confusing observations and jargon- even think about particle wave duality - does this make sense? So, to make a point on consciousness, " just who the heck do you think you are ?" LOL... Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE (Non-admin closure; was speedy-deleted during the AfD discussions) 龗 (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Another great example of why we delete promotional articles rather than fixing them. I'm declining the db-spam speedy deletion because the article has been around 6 months, which makes it hard for the tagger and me to make the case that we're right and everyone else who's worked on the article is wrong; we need to come to AfD to demonstrate consensus. However, my vote here at AfD is speedy deletion. For anyone who doesn't see any problem with this article, I have an emerging markets fund that is rated #1, with guaranteed growth, but only for the first 100 lucky investors. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Technically salvagable, but to what end? Best to start afresh with an entirely new article and interested impartial editors, and delete this one in the meantime. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am very much focused on the improvement of coverage of private equity subjects on wikipedia but as currently constructed this article does not cover a separate topic. I don't even know if there is enough content of note here to warrant a section in the main Private equity article. It is really just an excuse to have a list of China-focused private equity firms. I do think the nominator needs to beef up the criteria for deletion. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 21:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want to see? - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete financespam ("Among the most active, successful and best-managed private equity firms focusing on China are" christ on a bike) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Spam. --Julle (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam, as per above. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worse than spam, a possible pyramid scheme : Delete. Bearian (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Since we generally speedy-delete spam rather than having a 7 day discussion, I'm going to assume from the votes that that's what you guys want, unless you say otherwise within roughly 20 hours. - Dank (push to talk) 16:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's my view. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now speedied. I'd appreciate it if someone else would do the paperwork and close. - Dank (push to talk) 15:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk) · @495 · 10:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King's Lynn in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

While King's Lynn is notable per WP:NOTE, the subject of this article, King's Lynn in popular culture, isn't. It has been tagged to have anything significant moved to other articles for more than a year. See WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There is also original research, see WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic material that cannot be allowed into any other articles. In our referentially-based culture, this tiny handful of mentions does not indicate any kind of importance. And notability is based on reliable sources, which must be shown, not merely assumed to exist. Mintrick (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any notable material into King's Lynn. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or, better, merge any material to parent article. Some references will be notable, but not as a coherent subject. Sourcing will help. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate these articles (x in popular culture, y in popular culture) but they do serve the purpose of stopping decent articles being choked with popkult cruft. I'm neutral on this but would rather not see a merge into the "parent" article. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. No hint that people have written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the appropriate places in the main article. Not enough content for a separate article. DGG (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This nomination raises a host of principal problems, the scope of Wikipedia, who can edit and contribute with what, WP:NOTPAPER etc, the usual slew, and likely the usual people commenting the ususal way. This article was spun-out from the King's Lynn paretn article 23 October 2008. No reason was offered, but likely it could be an attempt to purge contested, debated, and what some people think is "low quality" and "unecyclopaedic" in popular culture.... content into a separate article - aiming for an uncontroversial compromise. Perhaps somebody then will hit the delete button later, which turns out to be now. This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back. Personally, I dont like most of this "in popular culture" stuff, but as Jimbo has said, what shall we tell all those people who write about Pokemon etc, go write about nuclear physics instead? The procedure of spinning out the stuff is even endorsed in some guideline, if it prevents the article from achieving GA or FA status - and I think it is a good compromise that everybody should be able to live with. The scope of Wikipedia is so much broader than the elitist Encl. Brittanica etc, see NOTPAPER. So I would say keep, and ask the nominee not to nominate more of those articles for AfD and instead to start a centralized discussion (good luck!) where this issue belongs. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am the nominator. Your smokescreen doesn't make the topic of this article, "King's Lynn in popular culture", notable, in fact, I could find not one source addressing it. WP:NOTE repeats over and over that the topic of an article must be notable. WP:ILIKEIT isn't a criteria for inclusion. Drawn Some (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note - parallel discussion takes place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crash test dummies in popular culture. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This principal issues is a recurring problem, and we achieve NOTHING by first spinning out content, and then merging in back. — Yes, exactly. The correct course of action is not to take the lazy route with bad content, of sweeping it under the rug, in the first place. Please read User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, and see from the examples what actually, in practice, stops this cycle from recurring, and has stopped it with many articles in the past. It requires work, a lot more than a copy and a paste, but unlike the lazy route it is provenly effective. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Useful information, but there is no where near enough to constitute a whole article. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to King's Lynn. Encyclopaedic but in the wrong place. References to popular culture almost always go into to main article unless the list is so long it wouldn't fit as a section in another particle, and I see not reason for an exception here. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Many articles used to have a popular culture section that was a bucketthat collected a lot of trivial trash. Such sections were generally deleted a couple of years ago and WP has been better without them. This article should follow. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its current form. The subject lacks notability and the content consists of nothing but trivial details. Them From Space 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another fork by Mintrick, with content that xe didn't like erased from one article, and copied and pasted, without proper authorship attribution (in accordance with the requirements of our copyright licences), into a new article.
The same rationale applies as before to Mitrick's previous forks: There's no reason to keep this fork; the content is already in the original article's edit history and can be restored directly from there in the normal way; this article's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken in the first place was to address bad content in the article in which it stands, not take the lazy route of sweeping it under the rug like this. The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete.
Please learn from this happening time and again to these creations of yours, Mintrick. There's a reason that User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is not short of examples from the many times that this pattern has repeated at AFD over the years. You are wasting a lot of people's time by taking the easy routes of sweeping things under the rug with all of these articles, rather than addressing bad content properly, by fixing it and writing good content. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice that those supporting a keep or merge have not offered any reliable sources where someone has written about the subject. Instead, as usual, people are trying to make the subject notabile by mere acclamation. WillOakland (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. To merge the information would require that it be cited to reliable sources, which, with one minor exception, it is not. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge if there is consensus on the relevant talk page that this content is appropriate for the Tang article. ÷seresin 06:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tang in popular culture[edit]

Tang is notable per WP:NOTE but the subject of this article, Tang in popular culture, is not. This is an indiscriminate collection of original research that has been tagged as needing references for a year. See WP:NOT and WP:OR also. Drawn Some (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unencyclopedic material that cannot be allowed into any other articles. In our referentially-based culture, this paltry handful of mentions does not indicate any kind of importance. And notability is based on reliable sources, which must be shown, not merely assumed to exist. Mintrick (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's the possibility that this is a referenced topic, but this is emphatically not a start on that and such a topic could easily be covered in Tang (drink). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete popkult infinite regress. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of editor-chosen examples contrary to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. No hint that people have written about this subject in reliable sources. WillOakland (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with the other opinions put forth. The lack of references doesn't help the article's cause. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of this, though most isn't worth merging. DGG (talk) 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would you say is worth merging? I'm open to being convinced. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are some of these list that are notable. This isn't one of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Tang with no prejudice towards re-creation at a later time. Some of the trivia needs to be excised, but there are some examples of the use of Tang as major plot points. It is a "hot mess" right now, but there appears to be enough notable examples that a better article could be created later. Bearian (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no original research please.--Caspian blue 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not notable enough as a topic on its own. No doubt some have been mentioned somewhere in some commentary or other. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Casliber and Bearian Ohms law (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke and Pave — mention in individual pop culture articles if appropriate. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Mintrick hasn't learned the lesson of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syrinx in popular culture, because xe has done the same thing again: erased content that xe didn't like from an article, and copied and pasted it, without proper authorship attribution (in accordance with the requirements of our copyright licences), into a new article.
The same rationale applies as before to Mitrick's previous forks: There's no reason to keep this fork; the content is already in the original article's edit history and can be restored directly from there in the normal way; this article's authorship is not correctly attributed in its edit history; this isn't a title that we need as a redirect; and the correct action for Mintrick to have taken in the first place was to address bad content in the article in which it stands, not take the lazy route of sweeping it under the rug like this. The same outcome should happen here as has happened so many times before: Delete.
Please learn from this happening time and again to these creations of yours, Mintrick. There's a reason that User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing is not short of examples from the many times that this pattern has repeated at AFD over the years. You are wasting a lot of people's time by taking the easy routes of sweeping things under the rug with all of these articles, rather than addressing bad content properly, by fixing it and writing good content. Uncle G (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Tang (drink). I cleaned out some of the irrelevant trivia so it is now a bit more focused than it was but I still vote Merge.Joe407 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per Uncle G. While a prose paragraph depicting the cultural reception of Tang is appropriate in the main article, this information is devoid of sources and really isn't about Tang at all. Them From Space 01:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no factual evidence --Dragon Kick (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was G3 as hoax, deleted by J.delanoy, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Cream Pie (film)[edit]

Non-notable film. The article says the filming took place between, "June30, and July 30 2009". Furthermore, the actors and director of this film are all red links. Cunard (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NOTFILM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs)
G3 as blatant hoax given the film dates (which, as you noticed, are in the future but listed as if in past tense). Also, the title + director turns up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knight class[edit]

There is already an article about the game Knights in the Nightmare. This article is about a specific element of the gameplay itself, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. Furthermore, the article is unreferenced and most likely original research. I42 (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indeed fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, along with WP:N --Taelus (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Run of the mill gameguide. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:OR, WP:N etc.. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Can't believe anybody thought this was worth an article. DrSturm (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connections (game)[edit]

A nonnotable drinking game. Twri (talk) 19:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. But I request that a Wikipedian tries this game with a group of friends and reports back here what they thought of it.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this recipe for alcohol poisoning. Should we add "things I came up with while drunk" to "WP:NOT for things you made up at school one day"? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A Man in Black. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. (A many similar articles have the same problem - what would be considered "significant coverage in reliable sources" for drinking games, anyway?) Dawn Bard (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Jacobite Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable political party which has never stood for election. Further more the party no longer exist (see http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/63167/Renamed-or-Deregistered-Parties.pdf doktorb _words^deeds 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question- The last AFD closed only 3 days ago as a Keep. Why is the issue being re-opened?Umbralcorax (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same Question. You beat me to it, edit conflict. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as improper use of AfD for rapidly repeated nomination. BTW, it apparently did run candidates in an election. they did not do well, but any party which actually runs candidates should have an article. DGG (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that the subject of an article no longer exists is never grounds for deletion. Once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. A very, very clear case of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I totally disagree. I cannot find any proof that they have stood in elections, and even if this is the case, they have failed to do the very basic thing thought of parties - WIN. Further, they are no longer registered, so on notability grounds, they clearly are not. With all respect to the process, and I trust my record shows responsibility and respect to the project, this is surely a case of policy blindness. doktorb _words^deeds 20:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The fact is that we have a source that proves they were registered. This should at a minimum be a redirect to the list of political parties in Scotland. Whether or not we keep/merge/redirect/whatever should be sorted out on the talk page, this isn't a cause for deletion. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply We have a source that they are now DE-registered doktorb _words^deeds 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But being de-registered doesn't matter. As I said above, once notable, always notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and WP:SNOW. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NOTE. Has nominated candidates in a national election. Don't see the problem here. --North North-West (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I must disclose that I started the last AfD discussion and I will readily concede that I think it's too soon to start up a new discussion, I still feel that this is a case of a minor party which had little impact, electorally or socially (unlike the Loonies, who can be argued to have had some impact electorally and made a lot of waves socially).Tyrenon (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above by many others. Ohms law (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Travel[edit]

There is absolutely no indication this exhibition is notable. I42 (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
. . . or indeed of where it is being held. Delete what looks like a botched attempt at an advertisement. -- Hoary (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indications of notability, and the article appears to have been created by the artist herself. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is an advertisement, not an encyclopædia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was speedy deleted by Mufka (talk · contribs) as G12: blatant copyright violation of [15]. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Tamburello[edit]

Appears to be self promotional, couldn;t find csd tag with that specific freason so opened to discussion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Per nom. I've nominated this for speedy as a copyright violation. JNW (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored as a non-copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and deleted again as a copyvio. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADVANCE Student Organization[edit]

Contested PROD; prod tag (and prod endorsement tag) were removed with the not "this page should not be deleted without discussion", but with no edits to improve the article. No assertion of notability, 10 ghits that don't amount to significant coverage (they are passing mentions), and nothing at all in Google news, books or scholar, therefore no evidence that guidelines for inclusion have been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 17:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The proposed deletion should have been allowed to expire if the person removing the proposed deletion only opposed it because there was "no discussion". Doing so is basically stating that the entire WP:PROD process is invalid. There's no reason for this article to still be on Wikipedia. -- Atama ^chat 17:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The person who removed the proposed deletion is on the Administrator's noticeboard for deprodding a number of articles just after account creation and suspicion of being a sock. While not an indicator of whether or not this article in particular deserves to stay, I thought it should be disclosed. -- Atama ^chat 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly non-notable organization. If we cut all of the POV language out of the article, such as "prepare African American college students for a world of effective professionalism" and "employers have a unique opportunity to contribute to the workforce of tomorrow" and "for promoting leaders of tomorrow" there would be nothing left. Add to that, the article cannot pass WP:V since there are no reliable, independent sources available to write about this group. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Migh, just possibly, be worth a passing mention in the University of Cincinnati article, but there's no indication it's worth an article of its own. Anaxial (talk) 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To be fair, the name of the club isn't "ADVANCE Student Organization", it is just "ADVANCE", which increases the number of Google hits to ∞. Still, it is just a student club at a single university without particular notability. Outside of its university there is little interest in it, as evidenced by its Wikipedia page view stats of about 1 view a day. Abductive (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely part of a career development office at a university. No sources for notability nor are there likely to be. DGG (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable and non-encyclopaedic. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy G3 as hoax Jclemens (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 4: Shanghai Nights (soundtrack)[edit]

Unsourced future album/soundtrack. Would redirect if the film had an article Wolfer68 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 No need to bother any further; the article about the "film" was deleted a month ago for being a hoax from the DisneyMania/Sher'Quan Johnson vandal. I will not apply the db-repost tag myself as I want a second opinion just in case. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with female antagonists[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games with female protagonists for deletion reasons. This is exactly the same type of article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what I said there, of course. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic and, in any case, far too general (it must be quite a high proportion of video games, one would think).Anaxial (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually relatively unusual. Note the specific meaning of antagonist, as a principal opponent of the protagonist. The intro says this clearly, but the list needs major editing, as for some of the games here is it does not apply: Lara Croft is the protagonist, and similarly for some of the other examples. DGG (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am kind of new here however I have read through the video games lists and wikipedia rules and so I think that this should be deleted. I do not think we have lists just for unusual things; if they were worthy of note, then there would be sources for it as per the Notability Guideline.
Comment If we keep it, let's have List of video game characters who wear orange hats, List of video games with evil scientists, List of video games with a "Loading" screen and List of video games without female characters. Got it?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With such a broad use of "female" and "antagonist", this is going to run to List of video games with female antagonists (A-Aardvark). If this topic is interesting, as DGG implies, then a better way of dealing with it is Female video game antagonist, assuming some references can be found for the topic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think it would be that large--perhaps it would be better to see if it grows too large. before assuming it. It can always be narrowed to principal antagonist if necessary, DGG (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's already narrowed down to "principle" antagonist, and it's swelling quickly. I could add entries until my fingers got tired typing, if I thought this were going to turn into a useful list. There's an interesting topic, you're absolutely right, but this list is too broad to illustrate that topic. "Female" and "feminine" are not clearly defined attributes when you're talking about a form of fiction that includes all genres of setting, and many of these games only have a female antagonist as a coincidental attribute, one so unimportant even players of the game may be unaware.
It's just too big. Feminist theory is a fascinating subject, as is study of gender roles in "low" art, but this is a random, poorly-formed aggregation of raw data that doesn't imply a topic.
Unless you can explain what Kid Icarus, System Shock 2, and Rez have in common? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless popkultcruft, impossible to maintain totally non-encyclopedic. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If that's the case, then there should be a list of characters with African ancestry, Japanese ancestry, etc. –Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As other have said, this is a slippery slope to start allowing them. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – contrary to what I stated in the "protagonists" AFD, the portrayal of women in video games article is written with the explicit premise and focus on the main characters in the game, the protagonists. I do not think this would contribute to any further understanding of the context in that article. A better idea would be to have a list of video games in which the main character is female (but then "main" is a very loaded term). Right now, the only thing coming close to that is the female protagonist list (which I !voted to keep in that AFD). MuZemike 16:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it matters whether a female character is good or evil, as I understand it, the portrayal of women in video games article is meant to address issues like making a female character a sexual stereotype (e.g. early Lara Croft) or fantasy girl versus a deep character on an equal level to any male protagonist...or something like that. Just listing games with female characters doesn't really assist that case at all.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 by Dank (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure (full disclosure: it was my prod that was contested, but I don't think that makes me too involved for this). AnturiaethwrTalk 01:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabriel Loxley[edit]

Delete Non-notable cartoon character, entirely -in universe with no sourcing save for the official website. Written by User:Cabriel, so there's a possible conflict of interest here as well. Contested prod. Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Heh. Guess it's been speedied.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only three ghits outside of WP itself, and the site linked to in the article is just an advertisement. In fact, it looks as if the entire article is simply spam. Anaxial (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Advertisement/non-notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as db-spam since I'm hearing "COI" and "spam" from everyone. I'd appreciate it if a 5th person would do the paperwork and close, and with the closer's implicit agreement, that will make 5-0 for COI/spam, that ought to be enough. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Heiskill[edit]

I've not been able to find anything about this poet. The page has been around for really long. The creator's only other contribution was another poet with a similar birthday and history that I'm also nominating, for the same reason. I'm inclined to think this is a hoax or something, but people seem to have fun with these pages, if you look at the history. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating the following related page for the same reasons.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, can't find any RS for either just a blog at associated content for Heiskell. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't find anything on books or news, and nothing unassociated on general search. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. While a number of new sources were provided, the broad consensus seems to be that none provide the substantial coverage required by WP:N, and generally all that has been demonstrated is a variety of small mentions. ~ mazca ^talk 12:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toon Zone[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nom. This article was deleted through WP:Articles for deletion/Toon Zone (2nd nomination) last year, and Morningpulse rewrote it recently in its current form. Backslash Forwardslash speedily deleted it under G4 (re-creation of deleted content), and Morningpulse contested (see User talk:Backslash Forwardslash#G4), saying that he believes the article is substantially different from the deleted version ~~and should go to AfD~~. Listing here for discussion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, copy-pasting my rationale from User talk:Backslash Forwardslash:
Just my unsolicited two cents: from what I can tell, the article has more references than the original, but doesn't address the problems raised in the original AfD, and so while it's superficially different than the original it still has the same problem.... most of the references appear to be nothing more than picking any article or website that happens to mention ToonZone at all, and don't really demonstrate real notability
rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of references towards it in third party media sources. The quote from Atlantic magazine should be enough. Some places call it ToonZone, instead of Toon Zone though. The official site says it has a space in it. Dream Focus 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at those references? They aren't about ToonZone, most of them are just a passing mention or, even less, just saying "this story appeared in ToonZone". Out of the ones I looked at, the engaget, slashdot, io9, shanghaiist, IGN, and gateworld (archived, the current url is dead) sites can all be so described. That's the entire right-hand column of the reflist (excluding offline sources, which I doubt are any better), and I didn't even look at the left. This is a textbook example of flooding an article with every random ref you can find just to avoid deletion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many notable people in the animation industry make reference towards it. Two published books, including one from the Webster dictionary company, mention it as notable. I'm going to add those references now. Dream Focus 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those Webster books are reprinted content from Wikipedia. --Morning (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What? How do they decide what to include and what not to? It can't just be random, and they certainly can't include everything. Do they have a means to determine what is notable and what isn't? And was the article there, with that information, at the time of the printing? Dream Focus 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article's been around in some way or another since 2005 (although it was deleted for the past year). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete and salt. It's a great website, but there are absolutely no non-trivial mentions. Every reference cited only uses Toon Zone as a source and doesn't give a non-trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources seem sufficient to show notability. This was not at all the case in the version previously deleted, which had no sources at all. That deletion was correct; this one is not. DGG (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mere verification of existence by trivial mentions is not reason for inclusion. For a topic to be notable, it must have significant in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two thirds of the references are examples of the claim that this website has been mentioned in passing by a bunch of things. Not references which make this claim, but examples of the claim. The references that actually make claims about this website are not substantially about the website, and are indeed mentioning it only in passing. It's fashionable to ignore the "significantl" in "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," but to my knowledge it's still there. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear-cut case. The presence of many references is irrelevant if they do not provide significant in-depth coverage of the topic. That is the case here with the many trivial and oblique mentions but no real substance. Drawn Some (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep verifiable sources, check, notability check. trivial sources? perhaps some, but then as notability isn't transferred neither is triviality.--Buridan (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but how does trivial sources on the internet not translate to trivial sources in the article? \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because references and article are horrible. If nobody else can be bothered to write an article about this, then we shouldn't either. Blackbirdz (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't really trace down any of those sources and soom look fairly trivial. But there is a strong case for notability here and, AGF, I will assume a few of them are detailed enough. Hobit (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please state what the strong case for notability is? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, the article establishes that Toon Zone is used as a source for statistics and similar things by those involved in the area. That so many RS indicate that they use Toon Zone as a source, that implies notability. Plus LOTs of fairly trivial coverage builds up toward meeting WP:N IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can accept the error I made in speedy deleting the article, but I may as well chip in. Deletion would appear to be the correct decision; the website has not passed the notability criterion of non-trivial coverage. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} [[13:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are all fake, seemingly plucked at random so the article seems more relavent than it actually is. I work at Toon Zone and ALL of these references are news to the staff, citing books that have no reason to reference an animation website.--HellCat86 (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THIS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not this. There's a big difference between "this is trivial coverage" and "these are fake". TenPoundHammer, you don't accuse an editor of lying just because he wrote one crappy article. —Morning (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe what he meant by "fake" was that the references are not really sources supporting the intended claim, but just pages that happen to contain the words "Toon Zone". It was not an accusation of intentional lying (as far as I can tell). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, it's a good site (my site is hosted there and been cited by animation history writers like Jerry Beck, Michelle Klein-Hass, and Amid Amidi and animation producers like Tad Stones and Fred Seibert, so I'm a little biased), but this article is largely used to insult the reputation of the site (highlighted by that "sort of common ground where those without lives can dwell on and dissect in detail the doings of others" quote and the countless links unconnected to the site), especially when the quote can be referred to any pop culture website. That said, the article had been deleted in the past largely because it attracts former members who had been banned from the site's forums to libel Toon Zone while hiding behind false names and IP numbers. Now, while I don't have a problem with people expressing their opinions (freedom of speech is a glorious thing), Wikipedia isn't exactly the right place to do so. Nemalki (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a negative quote because that's all I could find. If you have better sources, get rid of that terrible quote and add the good sources instead. —Morning (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But here's the thing. Why does the inclusion of THAT particular quote need to be prominent in the article? There are even more negative quotes about bigger sites than Toon Zone, and they're rarely present here, so why is that quote in this one? I mean, The Art Institute of Philadelphia calls Toon Zone home to "some of the best animation sites on the internet." [16] Also, many industry insiders have praised Toon Zone during its fifth anniversary [17]. Many, many positive quotes, and yet you chose to post a negative one instead.Nemalki (talk) 00:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't need to be anything! It's not my article. You're free to add and remove whatever you want. I haven't been a member of Toon Zone for like six years, I just made this article on a whim. I'm not out to disparage the site. If you don't like what I wrote, go ahead and change it. Add those Fred Seibert (etc.) quotes, and you'll have a good, fair article that won't get deleted. —Morning (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So, by your own admission, you haven't been a member of Toon Zone in over six years. and yet, you decided to make an article dedicated to the site? That does sound a little suspect and makes my original observation of the use of the article for former members to disparage and libel the site under the guise of false names and IP numbers that much more probable than not. Nemalki (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's please stay civil and focus on content, not contributors. There is no reason to think there is anything "suspect" in Morningpulse's editing. We're just having a disagreement about the notability of what he chose to write an article about; there are no ulterior motives here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morningpulse: "That's all I can find" doesn't sound like a very strong case for notability.... rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Boldly redirected Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of Scientology[edit]

I nominate the History of Scientology page for deletion on the ground that it currently serves no real purpose. This article is merely an unreferenced collection of links, and unnecessary given the long history section of the Scientology article. So, I propose we either delete this article, or merge it with the aforementioned section. RUL3R (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scientology#History which has more content about the topic than this page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Mandsford (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Racepacket (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above with merging whatever is to be salvaged. Wikid ^as© 16:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was G12'ed Jclemens (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Die Kur[edit]

Fails WP:BAND, google returns nothing, and it has crazy POV, with nothing to back up the claims of "highly recognized music" or a "...strong reputation as pioneer of electronic music..." Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 No true assertation of notability. This crap has sat around for two years?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would of speedy-ed it, but there were quite a few edits to the article; figured if someone else hadn't already PROD'd or brought it here, speedy probably wasn't the best idea. Oh well. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Random--Never wrong to exercise due diligence. I don't believe WP:before should be a policy, though i do try to adhere to it. Been here this long, a few more moments won't hurt anything. Dlohcierekim 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get 450,000 google hits. That's a lot to sort though to establish nn. Dlohcierekim 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-- Unless I've missed a notice, this is a copyvio of http://www.findmusicvenue.com/live-music/band/?Gig=Die+Kur&Band=529. Dlohcierekim 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I tagged it with a CSD for copyvio. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 21:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Am Allmusic und Billboard alles nichts. Auch am Deutche Wikipedia If this is a German band, as the name of the group suggests to me, ("The Cure" in English). I would have hoped to see an article on German Wikipedia. Likewise would I expect a mention on Billboard and Allmusic whatever the nationality. When I refine my search for "Die Kur" plus "Industrial Metal" I do not find reliable third party sources giving significant coverage. If it is a copyvvio, that speaks for itself. I disagree with R&B as to the assertion of significance, a lower standard than notability, and found it hard to search for info on the subject given the limited context in the article. Dlohcierekim 21:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marg Swarnabhoomi[edit]

The result was merge with MARG Limited. (Non-admin closure) --Explodicle (T/C) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with speedying this; there's too much going on here. The article has been a while, but edited almost exclusively by one editor with obvious COI (his/her last edit was removing links because the company websites were getting spammed via those links). This is about a community, but it's a community developed exclusively by one developer. added It wouldn't bother me at all if editors, especially editors active at WT:INDIA, want to keep this article, but I'd really like to see the arguments on both sides of the issue (it's clearly advertising, but on the other hand, it's about a community). - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to say keep, it is not quite a spam, and as a geographic entity should be kept. There are quite a few web hits for this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a geographical place, it should be kept. It has POV/COI problems with the editor, but that's not really a reason to bring to AfD. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Updated below. Since it's a verifiable place, it seems logical to keep it. For the POV/COI issues best to get it addressed through WP:COIN than AfD. Stubbing it and topic ban for the creator may be a better option, especially given that RS references exist. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with MARG Limited. This is an upcoming commercial housing project and the coverage of the project in the listed sources is somewhat incidental. IMO this does not meet WP:ORG, and there is no justification for treating the topic separately from the company running it. In a few years time, when people are actually living and working here, and if reliable sources provide sufficient information about the demographics, culture, facilities, transportation etc, we can recreate this. Abecedare (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MARG Limited - agree with Abecedare. It is a project in progress. Future community only. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: Disagree with dank on the aspect that this needs to be deleted because one user is updating it. Details on this wiki page are available on public domain and open to update by anyone. The editor is open to suggestions on improving the wiki page. Merge can be used as an option if this article cannot be improved on. Shrirambr (talk) 12:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with MARG Limited per Abecedare. Change of heart, since the place is a future city, it makes sense to have it in the developer's page for now, especially given that the sources currently prove existence, not notability (which would be required since it's not yet an inhabited place). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with MARG Limited.agree with Abecedare. I felt this article was having more advertising content than encyclopedic and called for Speedy Deletion which was later moved to AfD by Dank (push to talk) Srikanth ^t 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CRiSP Editor[edit]

Could not establish notability (google, alexa). Probably not even eligible for an article. Written as ad since July 2008. Referours (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of hundreds of non-notable editors out there made by hundreds of small software companies. Canterbury Tail talk 15:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seemed notable at one point (in the early 1990s), but its vendor (see the edit history) doesn't help. Tedickey (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Brief (text editor)#Clones as a plausible search target. Verifiable, but the only in-depth independent source I was able to find was the same article in Linux Journal that our article already cites. —Korath (Talk) 03:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus for Windows[edit]

Could not establish notability (google, alexa). Not covered by media. Not eligible for article. Referours (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is software, a text editor, that makes no claims to notability. Crom for Windows is better, too. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Seems like promotion in parts.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Most participants seem to agree that this article is salvageable in some form; though there is no clear consensus whether to keep the article as it is or to merge it. I suggest a merge discussion is conducted on the talk page to determine a clearer way forward, though I'm not going to make any kind of binding decision either way based on this AfD. ~ mazca ^talk 12:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crash test dummies in popular culture[edit]

While crash test dummies are notable per WP:NOTE, crash test dummies in popular culture is not a notable topic for a stand-alone article. Furthermore, this article is a combination of original research, admitted rumor, and trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In addition, article has no references and has been tagged as needing them for over two years. These sorts of articles are harmful to the encyclopedia and it has been mirrored numerous times. Delete. Drawn Some (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This information probably could be referenced if someone wanted to take the time. That said, just because the info is verifiable it is not necessarily notable. This is just a list of places that crash dummies have been used. If these individual uses are notable than they should be worked into the appropriate articles not collected on a single page. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Crash test dummy Racepacket (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced trivia isn't appropriate for merger. Drawn Some (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think it is a notable topic for a stand-alone article, and that it shouldn't be merged; the Vince and Larry public service announcements made them as well known as Smokey the Bear had been for an earlier generation. Unfortunately-named with the cursed "in popular culture" tag, three words which are synonymous with "please nominate this". Unless there's some sourcing, however, the nominator is correct that it's had a chance to improve. This is an article that has ignored warnings to put on the safety belt of verifiable sources, and it is now skidding toward the concrete wall of deletion. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient notable uses of the concept in notable media to make an article. That a theme is used in media is significant--this is one of the fields of media study, not just the individual uses. There is no deadline for improvement; failure to improve is not reason for deletion--impossibility of improvement is. DGG (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough just to say all that, DGG, you have to demonstrate that what you are saying is true. Otherwise people could just say whatever they can think of to "save" worthless articles from deletion. I know no one would actually DO that, but we must avoid that appearance. ;-P Drawn Some (talk) 13:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, no. Actually to render an opinion one does not have to prove thier opinion is true. It may help but per assume good faith we extend that folsk are not simply fabricating and falsifying. I'm not even sure what the point would be in doing so. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Give it a few days, and see if it improves.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crash test dummy. This isn't a pop culture article, it's Crash test dummy miscellanea, ranging from independently notable bits of pop culture (the PSAs, the licensed works) to incredibly inane trivia (one time Far Side mentioned them). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
response: Give it a few days, and see if it improves.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We really should have a general overview of the Vince and Larry "media empire", as there is a good bit to say about it that wouldn't fit well in Crash test dummy. Perhaps we could merge this article with The Incredible Crash Dummies, which is supposed to be about the toy line specifically, but also covers the animated specials, the video game, and the comic books. Here are a few sources that cover Vince, Larry, and friends: [18], [19], [20], [21], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 23:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article seems to have been spun-out from the Crash test dummies parent article 15 Februaary 2007. There is a principal issue of what to do with what some people think is "low quality" and "unecyclopaedic" in popular culture.... content. In this case the content is of such a good nature, that it could either stay in a separate article or be merged back - but overall we achieve little (if anything at all) by first spinning out content, and then merging it back. I made a similar comment to the nominee at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King's Lynn in popular culture. Power.corrupts (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then see my response there. Per WP:NOTE the topic of an article must be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and no, I don't like these articles, I simply don't read them, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER and I have no immediate urge to deny other Wikipedians the possibility of working in this area . Please explain why "These sorts of articles are harmful to the encyclopedia" - I mean, preciesly what sort of harm are you thinking of - to me this sounds like WP:DONTLIKEIT. Power.corrupts (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2009/01/13/tomo/index.html Drawn Some (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the link, and I see no answer to my question of what is harmful. However, I would add that the crash test dummies Vince and Larry found way into the national news in Denmark, in the 1990s if I remember correctly, I'm sure plenty of refs for this article can be found. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While not all "in pop culture" articles should be kept (I'd favor merging or deleting many, as discussed in various AfDs), I'd keep this one and many others. It is not harmful; in fact, possibly useful to high school and college students doing reseach. As Power.corrupts pointed out, see WP:NOTPAPER. This stub needs a rescue job, see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge: If this article could be condensed and places in the Crash Test Dummies article it would be ok. Otherwise delete.--gordonrox24 (talk) 01:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prune and Merge to Crash Test Dummies -- Popular culture sections and articles are buckets for collecting trivia and should be deleted. However much of this article is not about popular culture, so much as about a US road safety campaign. That material (re-titled appropriately) should be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are usually a damned mess but I can see clear evidence of notability here. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per WP:AfD. This is hardly an indiscriminate list, is sourceable just currently needing sources and all of these remain clean-up issues. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Popular culture is something the wikipedia does keep track of. Dream Focus 02:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Crash test dummy Ohms law (talk) 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crash test dummy, that article needs the good parts of this article. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 15:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Costa Rican records in swimming[edit]

PROD contested. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac or collection of statistics. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This and similar articles would probably be acceptable if they were renamed and refocussed. This would be better as "Swimming in Costa Rica" (similar to Football in Costa Rica, and would need more emphasis on the sport general rather than on making lists. Unfortunately, the person who started these envisioned setting up a bunch of (retch) subcategories called "Swimming in _______", each of which would then be a suppository for articles about swimming in a particular nation. Instead, the category Category: Swimming by country would be sufficient to house all the articles, forget the dumb subcats. Mandsford (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there a reason Costa Rica's records are being singled out, and not all the National Records currently present? (i.e. Why hasn't anyone flagged the USA's National Records for deletion?) Hooperswim (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't see why this list is any less notable than similar country lists, such as List of United States records in swimming. If we are considering whether such lists should be deleted in general, then they should all be listed here. Otherwise, there seems to be no reason to delete the Costa Rica list. Although lists of national swimming records seems notable to me regardless. That is not just a "collection of statistics." Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems perfectly encyclopaedic to me, and it's referenced to boot. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1349 (band)[edit]

I don't believe this band passes WP:MUSICBIO. No charting singles, no album reviews. Indie label does not lend to notability. Only possible exception is that they were involved in a tour with Celtic Frost, but I'm not sure that counts per the guideline. Request other eyes. لenna vecia 13:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep at least one member of the band is notable, and they have toured and performed with several notable acts. They have also put out 4 albums on a notable indie record label.Ridernyc (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per point 5 of WP:BAND - they've had 4 albums released on Candlelight. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone explain how Candlelight meets the notable indie record label criteria? لenna vecia 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says it right in the article "The label is notable for putting out early releases from influential bands such as Opeth and Emperor." Both are very notable bands. Ridernyc (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So two bands constitutes many? لenna vecia 14:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many place are you going to have the same debate see my reply here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Help. Ridernyc (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently two, considering that's how many places it's relevant. لenna vecia 17:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Charting singles is irrelevant in black metal, they have plenty of album reviews, have toured extensively with notable bands, have received plenty of press attention, are signed to renowned label Candlelight, and feature drummer Frost. Dark Prime (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently, they've had album reviews done, and they're on a notable independent record label. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Punkmorten (talk) 08:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1349 is one of the most notable bands in the Black Metal movement. For example, there are scores of album reviews for them. Hervegirod (talk) 10:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faip-05 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, this article does have a firm stance on nobility. There is one band member with a wikipedia article of his own (Frost; they are signed to Candlelight Records; all their albums have wikipedia articles; all four of their full-length releases have been released through Candlelight Records. There is way too much notability here for this article to be deleted. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 03:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they have had a touring musician that has a wikipedia account (Tony Laureano), if that counts for anything. Also, just because a band doesn't make the music charts doesn't mean that they should be deleted from wikipedia. Another note is that it seems that the vote, so far, is unanimous to keep this page. I'm pretty sure I know what will happen to this page. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Bachelor party. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stag Weekends[edit]

Delete not notable Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Bachelor party. We assumedly all know that bachelor parties exist and are probably notable (as probably at least one person you know has had one and gone to one), so I'm not so worried on the unsourced part...but don't really need two articles on the same social rituals. Syrthiss (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-redirect to bachelor party. This piece is a poorly written essay. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to bachelor party - really this is just an alternative term for the same thing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bachelor party.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starkweather (band)[edit]

Claim to notability is for having "pioneered" their sound, but there is no reference to support this claim. Signed to indie label that does not appear to lend to the band's notability. No charting singles or compilation album participation. No notable members. Delete. لenna vecia 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC) لenna vecia 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems a little unfair to expect a hardcore punk band to be able to show charting singles. A cursory google turns up coverage in a newspaper and a music mag, and the article already cites coverage at allmusic. They appear to be well clear of the bar. Flowerparty^☀ 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Flowerparty, sufficient sources exist to meet the general notability guideline/C1 of WP:BAND. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faints. Did Ten Pound Hammer just argue for... keep? I'll say Keep too, as not every band gets called "One of the forefathers of the hardcore-metal movement" by MTV.[22] Fences&Windows 18:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article had been deleted earlier for the same reason of non-notability on 16 December 2007. I had asked (User_talk:East718#Undelete Starkweather (band)) the deletor to undelete the 27 edits. Jay (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage has been shown to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus to delete. Editorial decisions are outside the scope of afd. Flowerparty^☀ 17:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic views on Falun Gong[edit]

The reasons are outlined on the talk page. There are a number of problems. I mainly wrote the page, then it went through some other changes. The overarching problem is the concept of the page: wikipedia pages shouldn't be divided up by sources, but by meaningful themes. For example, if we have a page "Academic views on X", then why not a page "Journalists' views on X" -- what is the point of that? Sources are grouped together based on the actual subject, like "Persecution of Falun Gong," and not the nature of the sources themselves. So the concept of the page is flawed. Secondly, all this information will still be available for anyone who wants it, and it can be ported to other articles associated with the subject as appropriate. There are other things wrong with the page, even very obvious ones, but they aren't related to why the page should be deleted so let's not bother discussing them--things like neutrality, relevance, usefulness to the reader, etc., are all considerations, but anyway. The issue is the floored theme--the information should not be collated on the basis of the type of source. Let's just delete this page and the content in it can be used later in more appropriate settings if necessary. Asdfg12345 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete (or rather redirect to preserve history) this rationale sounds very good. I would like to see comments on why the academic views can't simply be placed in Falun Gong, Persecution of Falun Gong, Falun_Gong_outside_the_People's_Republic_of_China, etc. according to what they talk about. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete: there is no reason why this should be a separate article from Falun Gong. I would not object to a redirect, but I can't see anything wrong with deleting it outright: I see no great harm in losing the history of an article which never had a good reason for existing. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge back into the appropriate sections of the main article if not already there. DGG (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an unusual situation, that a major contributor to an article nominates it for deletion, because the contributions have got out of hand. Strangely, I cannot trace back article creation, only to a 2006 revision [23] - definitely the article has drawn considerable interest, and has been heavily edited, and it currently seems to have a number of quality academic RS. The question is then, if it is a WP:POVFORK or if it merely is a legit article spinout. I would be inclined to say a legit spinout. As the article lede goes: "Falun Gong has received a range of scholarly attention — including ethnographic studies, analysis on the teleology of practice and also ...". It is a problem that the article also seems to have been a battleground at times. These problems are unlikely to go away with a merge though. A merge is also unrealistic, given the size of main article Falun Gong currently is 62k. The right course of action would be to fix the article, focus it, prune it, etc - but not delete it. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this does not advise us why an article that exists on the basis of what kind of sources it refers to, rather than what it is about, is appropriate as an article at all? You know what I mean? That was my main problem with it. Once it's deleted, the info won't be lost. I stored it in a doc file on my computer, and others probably will too. It's not like there's a shortage of space on wikipedia, either--we could just shove it anywhere for reference for other articles on the subject. While some of the information on the page belongs in other contexts, most of it has a distinct feel of "there's nowhere else to put it." It's just simpler to delete it and be done with it, rather than have a scrappy hodgepodge that has no real justification for not being deleted. For readers, the useful stuff on the subject should be able to be put elsewhere. All peripheral arguments to the basic deletion premise though, which I think is watertight. --Asdfg12345 07:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article currently is poorly written and sounds like an essay. By restricting its sources on the reception of FLG, it presents a limited range of views which certainly violates WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, the article is full of technical jargon and block quoting, which makes it inaccessable to the average reader. Criticism articles shouldn't be catagorized by critic.--PCPP (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back - if article spinouts are necessary, it should be by subtopic, not by source. --Rudy Waltz (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merg back per Power.corrupts. --S.dedalus (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those suggesting 'merge back', what do you mean exactly? The size is far too big to merge back into the main article. This article is so little contributed to or noticed that no one will realise if someone just blanks and orphans it, which maybe someone will do sometime soon. Wouldn't that avoid this oddly bureaucratic process where people who have no interest in contributing to the article help decide its fate? It also seems there is no response to the argument that the premise for the article (i.e. source based rather than topic based) is itself mistaken.--Asdfg12345 02:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As best I can tell, this isn't an article about Academic views on Falun Gong, but rather a summary of academic views, correct? Well, perhaps I'm misguided, but shouldn't a summary of academic views about Falun Gong be, well, a part of the article on Falun Gong? Now, it seems that it's incredibly long, which is presumably why it is its own article. My view is that the length means the content needs to be pared down, tightened and focused on only necessary commentary so that it can reasonably fit on the main article. Which is what I support being done here. ÷seresin 06:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Speedy Delete per G8 by TexasAndroid. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Films Inc.[edit]

I cannot find evidence that this company has been the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources, and its primary claim to notability appears to be winning an award that is local in scope. Do we think that this company meets the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia? FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW; rename discussion should take place at talk page (non-admin closure) NW (Talk) 18:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shades of Green[edit]

Non-notable resort. Thepettythief (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article / Remove Vote For Delete, first off Shades of Green like every other resort in Walt Disney World is notable and second this proposal was done by an anonymous user which as I am to understand can only be done by registered users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dancing is Forbidden (talk • contribs) 23:57, 11 June 2009

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, First off the person that started this was an IP user. Suspect probable tag-and-go. Shades of Green is a Disney resort just like any other. If any Disney resort deserves a page, then this resort deserves one to. Marauder40 (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree with your opinion that the starter is an IP user. There is no reason that an IP user can't start an AfD notice. Although the starter might have different views when starting the AfD, it's nothing wrong to start AfD just because he/she is an IP user. I support to keep this article, but IPs are humans too and should be treated like any registered user. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is as notable as any of the Disney hotels. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The AfD was started by a newly registered account, not an IP (which of course can't create pages). The main AfD page specifically suggests that IP users create accounts if they want to start AfD discussion, so there's nothing wrong with that. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: the AfD notice was added to the article by an IP, yes, but there's no policy I know of that prevents that - WP:AfD says users must be logged in to create the AfD page but not to add the notice. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is nothing wrong to let an IP address to start an AfD notice. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable Disney resort. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 'As notable as other Disney resorts' is a very unconvincing argument - what counts is the existence of sources. There's a NYT article already on the page and more are easy to find, so notability is clearly established. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some WP:RS that might help: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. The USA Today articles should help those who want to dismiss the DoD ones. I also found coverage in the LA Times, Washington Post etc.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of in-depth coverage available in reliable sources. It is written like original research though, probably could stand a good haircut and some referencing. Drawn Some (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely no reasoning provided as to why the nom thinks it's "non-notable." The coverage as provided above is significant. --Oakshade (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename Shades of Green (resort) and redirect the current title to Variations of green (don't forget to adjust the hatnote there). Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely notable. Even Reno's casinos have a template and individual articles, why should this article be deleted? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unquestionably notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Even if the reliable sources brought forth do not amount to much "significant" coverage, there is no consensus to delete the article. Jamie^☆S93 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Awards[edit]

Non-notable award. No coverage in reliable secondary sources independent from the awards or the awarded. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reaffirming my nomination in light of the excessively trivial mentions added. There is no significant coverage of these non notable awards in reliable sources independent of the subject. Hipocrite (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I like this idea, it's a good one, but it doesn't yet seem to show notability. Change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...okay, so it really is notable. Well, fine, be that way, Stevie Awards! Keep. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a few citations, and there's plenty of RS material out there. A brief sampling. Many more are available. Cool3 (talk) 21:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cooke, Nicola (March 2, 2008). "Branson set for lifetime achievement award". Sunday Business Post.
"To the Victors Go the Stevies". Financial Times. April 29, 2003. p. 12.
"American Business Awards presents 'The Stevie'". The Valley Breeze. Cumberland, RI. October 17, 2002.
Keep based on references added. Edward321 (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to be a notable award. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 17:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPM (software)[edit]

Unremarkable software with no assertion of notability, no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and reads like a press release. Trevor Marron (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is properly sourced and notability is obvious since it's used by tenth of thousands of companies to help in the EU policy making process. Perhap nominator should reword the article if he/she believes it reads like a press release. Laurent (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Note that the article was created following a request by another user, which proves that some people may be interested in the article. Laurent (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited and no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Madcoverboy (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did not review the history extensively, but this seems to establish that this software is a creation of the European government, and the article contains multiple reliable sources. (I have my doubts about The Register, but at least they're independent and edited.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be reliable sources cited, and the software looks notable enough. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 16:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are NO secondary sources. The item in 'The Register' does not mention any software. The subject can not be notable just because someone asked for an article, nor simply because it was written for and used (only) by the European Government. Wikipedia has guidelines for notability and this software seems not to meet them, the primary sources simply show the software exists and are just pages from the European Government's web site. If anyone can show some real, proper secondary references (by Wikipedia standard) that show notability then they should put them in the article and we can then discuss them, but at this time, none exist, and I can not find any. The guidelines for WP:NOTE are clear, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I see none. Trevor Marron (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Did you read the latest version of the article? This source and that one are clearly secondary sources. I can find more if needed, but it's just a stub and there are already 8 sources. This is getting ridiculous... Laurent (talk) 22:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the tone of your comment immediately above this. I saw the new references, and bar the one in German none of them review, look at in depth or even mention the IPM software, they simply mention 'Interactive Policy Making' and NOT the software they use for this, the two are not one, one is a policy, the other is software, and the article nominated for deletion is about THE SOFTWARE. The German article mentions the software but only in relation to the licencing of the software, and not what the software does or how it achieves it, nor does it comment on the abilities of the software or review it in any way. There may be eight sources, but they can not be regarded as good secondary sources that prove the software is of note, not by a long stretch. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concerns but again this is just a stub so you can't expect the article to be that detailed. There's a review of the software here: [29]. The EC also reviewed it here. Laurent (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cos Ryan[edit]

Autobiographical article by someone who has published two webcomics, both of which seem rather to have petered out, some blogs and a podcast, "has occasionally recorded music and songs", and is now announcing a new collaboration on another webcomic, no launch date available. References are his website, podcasters.co.uk and last.fm. This falls well short of notability, compared with the standard of WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : part of notability includes an announcement of a secret plan on his facebook page. All references are uninformative on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdseeksblonde (talk • contribs) 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom Afkatk (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could not find independent, reliable 3rd party sources discussing this man or his works. Zzzzz (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessa Munt[edit]

Biography of a parliamentary candidate. Per WP:POLITICIAN, just being a candidate does not confer notability, and no other notability is indicated - even in the original version, most of which has been removed as copyvio. Wikipedia is not an election notice-board. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete standing for parliament doesn't make you notable in itself. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, and no user wanted too delete Rettetast (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trimi Makolli[edit]

Contested PROD. Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. No sources, and no other claim to fame either. Giant Snowman 11:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played once in the Allsvenskan according to http://www.soccerway.com/teams/sweden/djurgardens-fotbollsforening/squad/ 8lgm (talk) 11:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Edit conflict) He played against IF Brommapojkarna on April 24 in Allsvenskan as a substitute. See "Byten" [30] Tooga - BØRK! 12:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played in Allsvenskan. Rettetast (talk) 14:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now that new info has been added proving notability, I withdraw my nomincation. Giant Snowman 16:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect to the section mentioned below (if discussion there about this person is deemed appropriate, only). ÷seresin 06:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rinku Singh Rahi[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO; this is more of a WP:COATRACK or WP:MEMORIAL. Stifle (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Personally, as India is an emerging important market, I have interest in stories like this. I'm not entirely sure it raises to bio level but I would goad someone into doing more investigation before dropping it. I guess he may not be Sherlock Holmes,

but maybe a merge of somekind may make sense.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP1E, WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Corruption in India#Incidents. Not notable for a stand alone article, but it could be part of the main article on corruption in India in a new category of major incidents or something. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. However if someone is interested in expanding and developing it into an article on Muzaffarnagar welfare department corruption scandal (or whatever), I would support userification. Merger into Corruption in India may be undue, at least until the accused are convicted. Note: Rahi fortunately survived the attack, so WP:MEMORIAL does not strivctly apply. Abecedare (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Beginnings[edit]

Completely unsourced article that has been on Wikipedia since April last year about a television show that was "due to premiere in Spring 2009". It didn't. Actually, it seems much more likely to be a hoax article, as none of the assertions in the article could be independently verified; on the contrary, any evidence from reliable sources would directly contradict the assertions in the article: for example, many of the putative cast are already in successful ventures that would preclude them from this show, not to mention that this putative cast has surreally included authors Maeve Binchy and Margaret Atwood (!) since the earliest versions. As the article has existed here for a year (and has been internally linked to from a few other articles), there are unreliable sources mirroring or using the content of the article, but I didn't find anything that would even be remotely considered a reliable source for this project ever having existed in any form at any time. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, it's a hoax. The article has been mucked about quite a bit over its history, but even as left by the original author Anewkindoffamily (talk · contribs) its cast list was wildly improbable, containing authors like Binchy, Atwood and Tracey Chevalier. I note also that the author edited only on this article, over one period of less than a week - typical of hoax authors. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as not a hoax [31], but a show in post-prodcution. Allow it back when it mets the WP:GNG. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course if, or when, the show in production called New Beginnings meets notability criteria, an article can be created for it. The problem is... that isn't even remotely the same show that the article makes assertions about, which is allegedly an ABC show. The character descriptions and cast are completely different. From the earliest versions of the article that is there now, it looks (to me at any rate) that much of the current article was originally copied from the 8 Simple Rules article, including the infobox that for a while included cast and crew members of the earlier show (including James Garner) and then was expanded into fantasy by including cast members of other teen-orientated shows. The article, in any of the versions of its history, was and is a BLP problem, asserting as it does that the actors listed are going to take part in this show. No prejudice against a creation of an article for the show in production of course, but this isn't an article about that show. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I should have said above that the show in production by this title mentioned on IMDb is a production in the UK, while the show in the article has always been asserted as an ABC Family production. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No argument here. I would expect after the show completes production and its release become imminent, the proper cast and production will be in a returned article. Certainly the current one is full of errors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - WP:SNOW \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of MySpace celebrities[edit]

Unsourced article promoting MySpace links. Has not been updated for a long time. Gsp 8181 10:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced, original research. For those with articles, it says nothing the articles can't. For those without, it's just pointless promotion. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Greg Tyler nailed it. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with User:Greg Tyler, pointless, unsourced list which adds no information not already present in the individual articles. JIP | Talk 13:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Greg Tyler. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced original research. Drawn Some (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a useless list. Afkatk (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of Wikipedia celebrities would be better.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete, because, damn.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Darling Murder[edit]

Contested PROD - No indication of Notability, and a quick search reveals nothing except the basic youtube and myspace spam. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete non-notable band, with several never-charting songs on a self-released album. The band has appeared at several non-notable venues for non-notable performances. Clear case of the band not meeting inclusion criteria and failing WP:V. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete (G11) by Dank. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Bingo[edit]

Contested PROD. Article displays no Notability. The "Refereces" are nothing but promotions and so is the rest of the article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Not quite unambiguously promotional to be speedied, but nothing here even asserts notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, wait, I'm pretty sure it constitutes web content per WP:SD#A7. Speedy delete, then. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) – come play our online casino games! MuZemike 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11 (spam). So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied as db-spam. I'd appreciate it if someone else would do the paperwork and close. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was withdrawn; the subject no longer requests deletion (OTRS #2009061510004244) based on the changes to the article since the start of the AfD, and said changes have addressed any possible notability concerns.. Daniel (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hullinger[edit]

Contested prod. The original reason in the prod doubles as the reason for this AfD. Daniel (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. He is a reporter for a local affiliate. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He meets WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. He was not always just a "Salt Lake" reporter. Article needs expansion and further sourcing per Deseret News 1982 and over 20 years of being himself in the news. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with above rationale. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 22:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In favor of keeping the article, with the noted expansion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.223.164 (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets the WP standard. Jeff has won multiple awards. The bio has plenty of references. Good enough for WP. AdjustShift (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kermode uncut[edit]

Video blog of subject, Mark Kermode, nothing here that cant be covered fully in the main article, although there is nothing really to note other than its existence, which the main article already does, so it doesnt need merging. dont see why its been forked? there are no references to indicate significant discussion about it from reliable 3rd parties, so dont think it satisfies WP:WEB? Catherine breillat (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Catherine breillat (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blog isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete Boris Gunn Blog is UNIQUE and notable for that. 18:19, 13 June 2009 (GMT)
- NOTE: This user has been investigated and confirmed as a sockpuppeteer violating WP:STUFF in this AFD: see [32] (decision - user blocked) and [33] (case). Zzzzz (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no reliable, independent, 3rd-party sources discussing this blog: the article can only use primary source material, it therefore it must be deleted per WP:WEB (also, the only assertion of notability in the article is unreferenced and dubious). Zzzzz (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete Not convinced of motive for deletion request. Assertion that notability in the article is "dubious" is arbitrary and judgmental. Where is the argument that the blog is not unique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatisyourmalfunction (talk • contribs) 15:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This user has been investigated and confirmed as a sockpuppet violating WP:STUFF in this AFD: see [34] (decision - user blocked) and [35] (case). Zzzzz (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the blog ever achieves significance apart from being "Mark Kermode's blog", we can always bring it back then. We can merge current content into Mark Kermode, except that everything but the photograph is already there. Gaurav (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather depressing that a couple of tyro mistakes (i.e. not quite getting the sockpuppet thing or forgetting to add a signature) are leapt on and punished with such ferocity. It's not exactly encouraging for beginners. Perhaps there should be a special "Martinet" award for some of you guys. Anyway, question for Z. (May I call you Z? Zzzzz seems so formal don't you think?) After citations and references are asked for, at what point is it allowable for these to be included in an edit rather than simply deleted automatically because the well-meaning individual who submitted them has made the above errors? And if this is not the correct forum to discuss this, Z, then please let me know what is? In good faith. Boris Gunn

(By the way, does this count as a signature Boris Gunn?) —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was speedy delete - no assertion of notability. ... discospinster _talk 20:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cralotte[edit]

Probable (but I don't think quite blatant) hoax which has had its prod removed. I can find no Google hits to indicate its existence. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources supplied, and I find none. Either hoax or ad for un-notable product. JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether or not it is a hoax seems irrelevant. The author of the page wrote the phrase "Cralotte is not yet well known" which clearly indicates that even if the software exists, it is not notable.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources and no notability asserted. Probably either a hoax or made up at school one day. JIP | Talk 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N Niteshift36 (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: as co-creator of the game i can assure all it is genuine. Both versions of the game are board games made available for around 1500 pupils of a local secondary school. The article never refered to cralotte as "soft-ware". The fact that it can not be found on google is not surprising if people such as yourselves get so stressed about the games "noteability" that they recommend it for deletion. The games have helped many students achieve high grades at GCSE.... Whether the games were created in a school or out of a school is irrelevent as they both still exist! Just because the game is "not well known" it certainly does not mean it is not noteable.... it merely means that the game has not been made available commercially or mass produced, it has nevertheless helped many and will continue to do so in the future. Whether people find the article of any interest, relevence or use is a matter of opinion and no solid reason for a reccomendation of deletion!

The article is a work-in-progress hence the lack of picture and sources...... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.123 (talk • contribs) 12 June 2009 — 149.254.49.123 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi there - just to clarify. On Wikipedia, notability has a very specific meaning. A notable subject is one that's received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - like books, journals, newspapers, and so on. We're not saying this game isn't important (it might be: we can't tell, because we also haven't been given any verifiable evidence about it), but that until someone else has written about, we can't have an article on it. As an encyclopedia, this isn't the place to raise a profile or generate publicity. If you have any sources that could establish notability, by all means bring them here so we can discuss them. Gonzonoir (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability, verifiability, and not for things made up in school one day. Edison (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison - you make a very useless point all current issues with the article are referred 2 in the coment above yours... and no where in the article is the game refered as "being made up in school one day" If your gonna get so stressed about one article that will have no affect on your life whether it is deleted or not, u cud at least read the article first.... 2 b honset ur all bein silly - whats the matter with u all? the article clearly has significance to some people.... im quite surprised you have nothing better to do with ur lives.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cralotte (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC) — Cralotte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment' N u cud lurn 2 spel. Edison (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison - Me learn to spell? You might want to check how to spell learn, you retard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.21 (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cralotte, please read carefully the guideline WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. It explains clearly why your game is not yet suitable for a Wikipedia article. See particularly the bit at the end about Scrabble. JohnCD (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read our no personal attacks policy. Do not attack other editors. MuZemike 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find anything that can provide any verifiability. MuZemike 17:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Article itself asserts non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per admitted non-notability.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 17:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Smith (news anchor)[edit]

Fails WP:CREATIVE. He appears to have had a relatively unremarkable career on local affiliates. The only thing marking him as different than everyone else is a couple of arrests for soliciting prostitutes Niteshift36 (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Biography of a dead person removed from list. لenna vecia 00:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep someone who has worked in market(s) with millions of people in it is definitely notable. Why do small-town mayors get Wikipedia articles when they would fall under the same criteria? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CFIF, as the author, I'm sure you think he is notable. But the argument of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a valid one. Point those mayor articles out and maybe they'll get deleted too if the person isn't notable.
Delete per nom. I work in a market with over a million people, does that make me notable? Reso lute 15:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources over many years.[36][37][38] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course you'll find trivial mentions of his name in the local newspapers. That doesn't rise to notability. And the google search you linked to shows plenty of hits that are not him, so I'm not sure what you think it is evidence of. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use a "Stub" tag and may require more information, but anyone doing research on this personality, as I was, certainly benefits from the information contained here; his arrests do make him notable to someone from any of the regions he's worked in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.223.164 (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is why BLP articles are harmful (although I'm aware that he died in 2007). We've set low bars to include hundreds (if not thousands) of people who did a public job (film/television production and professional sports being the worst offenders) for X period of time, and any embarrassing material that crops up is permanently aggregated in this series. This is genuine evil done to the subjects, who have no way of opting out and significant social barriers to doing anything about it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly. His two arrests for misdemeanor crimes aren't notable and most people have long forgotten about it....unitl they come to Wikipedia to remind them. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing a good indication of notability or lasting significance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO by himself being covered in a more-than-trivial articles for over 20 years. Some examples: St. Petersberg Times (1973), St. Petersberg Times (1974),The Evening Independent (1986), The Ledger (1989), St. Petersburg Times (1989), etc. There's more... lots more. The article needs sourcing per WP:CLEANUP, but that's not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, like in the other AfD, you provide LOCAL newspaper coverage of the local newsman. Some people might not realize that Tampa and St. Pete are within sight of each other (literally), but I do. And it's mostly trivial coverage to boot. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the guideline and I actually looked at my sources. You are speaking as if notability over 20 years for several million people is not notability. Sorry, an extreme minimalist view is not supported by guideline, as we're not talking about a neighborhood bake sale. Notability over 20 years for a few dozen million is just as worthy as notability for 300 milion. He meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG through "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and with coverage that is more-than-trivial even if not in-depth and substantive. "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your first link is an advertisement. Your second link is a profile of several different anchors in the area. Your third link is about a different Smith. The fifth link is one sentence buried deep in a story, mentioning Hugh Smith offhand.

You have one single reference that is about Hugh Smith in any substantial way, and it's more about a new show on which he will be working than about him. How is that justification to keep a biography that does significant harm to the subject? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually helping to improve the article would be much more productive than a critique of my opinion of the article's potential or the results of my initial WP:AFTER search... specially considering the length of the man's career. Thank you though for your input.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, but harm to the subject and bad sources. Care to address? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: Since the last delete opinions posted above, the article has been expanded and sourced. What was nominated for deletion as this, is now THIS, with sourcing now meeting WP:V and WP:RS. There certainly is more that can be done, with help from others after a keep. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. So little care was given to sourcing this biography that newspaper advertisements and scattered, trivial half sentences are used as references. Little in this article meets WP:RS, and no effort has been made to address the harm to the subject. This carelessness is exactly why we shouldn't have these articles. Propping up eternal records of everyone's malfeasance with non-sources is not what Wikipedia is for, and it's actively dangerous to the health of this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one sentence referring to his news covered arrest has been removed. Removing it was far more productive that debating its inclusion. Article meets WP:V. Assertions meet WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why was it removed? There's better coverage of that than his career. (Which is the point.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed because you seemed to have problem with it and I did not feel like arguing a point here that affects so many other articles across all of Wikipedia. If someone does something notorious that makes the news and actually results in a major bump in their careers, it should be included... tactifully... if covered in reliable sources. Wikipedia has precedent for careful inclusion of such events for BLP's of both living and deceased persons in order to inform readers of an article topic.... just as Chappaquiddick was a little bump for Ted Kennedy and is included... and various scandals were a major bump for Fatty Arbuckle and were included. I ask that you yourself find the way to best re-include it, as your concerns are appreciated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And those scandals are famous scandals about famous people, whereas this is just a guy who works in a public job, until his career was ruined by a misdemeanor conviction and he disappeared. Where's the substantial coverage in reliable sources of this man's career or his crime? "Careful inclusion" is not advertisements and articles chiefly about his employer. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:N clearly and easily while BLP doesn't apply. Hobit (talk) 02:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, adding 7 different sources to say the same thing, that he really worked there, makes the article so much better. BTW, there is no BLP's for the deceased. The L stands for livingNiteshift36 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agreed on BLP, so I'm not sure of your point. And yes, I'd call the coverage non-trivial, reliable and multiple. So per WP:N, we keep. Hobit (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable coverages to easily meet the main notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: after weeding out advertisements, blog posts, duplicate links, and very brief offhand mentions (less than half a sentence) in articles chiefly about other subjects, the article looks like this. The remaining references are a non-biographical profile of all of the news anchors of Tampa Bay, a brief mention that WTVT changed news directors (mentioning Hugh Smith as the second of two job changes), and an article that is about Hugh Smith getting a radio job after his television career was ruined. All are in the St. Petersburg Times. Two peripheral mentions and one article about Hugh Smith, all in the same newspaper, are not significant coverage in reliable sources. The only significant coverage is an obvious WP:ONEEVENT candidate. This is not sufficient for an encyclopedia biography. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". I think we've got that. One event is, IMO, bogus. But opinions may vary, which is why AfD exists. 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The only factual claims supported by an article that isn't about his arrest are "Hugh Smith worked for [station] as of [this date]." I don't think that's substantial coverage, and many of the keeps implicitly rest on Schmidt's impressive-looking list of terrible non-references. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:N and sources added by Michael. Granite thump (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The removal of many sources toward WP:V have been repaired by the addition of 2 in-depth articles written of the subject by the two major newspapers in that area... the Tampa Tribune (#38 in the nations top 100 newspapers) and the St. Petersberg Times (#20 in the nation's top 100 newspapers). Their serving an area of nearly 3 million people [39], shows coverage to nearly 10% of the U.S. population. Guideline does not mandate WP:RS coverage to be national or international to be considered "significant"... and whether for "just" 3 million or for 300 million, notability is notability. The subject meets WP:N and WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, you are so hung up on the numbers that you are missing the point. It's not about how many viewers there are in the market or how many people get the Tampa Tribune, is is the coverage itself. An article saying "Weatherman X visited a local school today and talked about hurrican prep" is trivial coverage. An article about a parade that says "Reporter Y rode on the float from WWWW-TV" is trivial. These aren't professional accomplishments, they are professional obligations. Due to my professional obligations, I give talks to school age children 2-3 times a week. So what if I've been mentioned in newspapers or local TV stations. That doesn't make me notable, it just means I'm doing my job. Let me use another example: Take the public information officer of your local police dept. If you live in a community of any real size, they are quoted, by name, in your local papers almost every day. They probably appear on TV a couple of times a week. We could find a lot of mentions of their name in very reliable sources. But does that make the PIO really notable? I say no. He/she is simply doing their job and that entails being the dept. spokesperson. There is little coverage of any depth on these people because most are nomads. They go from one market to another, being minor local celebrities who speak at local Rotary luncheons or appear at new car dealership openings. Some like Smith find a place they like and become comfortable and stay there, but they are still minor in terms of notability. They simply go to work and do their job. That job happens to be on camera. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers? It was not I that dismissed coverage by 2 major newspapers serving a major portion of US population to be only "local". This required refutation because WP:RS and WP:N do not mandate that coverage of a person be world-wide. What is notable to 3 million in Florida is not notable to 3 million in New York or Bombay. The man served WTVT for nearly 28 years and was a pioneer in his industry at that time and place. Your hyptheticals are interesting, but do nothing to convince me that he does not meet WP:BIO. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is 3000 or 3 million circulation, local is local. I never said world-wide, you foisted that on me. I said the coverage is local. I've live within 1.5 hours from Tampa for 21 of the past 25 years and never saw an article on him. I know that isn't proof, but it's a reasonable example, since I am an avid news reader. If he isn't that well known beyond a 100 mile radius, I'm sensing "local". And you call him notable to 3 million Floridians, but that is based on your own hypothetical that the majority of Tampa Tribune readers even went to the story. Want to bet the stories were either carried in the lifestyle type sections or the...wait for it....local section of the paper? And why do you call him a pioneer? I see nothing in his bio that indicates pioneer. BTW, check your math. 3 million is not 10% of 300 million. It is 1% Niteshift36 (talk) 08:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3 million = one percent. Yes, thank you. I still do not agree that being covered by 2 of the top 100 newspapers in the United States makes him non-notable. And until this article was nominated for deletion, I had never heard of him either. Thank you though for sharing your views. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably worth pointing out that those 2 newspaper are printed within 20 miles of each other (ie local). And probably worth saying again that the standard isn't coverage, it is "non-trivial coverage". Niteshift36 (talk) 09:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its already been pointed out twice above that the two major newspapers in question are among the top 100 in the United States in circulation, and I could not find it anywhere in guideline that reliable sources could not be printed within 20 miles of each other. And so it's also worth saying agin that the standards include "if coverage is not significant, multiple sources may be required". However, (1974) "Even Off Air They're News", (1991) "Hugh Smith works stint at radio station", (2007) "Pioneering Anchor Smith Dies" are not exactly trivial. Nor are these unadded ones trivial: (1982) "Polk Pulse", "More on Smith incident (1), "More on Smith Incident (2)", "Smith's treatment called degrading", "'ox-cart government' forces him to leave 'my America'", or (1983) "Guzzling coffee and hanging out some dirty laundry", or (1991) "Hugh Smith's 'very Steep' Climb Back", "Hugh Smith at work", "Anchorman admits to sex with hookers", or (2007) "Hugh Smith, Cronkite Of Bay Area, Dies At 73". Its possible we may each have a different definition of trivial. Again, thank you for sharing your view. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first unadded source you provided is a letter to the editor. I stopped there. If you consider a letter to the editor to be acceptable coverage, then we have very different views on what coverage is. Your "the guidelines don't say" thing is getting old because you are using a strawman. While clinging tightly to the numbers of 2 newspapers circulation, you deny the fact that the coverage is local, no matter how you cut it and that the coverage isn't in-depth. It is mostly superficial and trivial in nature. And you'd have never called him a "pioneer" if someone hadn't done it in a eulogy. First color newscast? So what? He had nothing to do with the technical issues etc. He simply sat in the chair and read the news the same way he did the night before. It was the cameramen that had new equipment to figure out. First hourlong newscast? Oh wow.....talk about trailblazing Being on camera a little longer. How did he ever manage? First remote live spot? Again, he simply did what he's always done.... talk on camera. The producers and cameramen were the ones with new things to figure out. Why do I bother to go over it? Because when people start throwing around terms like pioneer that was picked up during a eulogy/obituary (where everyone talks nice no matter what), it leads to a false sense of notability. Again, I go to the example of a PIO, who has plenty of mentions in print and video, but doesn't have notability on their own actions. You're correct, we do have different definitions of notability. I see notability as being more than simply going to work every day and doing your job, which is simply informing people about things someone else did. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, it is repeated comparisons to a public information oficer, or asserting conclusions that are not supported by guideline that are the Strawman arguments. My own are based directly on guideline and policy. I cannot agree that coverage by newspapers closest to the event makes something non-notable. The unadded sources, even the ones you decided to not look at, were offered only to show that he has been in the news for 28 years. But since you like comparisons, here's one a bit more cogent: If a "local" event in New York City was covered by New York Times, New York Post, Village Voice, New York Observer and New York Daily News, simply because those are printed within 20 miles of each other does not then make the event non-notable, even if somone from Los Angeles or London or Honk Kong never reads those papers nor hears of the event. This is why guideline does not support that minimalist view. Sorry, we're not talking about a neighborhood bake sale being written up in a small-town gazettee. Thank you for your views. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh....you simply aren't reading what I am writing. First, my illustration isn't a strawman, it is an example of how simply being mentioned in article about your job don't equal notability. Sometimes if you step away from the topic and look at an example that you don't have strong feelings about, it makes it clear. However you apparently don't see the parallel. Second, you keep asserting that I am saying that a local papers coverage can't be notable. I never said that. What I have said, time and again, is that the coverage they are doing it trivial and it's being done because they are local. If the man weren't nearby, they wouldn't have cared at all, nor would they print trivial stuff, like talking to school kids etc., if it weren't for the fact that he was local. Please stop misrepresenting what I said. I know we're not talking about a bake sale. You've said that at least 3 times now, if not more. We just apparently have extremely different views about what non-trivial coverage is. I don't see notability in talking to the Elks lodge or handing out the blue ribbons at your beloved bake sales. You obviously do. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I never wrote that getting a bake sale blue ribbon was notable. I cannot agree with your opinion that continued in-depth coverage in reliable sources is trivial simply because it a was by major newspapers covering a subject in their area. I myself accept that his notability is shown by multiple in-depth articles in reliable sources covering the man over 28 years of television and personal history. Your assertion that he would not have been written about in the papers if he were not somehow of some sort of note in that area, is an excellent point, as WP:N does not demand national coverage when it mandates in-depth coverage in reliable sources. That is was his job? That's no reason to exclude, as a majority of notable persons listed in Wikipedia are here specifically because of their jobs... and might never be notable if it were not for their jobs. Thank you for your views. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did say the blue ribbon was notable. Frankly, I'm getting aggravated by your continual misrepresentation of my position and I think I need to cease this discussion on my end before it takes a turn I'd prefer not to. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability comfortably established following the usual excellent improvements of Mr Schmidt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - passes WP:RS, just about. It's unfortunate that almost all the significant coverage is from obituaries rather than articles written during his life (which gives the article a slightly WP:ONEEVENT-like quality), but they are sufficient sources nonetheless. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Jones[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. Her career has been simply being a meteorologist on local affiliates. The only thing that makes her different from every other meteorologist on local affiliates is that she is an amateur marathoner and got minor local coverage for participating in marathons. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Someone who works on television in New York City has the potential to be known by millions of people....certainly more than a Palestinian jazz musician or Kyrgyz film director. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 19:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability standards -- not sure that Palestinian jazz musicians or Kyrgyz film directors have to do with this aside from displaying an editor's possible cultural biases. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While noting the user:CFIF has authored a number of similar articles (including some in AfD), I'd point out that simply "being known" isn't the standard for notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a difference between artists and people who merely have a public job. There are two possible notable article subjects for an artist (or actor or writer or musician etc.): the artist's life and the artist's work. The fact that a body of work is widely distributed, published by major publishers, and so on is a good sign that there will be sufficient commentary in reliable sources to write an article. A similar principle applies to professional athletes (although I think that current inclusion standards are far too wide there for reasons of completeness) and elected officials: you can reasonably write an article about their athletic accomplishments or politics. In all of these cases, their accomplishments are noteworthy acts, events, or artefacts, not merely the products of a job done in the public eye.
Here, we don't have a performer: instead, we have a person with a public job. All of the coverage is coverage of her (large, notable) employer, not the (interchangeable) employee. "WFOO holds charity event, Heidi Jones, Foo Barson, and Tex Ample to participate" is the typical news story, both for this article in particular and this class of article in general.
In short, there's no direct coverage of this person save for direct coverage of her employer employing her services. Other articles do exist, but they are dissimilar. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though that the article may have inadequate sources, there's a whole lot more places where you can save one persons bio instead of having it deleted due to lack of Wiki standards or has failed notablity. It would be only fair if there would have someone other than me to find more sources for this article in order to have this article be kept to Wikipedia standards, so please give this article another chance. JD2635 (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote the article, so one would assume that you felt she was sufficiently notable. Why do you think she was notable? What has made her career different than the hundreds and hundreds of local reporters that don't have articles? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is insufficient distinction. There will not likely be sources, for there would be nothing to write about at any discriminating level. What is needed to demonstrate notability here is awards or something equallly unmistakable. Unless I am mistaken, the position of the weekend evening staff member is a relatively junior position. DGG (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tammie Souza[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:CREATIVE. No assertion of notability other than having a job. Her career has been at local affiliates and small parts in movies and TV, like the part of "good looking woman". Nothing here seperates her from hundreds of other hard-working, yet not notable meteorologists on local affilates in the rest of the US. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep someone who has worked in market(s) with millions of people in it is definitely notable. Why do small-town mayors get Wikipedia articles when they would fall under the same criteria? --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article, and this person, are no less notable than any of the many similar articles on Wikipedia. We must remember that Wikipedia is more dynamic than a traditional encyclopedia; it bears the practicality of dynamic updates and constant peer review; as well as infinite space. I'd also like to point out that while the article claims "no assertion of notability other than having a job" Ms. Souza sits on the American Meteorological Society's Certified Broadcast Meteorologist Certification Board, which does make her significantly more notable than the majority of other broadcast meteorologists out there. In addition, many other meteorologists in smaller markets with less prestigious credentials have Wikipedia entries. It is my opinion that this article is notable and deserves to stay. 24.3.223.164 (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think it's worth pointing out that the above IP editor has made 18 edits to Wikipedia and 14 of them are concerning Tammie Souza. 2 of the others are arguing about journalists in the TV project and one is for an AfD of another Tampa area anchorman. I know I should WP:AGF, but I'm starting to suspect a WP:COI or worse. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Other things exist and big numbers are indeed big, but biographies of living persons have an obvious and serious possibility of harm to the subject. With no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, we should not have an article on this person. Working in a certain industry doesn't change that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn broadcaster and former actress. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above is noted, however "peer recognition" from the same article is clearly satisfied. This is a case of too many cooks in the broth; I am not a doctor and do not edit or dispute notability on articles regarding medicine. I am an operations manager in the broadcast sector and to me, Wikipedia is a reliable authority on personalities past and present. Again, I will reiterate that plenty of broadcasters, actors and former actors have pages here; and that Souza's position on the AMS board distinguishes her from the majority of the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.223.164 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She's certified in her profession as able to perform that profession. Doctors aren't notable for having doctorates, lawyers aren't notable for passing the bar, union members aren't notable for joining their union. How is this different? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect where you are coming from, however I said she was notable because she sits on the board that certified CBMs, not because she was certified herself-- she's among the panel that decides if a meteorologist will make the cut, and has a say in whether or not he or she actually attains certification. If a doctor is on a Board of Directors for JCAHO, for example, that would be considered notable. The AMS is a widely respected, national organization and I feel that it's worth noting-- going back to the peer recognition aspect. The article now mentions the fact that Souza and her sister are the only "sibling broadcast meteorologists" on air in the country, further separating her from less notable peers. 24.3.223.164 (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has any reliable, independent source commented on this position of supposed authority? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So by your logic, people who sit on the state medical licensing board should be notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What everyone else who said "Keep" said. StephenWeinstein (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep After weighing the arguments, she is a very weak keeper based on her board positions. Since, I can not really fathom another way for a meteorologist who is not on a national broadcast to be notable, I guess that will suffice.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, do you know what it takes to get that certification? I didn't so I looked. Have a degree, get 75% on a 100 question test and submit a demo tapes. What important role does the board have? Correcting the test or watching people's demo tapes? I'm not seeing the importance of the board position. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that it's worth noting that half the keep votes, including the article author user:CFIF really amount to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Several have said "others have articles" as their reasoning. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I'm not seeing a good indication of notability. We can verify that she's a meteorologist. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per passing WP:GNG and WP:BIO as a 3-time Chicago Emmy winner (not exactly a tiny town) who has been covered in more-than-trivial fashion by reliable sources for 11 years... and yes, in relationship to her professional field. Some examples: Herald News (2003), Daily Herald (2003), Daily Herald (2003), Daily Herald (2003), Daily Herald (2004), Chicaho Sun-Times (2006), Tampa Tribune (2008), etc. There's more and yes, the article need proper sourcing. But that's a matter for WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice "Chicago" emmy.......in other words local. Could a reporter in LA win it? And that "coverage" is trivial. One of them was her talking to a local second grade class. Come on guy........do you honestly consider talking to a group of 8 year olds to be notable coverage? Another was an announcement in the LOCAL paper that she got hired by the LOCAL station. Where is the notability in that? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does someone need national coverage to be notable? I think your badgering of anyone votes "Keep" and their reasoning borders on rudeness & incivility. Let people have their say. --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

Comment After using essays to disparage other's opinions, the nom involves in WP:WAX arguments. No sale. A 3 4-time[40] Chicago Emmy winner is a pretty big deal. Notability for a few dozen million in a major section of the United States is just as worthy as notability for 300 million. Guideline does not mandate "national" or "global" coverage. It does encourage a BLP ro be as comprehensive as possible, so an announcement that she was hired to perform her asserted profession is required WP:Verification per guideline. And the WP:GNG does not state the significant coverage in reliable sources be of some eart-shaking importance, so coverage of her continued work with children also is proper per guideline. She meets the WP:GNG and WP:BIO despite WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing prohibiting the debate of points that are made that I disagree with. If you call a story about her talking to a local second grade class "non-trivial" coverage and I disagree with that, I am fully allowed to express my disagreement. There is nothing uncivil about that. You are having your say. Nobody is censoring you. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are certanly entitled to your "opinion". My own opinion is supported by guideline and policy and not just essay. The assertion of being a 4-time Emmy Winner in the third-most populous city in the U.S. is not exactly trivial, and specifically meets the inclusion critera of WP:ANYBIO... like it or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe you simply aren't used to people disagreeing with you or disputing what your contention is. I don't find a piece about spending an hour talking to a local 2nd grade class "non-trivial coverage". Nor do I find a small piece announcing her hire to be non-trivial. This is supposed to be a discussion. That means there can be back and forth. That means I can respond. Just because you don't like my response or the fact that I don't agree doesn't make me uncivil. I haven't called you names, cursed you out or talked badly about your mother. I've simply responded to your points directly. If you find that to be uncivil....well then you have a different definition of the word than I do. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  The WP:Policy WP:BLP mandates WP:Verification of facts. A claim that she was hired MUST be verified. WP:V does not demand that such simple verification be covered in-depth, only that the source meet WP:RS. If the simple fact of her being hired were itself the assertion of notability, that would be a different concern. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep cool heads and civility here please. There is no need to refer to someone's argument as their "opinion" in inverted commas; even if you think its wrongheaded. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer: What was first nominated for deletion has been improved to THIS, now having properly asserted and sourced notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She's only ever received local press coverage, which I'm not sure counts as significant, and those Emmy awards were regional Emmys, which are not major awards, are they? Trivia time: she was Miss Ramona 1979. Fences and windows (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now THAT one is trivial. Thanks for the perspective and the good humor. In their own calling of the Emmy for that segemnt of the coutry "regional" acts only to seperate it from national. Chicago is the 3rd most populated city in the U.S. and the Chicago/Midwest Regional Emmys represent a major potion of the country. Ain't exactly a blue ribbon at a neighborhood bake-off. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Weak keep. I'm swung, just. Fences and windows (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the awards; this is a distinction much more than most of the other TV meteorologists that have articles here. DGG (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per improvement, sources and awards. Granite thump (talk) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources has been identified to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think Spirits[edit]

Non-notable liquor distribution company. The article cites a single mention in an online trade website, and I can turn up nothing in a news search. Other passing references on trade sites appear to exist, but nothing substantial enough for notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP and all other tests of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nominator - was unable to find any substantial references to this company that would indicate notability. Fails WP:CORP. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Jacques Birgé[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Jean-Jacques Birgé (2nd nomination)

Unknown artist, no sources about its exhibitions and awards except his own website (drame.org), poor google hits. Auto promotionnal page, looks like curriculum vitae Nanax (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don 't understand what the nominator means by "unknown artist". Unknown to you? Why italics on "artist"? Not having heard of someone is not a reason for deletion. In any case, there seem to be some non-English sources, such as Le Monde, which is significant. Likewise, an interview on turbulance.org in English is an acceptable source. This artist seems to have been involved in a great deal of projects which easily establish notability per WP:BIO. The sources can be sorted out and not having many English sources is not a reason for deletion. The article needs a good editing (was it originally on the French wiki?). Maybe we could get some help translating the original article, but as it stands, this seems to easily pass the notability test. freshacconci talktalk 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is not an artist in the VA sense, except as a filmmaker & I have adjusted the article for this. The French refs & links show plenty of independent coverage, though he was not, according to other sources, the main director of "Sarajevo: A Street Under Siege" - no doubt there were several. Needs better referencing, but notability seems clear. Johnbod (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems both notable and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly of sufficient notability. Kafka Liz (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the nominator correctly states that the page is promotional and that much of the information is not verified and implies that the page needs a complete re-write, the references in the article very clearly support notability by providing significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 14:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, this thing is a monstrosity and needs a major overhaul. However, unlike must promo-type pages this one seems to be about a notable person keep and give a good scrubbing. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but nominator. Is it Snowing yet? Edward321 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the sources & prizes. The list of works should be trimmed considerably. DGG (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 17:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frazier Forman Peters[edit]

Copyvio ?? A rather complicated one : text was taken from a blog, which in turn took it from an old Wikipedia article which was deleted as "junk". I.e. No sources, and as article claims it is written by "Nan Cutler, who knew Mr. Peters personally" I am assuming this is a copyright violation, or OR at best. Passportguy (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw the article, my first instinct was a copyvio. My best guess on the matter is that if this was the old article, then it's still a copyvio as the initial piece likely was. It's questionable, though; I would note that Google does turn up a book or two by him. Thus I'm not sure whether deletion is best in this case (he may meet the bare notability guidelines; the flipside is that the books are 60-80 years old and may not have been widely distributed), but at the very least the article needs a major cleanup to remove the block of copyvio-esque material (which may be an original essay).Tyrenon (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rewrite. Tricky one...as it stands, there is a strong potential for copyvio and OR. A brief check on British Library records confirms the four works mentioned - but is he notable? I would say there is something to be rescued from this but it needs a proper rewrite and sources. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I made a start on cleaning & rewriting by cutting out all the guff, adding dates, places, names & a bibliography. Anyone care to continue?
Keep -- with reservations. Very weak article. My inclination is to delete, but if he's notable for 20th century stone house suburban architecture, then the article should be kept, or merged with another article.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion I guess this is a matter of cost-benefit. If you needed

wiki to fit in a book shelf in someone's home, you may delete. But, if you aren't killing any trees I would call this obscure rather than trivial. As long as it does no harm, either wasting time or creating clutter, I'd be inclined to keep. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by main concerns here is not primarily the content as such but rather WP:OR ~~and a possible copyright violation. Especially if it truns out to be the latter, it would have to be removed asap.~~ 14:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the the possible copyvio has been removed. Passportguy (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Opinion The version I saw just seemed to cite the sources.

Is it OR because he opened a paper book or had to get up to find a source? I guess I like obscure things like this but again generally indifferent. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR because someone may have researched this by himself. Without reliable sources this cannot be verified. See WP:V Passportguy (talk) 15:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to think copyvio. And sources have now been added. The previous deletion was for an erroneous reason: no claim of notability, whereas the article claimed the authorship of a number of books. DGG (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Activist[edit]

Neologism. Little more than veiled spam for the Creative Visions Foundation. Sgroupace (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam Gsp 8181 10:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, thinly veiled advertising. JIP | Talk 13:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam Ohms law (talk) 03:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GiftCardLab.com[edit]

Non Encyclopedic, The article is nothing more then a commercial advertisement for a company that sells Visa gift cards. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written as an advert and spam Gsp 8181 10:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam, spam, spam lovely spam. Canterbury Tail talk 15:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam for nn company. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an advertisement. Zzzzz (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete on multiple grounds. These were very brief, promotional, free of context articles about a business and its CEO that made no attempt to show minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OXI TECH and related[edit]

Unremarkable company, founded by a student this year, website "under construction", google search brings up other same name companies. All OR. Also included related article. Bringing it here cause this is the second time the article was created (previously under OXIINC).

ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CORP and WP:BIO. --Oscarthecat (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Oscar. -t'shael ^mindmeld 06:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Women pioneers[edit]

Seems to be a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as being listcruft. Tyrenon (talk) 06:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to List of female pioneers. I believe such a list would be justified under WP:CLN.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the first female holders of political offices. That list and its linked sublists already include each of these people and many, many more; there's no need to duplicate the information here. I can envision this title's being used for an article about the role of women in the settlement of virgin lands, but anyone who wants to write that article (and to use this title) is free to overwrite the redirect. Deor (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The name is so generic that I doubt a comprehensive list is possible. Specifically, politics is far from the only pursuit in which there have been woman pioneers (and hence a redirect of this title to politics is inappropriate). There are female aviation pioneers, pioneers in science, education, and innumerable other areas, etc. In fact, when I saw the title, I thought it was refering to the women who accompanied their husbands on the Oregon Trail. If someone thinks they can accually attack such a monumental compilation, more power to them, but as it contains nothing unique, and only the smallest subset of the topic, I don't think the current contents merit a page, nor do I think it is the kind of thing that will expand into a good page, while it is likely to attract OR and POV. Agricolae (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I created this page because I looked in Wikipedia for something similar and it didn't exist. I needed this information for my work (I am a journalist) and I think many people can find it useful - once it evolves. Eventually it could be broken down in categories (and perhaps some categories already exist). Very often you need to know "who was the first person to do this" - and that information is relatively easy to find. But if you need to know who was the first woman (or algerian, or african) who did something, that information is absolutely impossible to find unless someone collects it first. Google doesn't discriminate between female and male names! I only listed politicians but it is obvious from the title that its content should go beyond that. It was a start - I thought this was the way Wikipedia worked: you build on everybody else's work. Jvmalheiros (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, this is how Wikipedia works, but this page isn't even a work in progress. It is as if you had created a page entitled History of the Universe and given it just four events from the 1970s, then left it for everyone else to complete. A page needs to make some attempt at covering the topic, even at the start, or it should have a less ambitious scope. If you leave the hard work for someone else, it is likely no one else will want to do it either, and the supposedly comprehensive page will remain in such a sorry state. Even with participation from others, it will likely become a completely indiscriminate collection, much of it based on original research. Agricolae (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jvmalheiros provides a cogent reason for its retention. The politics section may indeed duplicate List of the first female holders of political offices, but that is a reason for merging the articles - possibly that one here, rather than vice versa. The article is indeed a list and intentionally so. Accordingly it should be renamed to "list of ..." Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, list with arbitrary and badly-defined criteria for inclusion. Determining membership violates WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, way too indiscriminate a list. There are countless things that can be done, and surely by far the most can be done by women too. Therefore, the simple fact that some woman was the first woman to do something is not automatically notable. JIP | Talk 13:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAt its best it will be an "indiscriminate collection of information" which is what Wikipedia is not. The title is especially deceiving, it sounds like it's about Little House on the Prairie. There are several "List of first female xxxx x xxxx" and "List of the first female xxxx" so at least stick to one of those formats for title if kept. Also it is frequently a matter of opinion who is the first female to achieve something. It also implies that there is always importance to being the first female to do something, which is usually but not always the case. Perhaps a list of "list of first female xxxx" lists would be more appropriate. Drawn Some (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Unicon[edit]

Does not establish notability, quick google search only shows up things on blogs and forums, not exactly RS and seems to be either press release or self generated. It will be in the future, and this WP:CRYSTAL on upcoming notability. The site (http://www.gameunicon.com/) implies a lack of notability and has plenty of hyperboles. The original contributor is a obvious WP:COI ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Event has not even taken place yet, how can it be notable? The Isiah (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it fails WP:CRYSTAL and is why I nominated it. "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It's certainly going to take place, just not notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 05:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Don't see how it's speediable, though. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any RSes. Removed prod as it is at AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MP3-Xtreme[edit]

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A link to the homepage of the project does not make a claim to notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTG (software)[edit]

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the homepage of the project as the only source does not provide evidence of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any RS, and the website isn't exactly RS or independent. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Bus preservation in the United Kingdom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transport Yorkshire Preservation Group[edit]

No indication of notability given. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence of notability presented. This group sounds like it might be large enough to be notable but I can't find anything on Ghits or Gnews backing this up. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:32, 29 May 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 00:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bus preservation in the United Kingdom ~~and/or West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive#History~~. Thryduulf (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've placed a message at Talk:Bus preservation in the United Kingdom requesting more input into this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bus preservation in the United Kingdom. This is explicitly not a public trasnport service, so that any merger to the Transport executive would be inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point re the PTE, I've amended my !vote above. Thryduulf (talk) 00:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus seems to hold that sufficient coverage is now demonstrated. ~ mazca ^t/c 21:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Majority Action[edit]

Cited sources do not demonstrate notability Mblumber (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - The topic is covered directly in detail by NPR [41] and the The Spokesman-Review [42]. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't think it qualifies for Speedy Keep on that basis - surely that is a primary source? Does this orgaisation meet WP:ORG requirements with multiple secondary non-trivial coverage, etc? Chzz ► 03:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How are those primary sources? They are two examples of non-trivial coverage in independent secondary sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per the sources linked above and plenty more found by a Google News archive search such as [43][44][45][46][47][48]. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe there is some notability but the artilce right now is a copyright violation of the source. I think it should be kept at least after being completly rewritten to meet minimum Wikipedia standards (including proper way of references). Rsolero (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From which source is the text copied? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:50, 11 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) 00:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Poorly written stubbly bit but vertainly a good article can be grown here. using the wayback machine nets us these four archive pages which can help inform on what they did. Further digging, bacause it's a horrid search phrase will need to combine other keywords to sort out the dreck and misshits. But there is enough to be found to build on. -- Banjeboi 23:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news coverage of this. Listing all their political ads they created, and other activities, would be a nice addition to the article. Dream Focus 23:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage. I found some new sources and added them. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The lack of coverage in reliable sources is the decisive factor here. Flowerparty^☀ 17:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Kung Fu Mummy[edit]

Earned a non-notable award, no notable people involved, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I could not find anything providing any significant coverage (i.e. besides trivial mentions or listings) in my Bing search (see [49], trying this as a trial alternative to Google). MuZemike 01:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per improvements: Before, After. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 05:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per muzemike and nom. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every film deserves its own article, enough saidHappy Evil Dude (talk) 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable movie. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need to massage the ego of Randy Morgan. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming an article about The Kung Fu Mummy is all about massaging the ego of its director is akin to claiming the Schindler's List article is only there to massage Steven Spielberg's ego. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Jimfbleak. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha five (band)[edit]

unreferenced, non notable, inactive garage band. Here at AfD due to speedy removal. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 05:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think that the creator is just trying to promote the band. No inline citation references and the only external link on the page is a 1st party source (Myspace) that does nothing for the article. Maybe, when there has been proof of the band charting on a national chart as confirmed by a reliable 3rd party references, they can have an article on Wikipedia. But until then, delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Google search only brings up computer software results. A wikipedia entry for Alpha Five has been tagged for sounding like an advertisment. That is also interesting.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 05:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although they have recorded an album (apparently self-published?) titled Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, it appears to be a tribute album of some kind, and their music did not, as far as I can tell, appear on the television show or the movie. I cannot find evidence that this band meets any part of WP:MUSIC. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomic P2P[edit]

Being unable to find any third-party sources, I believe this is not notable enough for inclusion. Otterathome (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:36, 29 May 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) 00:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another one where the only real source is the website (link doesn't work for me, so I searched for that). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:48, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Pi Epsilon[edit]

Article claims this to be "the oldest local fraternity" (uncertain what "local" means in this context). However this assertion is unsourced. It is rather questionable if such a minor fraternity is sufficiently notable Passportguy (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Insofar as The Stentor is a reliable source, there's a good amount of material for this article, and support for the claim that Phi Pi Epsilon "is the oldest local fraternity in the nation, being in existence for 111 years." [50]. I'm not 100% clear on what that means, but I'm assuming it means the oldest fraternity without nationwide chapters. This seems significant. A Google News search reveals that there's also a smattering of material in mainstream newspapers, particularly the Chicago Tribune, which provides more basis for the claim of notability. There are 359 Google Books hits as well. Most of them seem trivial, but I believe there is some decent material in them. Cool3 (talk) 04:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; as far as I am concerned all fraternities, sororities, and similar clubs are by default non-notable. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"all fraternities, sororities, and similar clubs are by default non-notable" Really? Why? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would agree that all local fraternities and clubs confined to one college are generally non-notable, with very rare exceptions that need really good sourcing, including non-student newspaper sources. (since most student newspapers are indiscriminate, and tend to include everything that happens on campus). I interpret the phrase about survival, as meaning: When they closed, they had been in existence longer than any other single-college fraternity in the US at that time . It's possible, but i do not trust the documentation, and would at most only be true in a very narrow sense, since student dining clubs at some of the older universities go back much before 1895. DGG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperfiel[edit]

This was a planned stadium for a NN football club that was never built. There is some coverage on local media on the scam, however I'm not sure this passes the notability threshhold as a crime. Possibly someone that speaks better Portuguese can investigate if this has had significant local impact. Passportguy (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for delete the article. The same was properly edited with relevant informations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.26.189.67 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge An article about a project to build a stadium that never got built is not notable enough for its own article. If any of the information can be sourced (in my search did not find any reliable sources) merge sourced information into the stadium section of Sport Club Corinthians Paulista. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:45, 30 May 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, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sport Club Corinthians Paulista#Stadiums. Cooperfiel was a NGO created to gather funds and built a new stadium. They were able to collect only about US$10,000 and decided to close down. The money was donnated to Corinthians. The source is [51]. Lechatjaune (talk) 02:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case was a huge mass ilusion. Since the first time the people who was at administration of the association named "Cooperfiel" was linked with the bad portion of the Sport Club Corinthians. The unique purpose was to change the public view for corruption. In the end of the association, money was losed (they said "was donate to the SC Corinthians", but there wasn't any proof). The Stadium never was the aim, only a dream to sell. Sorry about english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcusvcn (talk • contribs) 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cittacotte[edit]

Orphaned article, rather promotional in tone, that seems to be about a series of miniatures made by one particular artist, Vincenzo Vizzari, who does not himself have a Wikipedia article. The references are vague, and it's not clear that they establish notability. —Bkell (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What nom says is true, but if we don't have an article on pottery tourist souvenir model buildings, of which these relatively classy examples - & I can't see we do - this could usefully be repurposed to do that. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 29 May 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) 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be deleted or merged into pottery, but as it stands it really is promotional in tone. Artypants, ^Babble 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly don't merge to pottery! Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 04:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The maker's website implies that Cittacotte is a trade-marked term [52], not a general description of pottery souvenir model buildings. Souvenir buildings need an article, but this ain't it. If it's going to merge anywhere it should be Souvenir, but I can't see the promotional content sitting well in such a short article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue sustainability
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy close. Already deleted as copyvio. Would have failed anyway as unencyclopedic waffle about a neologism. — RHaworth (Talk \| contribs) 05:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Blue sustainability[edit] Blue sustainability (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) Duplicate article of Blue (Sustainability), which is also unwikified and unencyclopedic. Qsung (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment. I was just looking at the other copy of this article (which I have now redirected to this one) as a possible copyvio. This seems to be a concatenation of [53], [54], and [55]. Now, two of those (the first and third) are under Creative Commons licenses, specifying that they must be attributed and linked as the source if the material is reused. The other doesn't seem to have any copyright information, which I believe means that its author has implicit copyright. So this article would seem to be a copyvio of three different sources. I'm not an expert on copyright policy, but if I'm right in my analysis, then the whole thing should be speedied per WP:CSD#G12. Could someone point me to relevant policies? AnturiaethwrTalk 04:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue sustainability

The result was speedy close. Already deleted as copyvio. Would have failed anyway as unencyclopedic waffle about a neologism. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue sustainability[edit]

Duplicate article of Blue (Sustainability), which is also unwikified and unencyclopedic. Qsung (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was just looking at the other copy of this article (which I have now redirected to this one) as a possible copyvio. This seems to be a concatenation of [53], [54], and [55]. Now, two of those (the first and third) are under Creative Commons licenses, specifying that they must be attributed and linked as the source if the material is reused. The other doesn't seem to have any copyright information, which I believe means that its author has implicit copyright. So this article would seem to be a copyvio of three different sources. I'm not an expert on copyright policy, but if I'm right in my analysis, then the whole thing should be speedied per WP:CSD#G12. Could someone point me to relevant policies? AnturiaethwrTalk 04:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony F. McCloskey[edit]

Well written article, but it does not appear that this person meets the inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:N. There are a smattering of claims about them, such as being cited by Gary Trudeau, but there does not appear to be many independent, reliable, and extensive sources to use as source material here. As such, this person does not meet the bare minimum notability requirements as spelled out at WP:N and WP:BIO Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations referencing Mr. McCloskey's selection to be included in Gary Trudeau's book have been updated. As well as his contributions to Slate.com, a popular contemporary online news source. --98.224.37.74 (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen McCloskey mentioned numerous times in the Philadelphia Inquirer, as well as several local Florida papers as well. I will try to find citations. Whereas he may be a minor figure in the scheme of things, but he is definitely a figure worth noting.--12.37.208.185 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete he was one of 4 bloggers selected by the NY Times for inclusion as representative--see [56] for the others. I would expect most inclusion elsewhere to be reprints. DGG (talk) 14:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not appear to quite meet WP:BIO, or WP:BLP by not including WP:RS in a number of areas. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: certainly not notable for his military career, as there have been many other articles that have been deleted about individuals with more notable military careers (I guess this is a WP:OTHERCRAPDOESN'TEXIST argument, which is probably as invalid as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS...) Thus the article needs to prove notability for his creative works. I will reserve judgement about this for the moment, while I hunt around and check the policy surrounding those areas. — AustralianRupert (talk) 02:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence that he clears the notability bar to qualify for a biographical article. His blog may be marginally notable, although I have my doubts here too per significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. EyeSerene^talk 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr McCloskey seems to be admirable, but he doesn't meet WP:BIO as there's no evidence that much has been written about him. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A fine American no doubt, but doesn't pass WP:BLP Niteshift36 (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are WP:BLP issues with this article as large sections are not referenced. Also, I do not believe that the subject qualifies as notable per WP:N or WP:CREATIVE. Clearly an interesting individual, but not necessarily one that meets the distinctive notability guidelines of Wikipedia. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm conflicted on this one, but I'm not seeing a clear indication of notability. His blog was the subject of posts on a number of other blogs (e.g., [57]), including some that pass WP:RS (e.g., [58]), but I don't think this enough; any blogger will attract some small amount of attention in the blogosphere, that's just the nature of things. Searches for "Anthony McCloskey" in various news archives (such as LexisNexis) turn up only entries on other people. Cool3 (talk) 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first off he created his on article which to me instantly makes me abit doubtful. second off the IP address 98.224.37.74 i believe to be him as well because adding him to other relating articles is all that ip has ever done. and with references only being blogs makes it a very weak article and a possible fraud. I will say though that if verifable refernces are presented i will change my vote Fail Deadly (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed flag for the American continent
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3 by Jayron32 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] Proposed flag for the American continent[edit] Proposed flag for the American continent (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (delete) – (View AfD) This article only has an image and has no content whatsoever. Qsung (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proposed flag for the American continent

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A3 by Jayron32 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 04:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed flag for the American continent[edit]

This article only has an image and has no content whatsoever. Qsung (talk) 04:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BossInGame[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, and WP:RS: non-notable game with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not much else to add. Seems to fail the basic inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see any claim of importance, so my first thought was "Speedy A7" (as "web content"). However, as a speedy has already been declined we'll let this run it's course. Marasmusine (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. Notability has not been established as required by WP:NOTE. The majority of sources used in the article do not even mention the company with a such name (i.e. FACT Software International Pte Ltd). Ruslik_Zero 15:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FACT Software International Pte Ltd[edit]

Delete, Doesn't estblish notability. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Not finding much in Google news to support its notability beyond a press release (primary source) and a lawsuit the company was involved in.--RadioFan (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Don't bring AfDs within one minute of the page being created. The company was renamed, and there's sufficient sources: Business Standard, 2005, Hindu Business Line, 2001, Hindu Business Line, 2005, The Independent (Bangladesh), Indiatimes 2005, Indian Express 2000, Financial Express 2008. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. The article was nominated for deletion within one minute of being created. Absurd. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm sorry you feel this way, would waiting three more minutes have helped? This easiluy could've been a csd tag however it is on the edge so I opened the AFD discussion, if this is against policy please find it and point it out. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Read WP:BEFORE. Not even one step in that can be completed within the one minute between the creation of this article and the AfD. The three AfDs you created between 02:57 and 03:07 are all in clear violation of WP:BEFORE.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i don't see anything relavent to your concern this was nominated too early. So far as that goes I did the best good faith thing I could opened this up to our community then nominating for csd. I don't understand what the problem is. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I might point out so far you are the only keep vote so that weakens the arguement in and of itself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was nominated not one minute after initial creation, but over eleven hours - possibly significantly longer; I can't see the deleted revisions. The first post-deletion revision is apparently identical to the version that was speedied, complete with ((advert)) tag. —Korath (Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No third-party sources. All the "articles" linked by Spaceman7Spiff are press releases, not independent coverage. —Korath (Talk) 14:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move it parent company Vedika Software - there are several good source available under this name ([59]) and no this aren't all press releases despite the assertion that they are above. I also agree that an article's creator should be given more than 1 minute to write an article before sending it to AfD. Articles are not usually created in one pass and immediate nomination for deletion might scare a contributor off before they've had a chance to finish. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Vedika Software might merit an article. This, which was itself copy-pastes of press releases in its first revision, isn't it. At minimum, I'd want to see even one statement referenced to an article that does not also appear, word-for-word, in the company web site's press releases section. —Korath (Talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is not enough here to salvage, delete and create Vedika Software on it's own merits which appear to include availability of some 3rd party references, unlike this article.--RadioFan (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep latest revision looks to be properly sourced and verifiable riffic (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except all references are about the parent company, not this company.--RadioFan (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For all those that are harping on the name, the company changed names as per this page on their site, relevant text: FACT Solutions India Pvt Ltd (Formerly known as Vedika Software Pvt Ltd) and also moved HQ from India to Singapore. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be anything about this specific company. There is no rule preventing an article being nominated for AFD at any particular time. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replay Solutions[edit]

Delete, Doesn't establish third party notability Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep . Notability is satisfied by multiple, non-trivial coverage of the company by 3rd party sources of the highest order, including the New York Times and Cnet, which are given as references. Hadashot Livkarim (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. AfD nomination within six minutes of article creation when three sources - NY Times, CNET and San Jose Business Journal were included in references. Also in one minute of Google news search, I have found: InfoWorld, a trivial mention in Wall Street Journal and a good bit on BizJournals (some of which is just PR, so excludable). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable, indepth references exist. Not much more else to say. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—subject seems notable. Wikipedia has a general anti-business trend and many otherwise popular companies don't have articles. However, this one is well-sourced and does not read like an advertizement. No reason I can see to delete. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. Nomination withdrawn and no !votes for deletion or merger. (non-admin close) Abecedare (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Adjustments[edit]

*Delete, Spamlike Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has underwent some improvement and I've recieved counsel on this from seperate parties whichmakes me inclined to switch to Keep. I would suggest with 3 or more keep votes that this discussion be closed citing WP:snow Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Spamlike is not a rationale for AfD, it's something for WP:CLEANUP, if the subject is notable (which the nomination doesn't question). Although the nomination doesn't question notability, I'll still address that: Rediff.com 2006, The Hindu 2008, Hindu Business Line 2007, BusinessWeek 2008, The Hindu 2005, Business Standard 2009, Telegraph UK, The Economic Times 2009, Kuwait Times 2008, LiveMint-WSJ India. I'm going to find some articles to delete now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - nominator clearly failed to practice WP:BEFORE as this isn't even close: [60] --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stilsbury[edit]

Unsourced for two years now, and notability is questionable. Nothing more than one of many failed WWF experiments and did virtually nothing else. !! Justa Punk !! 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the nomination. This guy was an embarassment to wrestling! Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ATHLETE notability guideline: "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport." The WWF is the top North American promotion, so his role there is sufficient to establish notability. A quick search shows several results in reliable sources. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In pro wrestling I'm not sure WP:ATHLETE is appropriate, unless it's in combination with WP:CREATIVE - a part that he definitely fails. And if there are several results in reliable sources, why was this unsourced for two years? !! Justa Punk !! 08:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is notable and I've added a reference to start off the article and will put this on my to-do list, to reference/possible re-write in the future. Afkatk (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Tend to agree with Fenric about the embarassment. Nom is correct also. Did nothing else. WWF tenure not notable. Did nothing. TaintedZebra (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think being a laughing stock is notable is it? There's nothing else to make him. Rick Doodle (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be noted that thinking his character was stupid is not a valid reason to delete the article. The "laughing stock" and "embarassment" comments do not comply with any Wikipedia guidelines regarding deletion discussions. WP:ATHLETE is cited frequently in wrestling deletion discussions. In this case, it supports his inclusion, which trumps people who just didn't enjoy his character. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree per what I said above. And I would add that the amount of time he was in the WWF actually goes against WP:ATHLETE and not for it. It's like saying someone who plays a few games of English Premier League soccer is notable for that reason alone. The same applies to AFL football. It needs more to pass that criteria. He never had a major feud or held a title. !! Justa Punk !! 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are wrong. As someone who is frequently involved in AFD discussions, ATHLETE si too broad in its scope. According to ATHLETE, playing in just 1 professional game makes a athlete notable. So if a MLB player has 1 at-bat in a regular season game and never plays again, they would still be notable according to ATHLETE. I think ATHLETE should be changed, and it should not be used for wrestling (or else you would have articles on all those local jobbers that appear for 1 match just to be be squashed by someone like Vladimir Kozlov). TJ Spyke 15:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment, TJ. Maybe a process should be started to fix that problem up. Of course what you say in effect (IMO) supports the deletion of this article. !! Justa Punk !! 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I lean this way because there are too many unsourced statements in the article and taking them all out would leave a stub that is so small it's hardly worth it. This needs sources and lots of them quick or I'm afraid it has to go. Get Dumb 09:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 11:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Curse as well. A joke, couldn't wrestle out of a shoe box and not even worth an article. Mal Case (talk) 06:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He simply wasn't notable. Good question about whether or not WP:ATHLETE or WP:CREATIVE should be the standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what is covered by each, WP:CREATIVE (scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers) would be ridiculous to use. Does anyone honestly think that wrestlers are better grouped with scientists and engineers than they are with athletes? WP:ENTERTAINER could be considered, but, live WP:ATHLETE, it would also support keeping this article. Per "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following," Stilsbury's Outback Jack character can definitely be said to have a cult following. Whether this is more due to his career or his inclusion on the WrestleCrap website and in multiple WrestleCrap books (reliable, third-party sources that establish his notability, regardless of which definition we are using), he definitely has a cult following. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're kidding me. This failure has an article here? Cult following my left foot. Wrestlecrap is a hall of shame, not fame. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, like most other comments here, fails to cite a valid reason. As stated on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. The main valid concern (the lack of references from reliable, third-party sources) has now been addressed, so I would assume it's getting close to time to close this discussion and keep the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notability established in my mind.--WillC 04:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability, although not by a huge margin. Orderinchaos 10:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Much information has been added and sourced since this nomination. Notability has been established several times over. Claims that his stay in the WWF were brief and that he did nothing notable have been debunked. At this point, I am requesting that the AfD be closed as a keep or restarted altogether, as the article bears little resemblance to the one that people have been commenting on. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Discussion leaned towards keep. Sources are lacking, but the prevailing view that sources to show notability typically are found for this type of program, giving it a pass this time seems reasonable. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-Rotic (TV series)[edit]

The article was double-Prodded. I prodded it myself, owing to an inability to track down sources. User Atama prodded as well earlier today, citing an editor COI as well as an inability to track down sources. Prod was contested shortly before it would have expired. Given that two users have been unable to find independent sources on the topic (partly, as I noted before, due to issues with the term) I feel that the article needs to go. Tyrenon (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I deproded the article on the basis that TV shows that air on real networks are almost always considered notable. Thus, at minimum, discussion is warranted. See Playboy website to confirm this is a real show. I strongly suspect there is 3rd party coverage of the show, but as pointed out the generic nature of the title makes searching difficult. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not aware of any notability guideline that states that a TV show is notable if it airs on a "real network". The lack of 3rd party coverage, in fact, is an indicator of the lack of notability. -- Atama ^chat 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no official guideline, but per WP:OUTCOMES "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable." Playboy TV is certainly a national network. Although as pay-per-view, I suppose you could say it isn't a major one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And that page directs you to WP:NME which states,

"In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program can be notable enough for inclusion if it played a role in exposing a political scandal that resulted in the impeachment of the city's mayor — and a national television program can be non-notable if it got cancelled too quickly to have garnered any real media coverage." -- Atama ^chat 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, my primary reason for de-PRODing was that shows are almost always notable so deleting one wasn't "non-controversial," IMO. Borderline cases (like this one) should be decided at AfD, PROD is intended for clear cut cases "where no one would object". I am open to either outcome, but lean towards keep per the AfD precedent that nearly all nationally broadcast shows are notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My inclination towards dumping is the lack of reliable third-party sources. The problem with the article as it stands is a lack of said sources and a very real difficulty finding said sources due to term confusion. A merge wouldn't be out of the question either, but absent a sourcing fix deletion seems to be the way to go for me.Tyrenon (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ThaddeusB, that is not a good reason to de-prod an article. While an article can be de-prodded for just about any reason, assuming that the removal of the prod tag isn't from vandalism, advice given to Proposed Deletion Patrollers (such as myself) at WP:WPPDP says that you should not de-prod an article because you "think" it could be controversial. I'm not saying you did anything wrong, you certainly didn't, I'm just saying that if you personally don't object to the deletion and you don't see evidence that anyone else objects to it, by definition it's not controversial. Anyway, if people "vote" to keep the article and it's kept, what's done is done, but nobody (not even DGG whom I greatly respect) has given a single reason how this article satisfies even the most basic requirements for articles in Wikipedia. -- Atama ^chat 17:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As cited, the guidelines we have state "Television series broadcast nationally by a major network or produced by a major studio are notable." I call attention to the "by a major network" bit. If this were ABC, CBS, NBC...or even any of a raft of major cable networks (MTV, HBO, etc.), I would say that this qualifies. However, while Playboy TV may be a national network, I will argue that it doesn't quite cut it as a "major network". On a 'bigger' network I'd be more inclined towards a keep, but absent that and absent sourcing in the article I'm sticking with deletion.Tyrenon (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and source. Whail a merge to Playboy TV might have been worth considering per WP:ATD, the article looks to be able to meet guideline with just a little effort. It is easier to simply delete something than take the trouble to fix it, but improving the article improves the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:GHITS. And by the way, there's nothing stopping you from editing the article right now, so if you think we're taking the "easy" way out, why don't you go ahead and improve the article, adding reliable sources and showing that there's merit to keeping it? Or at least just find some. That's the whole reason for this AfD after all, and without them the page still violates WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. -- Atama ^chat 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Knowledge" can be defined in quite a number of ways, including that of "encyclopedically significant information". I define "encyclopedic

Per the policy WP:DEL/WP:ATD: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." So thank you for pointing me to an essay and telling me that I could spend the time to fix the article. You could too, and your welcome help would be per policy. If an article can be improved, it should be. Thank you for re-affirming my keep vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article isn't bad, althought sources would be desirable. Of course, the name of the show hinders attempts to find them, so their absence is understandable. Users who have issues with importance or notability with the subject matter can vote with their back buttons and should kindly refrain from destroying the work of their fellow laborers. :) Abyssal (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sources aren't desirable. They're required. Please see WP:LOSE as to your latter comment, that's not in any way a justification for keeping the article. And by the way, this isn't a vote. -- Atama ^chat 00:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All this wikitalk is hooey, if you read the policies, you'll find that a lot of them are self contradictory, and irrelevant anyway because of WP:IAR. The only sensible standard to go by is whether the removal of the article makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia or not. Since the stated goal of the project is to present the sum of all human knowledge, the removal is clearly in contradiction to our agenda. Abyssal (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Knowledge" can be defined in quite a number of ways, including that of "encyclopedically significant information". I define "encyclopedic" rather broadly but it does have a bottom. This show is above it, as we have consistently decided all network shows are, & I therefore would say keep; a similar show on a local station would not be encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The purpose of this project is not to list the sum of all human knowledge, else we would be permitting WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, and all sorts of other things in here. If our purpose was to index all human knowledge, then we would not have WP:N guidelines. I can see an argument for all independently verifiable and encyclopedic knowledge (although fighting over what "encyclopedic" means is inevitable, it is at least a good concept to shoot for), but this is not the place for all human knowledge to go. The simple fact is that there do need to be minimal standards for inclusion here, and in that vein generally comes at least one source not linked to the author(s) or institution(s) behind a project.Tyrenon (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowestoft Corporation Tramways[edit]

contested prod. Lacks notability. Article lists a mention in a single book but I'm not finding much else, doesn't meet the "significant coverage in 3rd party sources" requirement of WP:N RadioFan (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless someone can find a good merge destination). Quick glance through Google Books suggests more information is to be found there. A tram network that ran for thirty years can reasonably be presumed historically notable. (Certainly I can't image any modern town-wide public transport network that has run for the last three decades failing notability.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Chris Neville-Smith or it could be merged/renamed Lowestoft Corporation Transport the operator, but that doesnt exist yet! MilborneOne (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Sources that I have found refer to Lowestoft Corporation Tramways as the original operator, and that name also appears on the sides of the trams in all the photographs that I have seen. Lowestoft Corporation Transport as a name looks to have been adopted later when buses began to replace the trams, and appeared on the sides of the buses. Therefore I don't think that an article rename would be a suitable outcome, and neither a merger as I was intending to add a tramway route diagram to the article. Maybe when a Lowestoft Corporation Transport article is created they can cross refer. Efficacy (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it will expand to be a useful article if given a little time.Scillystuff (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris Neville-Smith. We have articles on modern tramway systems that are smaller and have run for far fewer than 30 years with no question of lack of notability. By the same standards this system is easily notable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a legitimate history of transport article. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megan Reitenour[edit]

Does not give assertion of notability. D-Day (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She is currently in a NASCAR program (Drive for Diversity) that lets her compete, but she isn't driving in any of the Top 3 series yet, which would then qualify her under WP:ATHLETE. She does get press coverage, but what she is competing in is analagous to minor league baseball. Those players get coverage too, but don't make it under WP:ATHLETE either. Quite possibly will be notable in the near future, bt not quite yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, she is close to notability but it there just isn't the coverage to say she is notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poprocks & Coke[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Poprocks & Coke

The song has not charted on any major music charts or received significant coverage in any reliable sources. It fails WP:NSONGS. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to International Superhits. Fails WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macy's Day Parade (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Macy's Day Parade (song)

The song has received no radio airplay. It has not charted on any major music charts. There is no substantial coverage of the song in reliable sources. Therefore, it fails WP:NSONGS. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 02:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to article on the parade. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Warning (album). Fails WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to the album that contained this single, although I think it would be useful to keep the quote by Billie Joe Armstrong about this song in some section of a redirected article. davidmj926 (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balagan (disambiguation)[edit]

Useless disambiguation page. Only has two entries, one for a non-notable comic book character (which was a redlink, and recently got turned into an article but I redirected it to the comic book's main article), one for a word that right now is nothing but a soft redirect to wiktionary and is currently on AfD anyway. Creator contested the PROD tag. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also forgot to note, right now there is no Balagan, so if this is kept it should at least be moved (although I also suggested at a different AfD that Balagan (Hebrew) be moved to Balagan if kept). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep disambiguates, though hatnotes would work just as well right now. Denigrating the articles serves no purpose--they're here right now. JJL (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The comic book character isn't even mentioned in the comic book article. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Balagan is added to PS 238, then Balagan can redirect there. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded dab per Dougweller. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summerhouse Drink[edit]

Non-notable alcoholic drink. Fails WP:NOTE. Article unreferenced and there are no GHits for subject. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that the creator mentioned the beverage was "invented" this summer, I could assume this is not a notable recipe (or the title was given as neologism). Zoo Fari 01:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously not a notable drink. No reliable sources for a brand new drink. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, non-notable drink. Probably a hoax or made up at school one day. It looks like the whole article was written to get a chance to make that Rocky movie reference. JIP | Talk 13:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could have been speedied under A7, since the article doesn't even claim that the drink is notable. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although as CSD A7 does not specifically include or exclude drinks (or even "products") I would have erred on the side of it not being eligible. Perferctly PRODable though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The article was Prod'd and it was removed by unregistered user. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Whether A7 applies is debated, but the consensus to delete this is very clear. ~ mazca ^t/c 21:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Www.keraleeyamonline.com[edit]

No-indication of notability. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : New website that fails notablity criteria for websites. -- Tinu Cherian - 11:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 13:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to not being notable, there's no assertion of notability, this should be A-7ed. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 14:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SpacemanSpiff. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could be an A7 easily and deleted it as such, but hte PROD has been contested so I'll let AfD run. Relisting because I think it fell off the log when I closed it. StarM 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone delete this already.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be a notable website.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 22:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the About us of the website does not contain any claim that would make it notable. Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete should have been A7 in first place. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 05:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ VasuVR, Tinucherian tagged it for CSD, and I PRODded it, but both were declined. So I brought it here to AfD. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability for websites. Hekerui (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedily redirected to Province (China). Not really anything to discuss. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of China provinces[edit]

Already exists as Province (China) (Oops should have used prod) Intelligentsium 00:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or you could've replaced all the content on List of China provinces with "#REDIRECT Province (China)#Map and list", and left a note on the creator's talk page. Be bold! --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPW Armageddon Championship[edit]

No notability established. No third party sources to help indicate notability. Nikki♥311 00:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 00:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: promotion isn't notable so their championship isn't.--WillC 01:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable promotion. Afkatk (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable title because it's from a non notable promotion TaintedZebra (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N so badly there should be a category for a speedy Rick Doodle (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Even if there isn't a category it should go quick because the fed itself isn't notable per above. Get Dumb 09:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Keep. The organization is international and according to WP:ORG is notable if its activities can be verified by third party reliable sources. The latter condition is at least partially satisfied. Ruslik_Zero 14:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African Democracy Forum[edit]

Few ghits and fewer Gnews Hits, and nothing supporting notability that I can find on cursory search. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps part of the reason this article was written was because it is not widely known about. It seems to me, if you are judging its importance by google searches, that the problem is NOT that the organization is insignificant, but that it does not get the recognition it deserves for the work that it does. Perhaps that is part of the point of the entry in the first place. Not to mention, if you actually look at the hits that come up on google, you can see the prestige the organization does have and the wide scope of its work. As with some many things in Africa, the good news and the positive steps are never taken. Let's not take that to mean that they are insignificant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.79.17 (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be original research. Wikipedia has the notability guidelines for inclusion. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 12:43, 8 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, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've gotten so used to writing opinion pieces to the exclusion of

science that encyclopedic writing is very difficult. Even in discussion, it is hard to avoid saying something about public interest or "needs to be more widely known". Even covering drug company technology, this gets mixed up with political action targeted at the FDA etc. So, I would just like to mention that the 208.58.79.17 comments are appreciated but largely not a concern. A bigger concern is avoiding moralizing and advertising. Most news outlets and journals have better peer review and accountability. Wiki is open access and needs to have claims traceable to reviewed reputable sources. Politically hot topics often suffer from extreme views from advocacy groups which I personally would find notable even if their opinions are not "credible."

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please show how 208.58's suggestions sponsor original research. Organizations that exist to increase awareness of issues are by definition less well known. The organizations and the issues are neither more relevant nor less because of the lack of public knowledge on the subject. For that matter, perhaps you could show how searches of web pages limit inclusion in WP. Anarchangel (talk) 08:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go: but that it does not get the recognition it deserves for the work that it does. Perhaps that is part of the point of the entry in the first place. Doesn't get recognition, so the article is to recognize it. Sounds like original research if no one else has mentioned it in the news. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One, you have notability and original research scrambled, and two, you have failed to show evidence of either. Anarchangel (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A good article but needs continued work `- Ret.Prof (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is mentioned in several news articles (from different countries) and a few books. One source says it is a network of 450 local orgs. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. None of this content is verified, so it should not be merged. ÷seresin 07:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK ALCo group[edit]

Speedy declined for unknown reason - Local railway history group restoring an old locomotive. Has a website and a yahoo group. While the subject matter is intersting I don't see this anywhere near passing WP:CLUB Passportguy (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce to stub and merge to ~~American Locomotive Company~~ALCO S-1 and S-3. Fences and windows (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this group is ~~restoring 1 of~~ assisting with the restoration of the surviving 3 examples of only a handful of US built ALCo locomotives ever exported to the UK. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC) (edited, corrected number of locomotives, and groups role) Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any sources covering this at all. If some sources providing verifiability can be produced, I would suggest a merge to ALCO S-1 and S-3 as a more direct target than the previously suggested American Locomotive Company as the article indicates the restoration is for a specific type of locomotive. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 8 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, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Upon further consideration, I would not object to merging the content to ALCO S-1 and S-3. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Aladdin (TV series). If anyone wishes to merge any or all of the content, I have left the page history intact for your use. ~ mazca ^t/c 21:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phasir[edit]

Non-notable fictional character, appears only in a couple episodes, too obscure to merge. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aladdin_(TV_series)#Supporting Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor character. Mintrick (talk) 01:47, 9 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) 00:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aladdin_(TV_series)#Supporting where the name appears. Not too trivial to rd and merge--rds are cheap. JJL (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aladdin (TV series)#Supporting per JJL. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in entirety, this seems reasonable and sparse. Unless there is a preponderance of information or sourcing this can rest in the list article of characters for a now. -- Banjeboi 08:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list as this character has no notability outside of being a cast member. Them From Space 23:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was No consensus to delete. Merge can be discussed elsewhere. Ruslik_Zero 14:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kobolds in gaming[edit]

Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons) is notable per WP:NOTE but the subject of this article, Kobolds in gaming, is not. It consists of original research and has been tagged as needing references for over a year. WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Drawn Some (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nominator got it on the nose, no real evidence of notability for this topic. Mintrick (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate list (and they left out TaskMaker). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kobold. The first paragraph from the original version of the article would fit perfectly into the Kobold article. Powers ^T 13:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep or Merge the whole cannon fodder meme has been notable for decades. I'd think the three articles could be merged - kobold is 46k total, and the others pretty small. Together they are better than the sum of the parts for the overview of the development of the idea as a whole. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Here's a nice source, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how many times it has been featured in different games is notable enough. Listing the years it was shown in what fictional series, would be nice also. The article shows a description of how the same general concept is used, but the description changes greatly, and sometimes evolves into something different from there over time, so just the name is the same. And interesting bit to study. I'd like to see the same list for orcs and other things as well. Dream Focus 15:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. No participants in the discussion could offer any independent sources to support its notability. ~ mazca ^t/c 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Institute Of Implant Dentistry[edit]

Likerly non-notable institute, can't seem to find any references/hits on Google, except this institute's website Passportguy (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete this appears to be an advertisement for a private corporation. Unsupported by any sources aside form that organization's own webpage.Historicist (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No results found for "American Institute Of Implant Dentistry" on Google's News, Books, Scholar. Google search results show no apparent signs of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a scientific society, but just a place offering short continuing education courses. DGG (talk) 00:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Restored to redirect to Chris O'Brien (disambiguation). LibStar (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O'Brien[edit]

fails WP:BIO [61] , I did a search for the award he won, just 1 article covers it [62]. LibStar (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add his association with a band with "the most downloaded track on Ireland’s download charts". This is from the website of a major music event where "so many people arrived ... that stewards had to turn hundreds away from the doors"... --candle•wicke 20:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has worked with The Human League, Clannad and The Waterboys... (Clannad are Gammy winners) --candle•wicke 20:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Credits also include Something Happens, Tina Arena, Moya Brennan, Zappacosta, Sam Salter... has been doing this since at least 1990... lots of countries (UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, United States), continents and genres represented by those musicians... I'm not sure he got that far without achieving notability... --candle•wicke 20:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty notable to me. If you search the Google news archives for "Chris O'Brien" in conjunction with his co-producer "Graham Murphy" [63], you find the Antrim Times calling them "top Irish rock producers", many references in Hot Press concerning their work with Clannad, Westlife and Human League. The NME calls them "leading Irish producers" [64]. Seriously, the references need improvement but it seems he's one of the most renowned record producers in Ireland. --Canley (talk) 04:11, 11 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) 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly unreferenced BLP reads like a typical auto-bio, where it lists all the notable people the subject has worked with but fails to add anything that actually establishes the subject's own notability, much less with reliable sources to support such claims. لenna vecia 16:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no suggestion of why the subject is actually notable - working with notable people doesn't mean you're notable yourself. Add this to the lack of any sources confirming any of the assertions in this BLP. ~ mazca ^t/c 22:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian Defensive Dog[edit]

Delete - The Serbian Defensive Dog only comes up with 52 hits on Google and many of the hits are not related to the dog. I don't think this article meets the criteria for Wikipedia, lacks Notability. Green Squares (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for attempted neologism. I would like to see sources to be proven wrong. Zoo Fari 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Breed isn't recognized by any associations (AKC etc) and doesn't appear to be very populous. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sadly most sites about this breed are in Serbian and not in English. For example, see www.carski-cuvar.in.rs. Surly seems like Srpski Odbrambeni Pas returns significantly more hits that Serbian Defense Dog. All in all, its an noteworthy article. Mike Babic (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi, Mike Babic, I don't think one decent website, makes it a notable breed. Green Squares (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, there was also an documentary on this dog breed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0NiByhCIv0 Mike Babic (talk) 00:35, 10 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 00:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that there's enough continuing coverage to show this person's notability beyond a single case. ~ mazca ^t/c 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gura[edit]

The only notable thing that he has done is serve as an attorney on the Heller case. His role there is already mentioned in the Heller article. None of the other information in his personal article is notable in any way. Idag (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd normally say no, but he was the lead counsel on the case and it is considered a landmark case. I think it is an expection to wp:BLP1E Niteshift36 (talk) 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't done anything notable apart from the briefs and oral argument that he conducted in that case. In the future, he may well go on to become a bigger figure in the gun rights debate, but he isn't really notable until he does so. Idag (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The brief and the oral argument is pretty significant. I'm sticking with my opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If you remove everything that has nothing to do with his involvement with the case you are left with a very small paragraph, which would only provide an exception to WP:BIO1E if it grew too large to be reasonably expressed in the event's article. That article is a little wordy and the subject does seem to get alot of coverage for his involvement with the case, coverage that can only get larger as states interpret the decision of the supreme court. ZabMilenko 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That looks like an important role in an important case. 71.3.53.121 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)^{User:71.3.53.121 made 19 WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:JNN AfD recommendations in less than 30 minutes after being templated as a single-purpose account on WP:Articles for deletion/Chain smoking — Rankiri (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)}[reply]
Weak delete - seems a fair article, but equally it seems a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. Disembrangler (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per the Levi Johnston precedent. Gura is surely a more significant subject for an encyclopedia compared to an article about a candidate's daughter's ex-fiance (the latter article now containing details about the criminal record of the mother of the candidate's daughter's ex-fiance).Ferrylodge (talk) 20:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over the Johnston incident, and the issue with Gura is not that he's trivial like Johnson, its that his only notability is the Heller case. His contributions to that case are already noted in the Heller article (the case itself clearly being notable). This article does not add anything about those contributions that isn't already mentioned in the Heller article and none of the stuff that it does add is notable. Idag (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is precisely what WP:BLP1E was written for. As he is only notable for one event, his information should be included in that article. I would go with merge, but the relevant info is already there. لenna vecia 16:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Brett A. Thomas (below). لenna vecia 22:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is lead counsel on the immediate follow up case of McDonald v. Chicago which SCOTUSblog expects to be granted certatoria in the Supreme Court next term. See A new Second Amendment case. He's also lead counsel in 5 more Second Amendment cases that I'm aware of. Hoffmang (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify my position, I have no problem with this article being recreated if he wins a few more cases at the Supreme Court level. At the moment though, the chances of a cert. petition being granted are about 1% (Justice Roberts at one point commented that the Court grants about 70 petitions out of 10,000). This article is, at best, premature, as evidenced by the fact that only two sentences in the entire article deal with notable content (which is already mentioned elsewhere). Idag (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many cert petitions are given an entry on SCOTUSblog, and does it matter that the domain experts in the media might differ with your initial assessment? Hoffmang (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I was in the cert.-guessing game, I'd point out that its unlikely for the Court to grant cert. on something that only three circuits have considered. However, none of this actually matters because the Supreme Court will ultimately make its decision in due time without regard for what Wikipedia or SCOTUSblog has to say. If that decision is notable and it involves Gura, then there might be a reason to recreate this article. Until then, this whole thing is speculation, none of which is notable. Idag (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's counsel also in in NRA v. Chicago, which is also considered notable enough for a Wikipedia entry, so he's clearly involved in at least two events notable enough for Wikipedia entries. He's also involved in numerous other cases that have been noted in the press. A Google search for "Alan Gura" on, say, washingtonpost.com returns 133 results, some from this year, and not "about" Heller in any meaningful sense (e.g., [65]). A Google news search for "Alan Gura" as of June 16, 2009, shows quite a number of articles that mention him in the last month, indicating his ongoing notability. I would argue that, even if he weren't continuing his notability, that Heller might qualify him, anyway, as one who "has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field," but he's clearly still generating news that may cause people to want to look him up in Wikipedia. Brett A. Thomas (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 23:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TCE Company, Inc[edit]

Non-notable company. BJ^Talk 22:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - minimal sourcing found, fails WP:NOTE Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:59, 6 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 00:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, likely speedy candidate: non-notable tech business, article contains swatches of promotional patent nonsense: Focusing on the collection and dissemination of information in multiple formats utilizing concepts such as Unified Communications. Unifying management application with voice, data, video, security, and wireless capabilities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NaviCoder[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N Jonathan Hall (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about why this article has to be deleted? I'll try my best to amend it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.246.65.46 (talk) 08:13, 11 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 00:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not WP:N The subject of this article is not notable. No attempt has been made to show that anybody outside of the developers is even aware of it. The article reads as an ad (not surprising, given the spate of anon edits)Paleking (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. ÷seresin 06:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of films recut by studio[edit]

This article is a hodge podge of poorly sourced information that would probably be best served by a category. CarbonX (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being poorly sourced isn't a valid reason for deletion, and turning this into a category wouldn't help matters. The list is clearly defined and just needs work doing with the addition of references. Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree. in fact, just because their sources are sometimes wrong and all the time poor doesn't mean this article can be deleted.TVB 02:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the scope is poorly defined and potentially includes every studio film for which the director did not have a final cut privilege - which is to say, the vast majority. If anything, the opposite would be the easier to list (not that I would support such a list either). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most movies on the list do not even stay within the scope of the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigar (talk • contribs) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from the page "The following is a list of notable films that were modified by the studio after their original theatrical release, particularly films that were edited without the director's permission or involvement. In some cases, these recuts were done by the filmmaker(s).", so which is it, studios or directors? And what constitutes a "studio cut"? The parameters are wooly. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - This is an informative article detailing examples on just how much our motion picture heritage has been altered throughout film history. Don't take it out. Hiphats (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I agree completely with Lugnuts, TVB and Hiphats. The article is informative and useful and is demonstrative of a global film-related phenomenon which can't be addressed by simply stating in one film's article "this film has been recut this way and that way" or creating a category.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At some point nearly every movie ever made has been edited by the studio after theatrical release. Films are edited for television, almost every movie now has special edition DVDs. Inclusion criteria is way to broad. Ridernyc (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Make DAB. . ÷seresin 06:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TSearch[edit]

No claim of notability for this software utility. Prod contested by anon. Jfire (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify – make into dabpage for the three ways this term is used; we have at least two blue links, so a dabpage may do some good here. Otherwise, as far as the current content is concerned, I cannot find anything that provides any verifiability; lots of online forum postings, but nothing reliable. MuZemike 17:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user from the abyss: The program explains itself. Tsearch is a memory editor; it is ideal for hacking games to change values to a more desirable value. This hardly even needs any citations, since it is only referring to the program itself, which is its own source per se. Also, the best source is the people who use the program and edit the pages considering there is no actual reliable source for this information; even the developer's website is hosted by people who pay out of their own pockets. As such, it can go down at any time, leaving no reliable source at all. The program would still be in circulation for its use as a hack tool. There should still be information about it where it is available for a long time, probably much longer than the original site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.208.158 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I can userfy this if anyone wants to merge it somewhere (I know too little about statistics for this). Sandstein 05:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revising opinions in statistics[edit]

This article is nothing more than a how-to manual for the application of Bayes' theorem. It is also unsourced, but even if sourced, such content is still inappropriate per above. After deletion, a redirect of the title to Bayes' theorem or Bayesian statistics, etc., might be prudent. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I certainly don't like the title of the article. Probably anything in it worth keeping should be merged into one or more other articles. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I think that criticism misses the mark entirely. How to do it isn't the point; the point is the general role of what is done. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:14, 13 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 00:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For me, the problem is with the term 'opinion', which is not defined in the article, and which does not have a standard definition in this field as far as I know. I think such a high-level, step-by-step overview is fine, and is not a 'how-to' in a problematic way. It belongs somewhere (heavily edited) in a discussion of how subjective Bayesians use data to update their prior beliefs. Skbkekas (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice. This isn't even a stub, it's nothing more than a half-baked idea. The idea itself should be expressed as a brief paragraph within one of the Bayesian articles. —Aetheling (talk) 06:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to Bayesian inference as a less technical overview or expanded lead section. The lead of Bayesian inference is a bit short at present for quite a long article. Qwfp (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical footnote: This article is essentially unchanged since it was first written by Larry Sanger way back in July 2001: nost:Revising opinions in statistics. Qwfp (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Haha, its hilarious that its hung on so long in such a poor state. Has Sanger been informed, as the original contributor, of this AfD? Fences&Windows 23:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Fences&Windows 23:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Stevenson.[edit]

Notability, sourcing, etc. Avi (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the more puffed resumes I've seen, in the end it gives no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Very puffed up resume indeed. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this accurate? Maybe I missed something, but this article (despite having quite a bit of content) really doesn't explain what Stevenson does. Reading it has made me thoroughly confused. He seems to have received a lot of awards, and honourary commissions (don't like those myself, as real ones are, or at least should be, hard to earn, but that is an aside point), but I have to ask why? The article doesn't explain why he would be given a commission as an admiral in the Texas Navy, or why he was made an honourary colonel. I will reserve judgement for a couple of days, but given that a lot of the article does not have citations to verify information and there is some stuff that possibly violates BLP guidelines (e.g. rumours about being a Mason, etc.) I am leaning towards a delete or cutting it down to a stub. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems becoming a Texas Admiral requires sending in an application letter and paying $40 a year. [66] Earl Stevenson is not listed on their website. [67] He's not listed on the Kentucky Colonel's website, either, [68] so he doesn't appear to be a notable holder of either of these honorary titles, if he even holds either honorary title. Edward321 (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found out what he actually does for a living: "Stevenson, who works in Reston as a regional support manager for Sprint, providing global oversight and management for its managed network operations, " from his local paper [69] . Aside from that, he has many friends. If I came across this in newpages, I'd have considered a speedy as both G7 and A11, no indication of notability, and purely promotional). But since it's here, let's get it deleted by AfD so we can quickly remove any attempted re-creation. DGG (talk) 00:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Restored AFD tag on article and warned the IP. Edward321 (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no actual accomplishments noted... Geo Swan (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: based on the comments by others above, this really seems like the biography of someone trying to make themselves sound more notable than they are. The subject is friends with a lot of notable people (actors, politicans etc), but notability isn't inherited. Also the subject has lots of 'awards' but they don't smell right to me. As an aside I have to wonder what the various State governments in the United States are thinking by handing out so-called 'commissions'. A commission is something that is hard to earn—I know from experience—and it lessens the achievements of the men and women who actually earn theirs the hard way. I wonder what the boys and girls at the US Naval Academy think of 'Admiral' Stevenson. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Request Users to Improve: This article should be allowed to remain and a request made to Wikipedia users to improve and update it; given that there is a vast amount of referenceable and verifiable information on this individual oin the media and many internet search engines. I just "googled" this individual based on the sources quoted in the footnotes and was surprised at the amount of references. Therefore lets improve this article rather than delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArizonaCactus (talk • contribs) 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC) — ArizonaCactus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment What you have are blogs and Wikis, which are not relaible sources. New info you added to the article doesn't even have that to back it up. Edward321 (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: Everything in this article is verifiable - just "google", "bing" or "yahoo" this person - everything in this article I have found to be accurate based on various internet and media sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by ArizonaCactus (talk • contribs) 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I have struck your duplicate !vote. Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Edward321 is correct. Ive been looking and i cant find a single actual news article or anything verifiable... Fail Deadly (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why was this reinstated? It is pretty obvious that this guy is a faker. You may ask why i care, well i take personal interest in people who claim to be United States Marines with little evidence to back it up... Fail Deadly (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECT - According to Department of the Navy he was a US Marine. If you make accusations please back it up with proof. He was a Marine..I was able to view his DD214 through a records search. I did notice that these discussions in themselves are inflammatory, Liable, and accusatory without facts presented. If you make accusations please back it up with facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.191.51 (talk) 14:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]