< 14 June 16 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trail Blazers Street Jam[edit]

Trail Blazers Street Jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks third-party' reliable sources to indicate notability.

Prod tag removed by one of two main authors, both SPI style accounts. Initial author never replied to my personal note on their talk page.

Has been deleted before (under prod? need admin to check logs). Suggest article be salted. tedder (talk) 23:47, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep Countries are definitely notable. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harikela[edit]

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

Only wiki referenced Janc6 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The nomination was done on the page but not listed, just listed it now. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:51, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Delete as this was already deleted in the last AFD. Non admin closure. Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clatworthy[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Google search yields results for jazz musician Benn Clatworthy.

References do not meet WP:V and WP:RS:

  1. Story written by the subject; doesn't discuss notability.
  2. Same as above.
  3. List of articles written; does not discuss the subject.
  4. Webs.com pages can be made by anyone,; hence, not a reliable source.
  5. Discussion thread also not a reliable source. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 23:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clatworthy ==

Ben is the UK's youngest broadcaster and journalist. He has appeared on the BBC and in the media on several occasions. Just today he was the celebrity studio guest on a Bristol radio station. From [4] one can see how much Ben has done, despite being 16 and all have links to the real article or Television / Radio appearance. Phil.murpey (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I removed the title format for the above post since it was interfering with the index of the day's log. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joke. This [5] makes it clear to an idiot that that this is creditable. Just click on the links off the page too see. How can that not be notability. Finally, not wishing to argue but I found out about Ben a while ago and this is just an utter joke! - Open your eyes and look at a website other thank wikipedia - you are so 1 diminutional —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil.murpey (talk • contribs) 23:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC) — Phil.murpey (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I have never registered before. Just made IP changes.

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

The result was merge to Goth subculture#Controversy. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Gibbs (assault victim)[edit]

Paul Gibbs (assault victim) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have some concerns of notability. Listing to see what other people think mostly. As far as deletion goes, I'm neutral, leaning for a week keep. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:17, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity of reality[edit]

Relativity of reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In a nutshell: original research, non-mainstream, and draws way to heavy from one or two sources. Possibly a POV fork. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:12, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Flowerparty☀ 00:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tessolve[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. May be notable however. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response On reading through a variety of the news links I found this out: The US company is a holding company, the Indian one is funded in part by the US company and also a smattering of other sources including Qualcomm, Applied Material etc. This article is in serious need of help, but given that it's the first company to actually do genuine FAB work in India, I believe it's notable (of course, in addition to the coverage); I just hope someone can integrate the news refs into at least one paragraph for an article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not say that it is a fab unit,r ather that it is a testing unit. A fabrication unit is expensive and can only be afforded by a large company like TI, Intel, AMD or a consortium. Tessolve simply doesn't seem to be in the same league. Nonetheless, Ill vote keep for now and give the creator a month or two to improve the article and prove its notability. --Deepak D'Souza 10:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
  • I agree, the article is ultra weak on context or anything, and just reading through the sources I listed above, I seem to have got a different picture. While notability exists, I don't think the article is anywhere near showing that. This isn't an article I can improve, so I'm leaving it to the creator. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:08, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ÷seresin 02:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Menksoft[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable company and their software product created and maintained by a single user BabelStone (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the first largely duplicates the Menksoft page, and the second is just a redirect to the Menksoft page:

Menksoft Mongolian IME (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Menksoft Mongolian IMEs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In practise, size of a company is often a deciding factor (including, but not only by increasing the chance of third party coverage), but that's not really the topic here. In our case, most sources will be in Chinese or Mongolian language, which I'll have trouble digging up myself lacking the necessary skills (I can only decipher very simple Mongolian text in cyrillic). I see that the creator, who seems fluent in both languages and all relevant scripts, has not been notified of this nomination. I'll point him to the necessary steps. --Latebird (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's not a deeply scientific (eg. historical) topic, secondary sources should be fine. The most likely candidates seem to be computer magazines and language related publications. Coverage in mainstream media would be even better, because they show that a topic is relevant for "normal people" and not just for specialists. The coverage should also be "non-trivial". In the sources, the company/products should be at the center of attention, and not only mentioned in passing. --Latebird (talk) 21:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the reasons I do not think the article is appropriate is that it contains unsourced and unverifiable claims, such as "In 2003, it was evaluate as "重点软件企业" of Inner Mongolia and 20 giant private enterprise in Hohhot. Now, it's supported by the government". "In 2003, it was evaluate as "重点软件企业" of Inner Mongolia and 20 giant private enterprise in Hohhot" should be changed to something like "In 2003 Menksoft was evaluated as a 'major software enterprise' in Inner Mongolia, and one of twenty large private enterprises in Hohhot" (if I understand it correctly) and a reference added. The unsupported statement "Now, it's supported by the government" should be removed entirely, unless a referenced explanation of how the Chinese governement supports Menksoft is provided. BabelStone (talk) 08:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To BabelStone:  Done (edits gov supports). It's really a good thing that you can read Chinese, so that origins can be verfied. In fact, at first, I didn't want to write the history of the Crop. but later I was noticed and I realized the article contains only products so I thought it was time to make it similar to other Wikipedia articles such as Adobe Systems. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To Latebird: "the company/products should be at the center of attention" - both the 2 reference (except for the German one: in the German one, it's not trivial, but still not in the "center of attention") I mentioned in "keep" satisfy this. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To BabelStone: Still a problem: how to translate "扶植"? I translated it as "support" but I don't know whether that's proper. --虞海 (Yú Hǎi) (talk) 11:17, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defeated[edit]

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

Unsourced and apparently unsourceable. No reliable sources for release at all, much less a release date. People keep inserting references to unreliable charts such as Latvia and the Polish National Charts, both listed on WP:BADCHARTS, but, since neither chart is permitted, it doesn't count as a chart. References to the "Italian Airplay Chart" don't verify when checked. No source, no release, no chart, no cover versions: massive failure of WP:NSONGS. Efforts to redirect have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 21:39, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep per consensus. Problems addressed are reasons to clean up, not to delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Allen[edit]

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

Up front, I'll admit that this is quite likely a borderline nomination, and maybe even against the letter of BLP policy, but I just feel this kind of article, essentially a public shaming of an otherwise barely notable living person (ex-member of a U.S. State House of Representatives (not the US House)), distills much of what is wrong in how Wikipedia handles BLP's. I'm recommending deletion, either as not notable, or (if that doesn't gain consensus), WP:IAR: deletion improves the encyclopedia (by making it more professional). IMHO, a policy that says this article should be here is a bad policy and needs to be changed. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you write one? We don't question why articles exist, only whether or not they should be allowed to exist. If all the articles with self-serving motivations for creation were eliminated from Wikipedia there would be about 3,000 articles left instead of 3,000,000. Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep possibly pointy. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladahachandra[edit]

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

This article does not cite any references or sources Janc6 (talk) 21:02, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unus Framework[edit]

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

No Google News hits, no coverage, nothing in the article that even indicates that the product might be notable. I declined the speedy as A7 does not cover software (not even such that usually runs on web servers as it's neither web content nor web sites) but nevertheless this is probably not notable at all. Regards SoWhy 20:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate the constructive criticism of the moderation for Wikipedia now.
Also just to educate you on the difference between what you are calling a "PHP Script" this is not written by your average 16 year-old protégé posting the newest twitter project. It evolves months of planning, development, testing, debugging etc with highly complex development design theories and logic algorithms that would run circles around a "PHP Script".
Wither this gets deleted or not this is the first and last article I will ever contribute to Wikipedia, Thanks for the great support!
Cheers
Nwhitingx (talk) 19:26, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep Kings are notable. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Govindachandra[edit]

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

references Janc6 (talk) 20:30, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There was also no consensus on whether all the articles should be considered in one debate or not. If anyone wants to renominate them then it is my personal opinion that there will be a greater chance of consensus if they are considered separately, particularly Egland Haxho and Arbër Abilaliaj. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egland Haxho[edit]

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

Contested PROD stating "...player is competing in the top-level in Albania", however it is unverifiable that the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional thus he fails criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of references. --Jimbo[online] 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following, as they too fail the same criteria as Haxho;

--Jimbo[online] 20:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not saying the Albanian lge is definitely 'fully professional' but for which leagues can you definitely say that. What it means then is that people are free to dispute the Athlete criteria whatever league it is. I'm saying these athletes have general notability, but it seems particularly harsh on Albanians to kick out players competing in their top football league; will any Albanians be left on here? Eldumpo (talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Angelo, thanks very much for this link, interesting. However I see most of the entries are unsourced. Of those with references I did have a look at, none actually met the incredibly stringent definition of 'a sports league where all first team players, in all teams composing the league, are known to be contracted in a full-time basis.' !! Eldumpo (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't think so, I don't see any significant reliable, and detailed coverage about the subjects themselves we require. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a valid argument (I think DeMartin is non-notable as well, but it's merely my opinion). --Angelo (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding further info. I think the fact that he's played in the Intertoto (and scored!) makes him a definite keep. No one has yet answered my query about all these players being bundled up into 1 AfD. Eldumpo (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I bundled the AfD as they are all footballers in a similar position with regards to notability. Would be a bit of a waste of time/space to create nine seperate AfDs. --Jimbo[online] 12:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously they're all different, but all closely related as WP:BUNDLE states. They're up for deletion for exactly the same reason and they all play for clubs in the same league which it's "fully-professional" status is in question. --Jimbo[online] 22:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even teams from Andorra and Faroe Islands used to play in the tournament, do you really think they are notable just by playing in a Intertoto Cup! Not really a good point, sorry. Intertoto Cup (which was recently dismissed, by the way) is no different than UEFA Cup preliminary rounds at my eyes, especially in its first round which used to involve a bunch of really minor teams. --Angelo (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, and agree that many semi-pro or amateur clubs played in the Intertoto. However, I understand that Ethnikos Achnas is fully-pro, so the matches in question were at a higher level. The player also has a fair amount (although maybe not a "significant amount") of coverage in reliable sources. The article is pretty close to passing WP:N, although I doubt it actually does. Since I spent some time searching and this was the best I could find, it does support the idea that the other articles would fail WP:N. Jogurney (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The UEFA Cup/Europa League is a significant competition and I would say players/clubs participating in it are inherently notable. Eldumpo (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, a player of an amateur team from Andorra can suddenly become notable only because he played one minute of a Intertoto game against a team that happened to be professional? I would call it "coin tossing notability" rule, since a team is coupled to another team by a draw... --Angelo (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, but a professional club in a league which is not fully pro may be able to. I believe that there is precedent for this on articles about footballers who played in the FA Cup. That said, I'm not convinced the Abilaliaj article actually passes WP:ATHLETE, or that it has sufficient references to pass WP:N. It's close, and that's a good sign that the other articles listed here (for less accomplished footballers) would not pass. Jogurney (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Delete All--AssegaiAli (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that is a good standard to use, but there appears to be a plan to create an article for Abilaliaj on the Albanian WP. Jogurney (talk) 21:47, 22 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep Nominator expressed desire to withdraw on my talk page. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koopa (band)[edit]

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

Unsigned band. Could only find one article on GNews that discusses them [8] Only claim to fame is that they are an unsigned who made it onto a Pop list. Most likely non-notable, unsigned band. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: You obviously haven't looked at the references in the article. Although they appear to be borderline on WP:BAND they definitely meet the requirements of WP:N. They have received full write-ups in lots of music press as well as mainstream press. They continually tour nationally and internationally. They aren't just some no-name pub band. I can't say I particularly like them, but they do have a place on Wikipedia. I'm not entirely sure why this AfD is being brought. --WebHamster 20:09, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As it stands, the article looks like a POV-fork of Taiwan Province, which focuses on the claims of the PRC over Taiwan. However, these claims are already fully documented, in a neutral way, in Taiwan, Republic of China and Taiwan Province so we don't need a fourth independent article for it. Even if there was some unique content in the article, we could easily merge it in Taiwan province#PRC's claims. Laurent (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The provinicial administration of the PRC may be notable, but it still doesn't mean we should have an entire article about it. As mentioned above, there is nothing in this article that we cannot merge into the more neutral Taiwan Province. The latter already mentions the claims of the PRC in the introduction, and has an entire section about them, which is all we need. Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is a POV-fork because it isolates the PRC's POV from the rest of the articles, and prevents us from giving the full picture. Laurent (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan Province is about a province of the ROC which does not encompass the entire island. This article in question discusses the PRC "administration" for the entirety of the island, as well as nearby islands, which are not part of the ROC province. Fundamentally, they're different concepts. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In revisiting this discussion, I am impressed with the arguments in favor of keeping the article. Therefore, count me in as a Keep person. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, there's no point creating a separate article for every single territory a country claims. We can easily do it in the main article. Likewise, if the borders are not the same, we can also document it in the main, neutral, article. Again, I just can't see any technical reason why there has to be two separate articles. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this article is not about the PRC claims, but on the PRC province. The relevant question is, did ROC maintain provincial administrations 'in exile' for the pre-1949 provinces. I think they did, but I can't find a reference right now. If there was a 'Anhui Province' administration in Taipei, we could have articles about that. The difference is that I think (guessing) institutions like parliament etc. in ROC is elected only on basis of the 'Free Area', not the claimed provinces of the mainland. In the PRC state aparatus, the 'Taiwan Province' has its own representation, and is there by a real existing political entity (in spite that PRC never controlled Taiwan). --Soman (talk) 10:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of trouble do you expect? Are you saying that we should just give up on being neutral in Taiwan articles? Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the territory claimed by the PRC is not strictly the same as the one controlled by the ROC, we can document that in the main article, perhaps by adding a map of the Taiwan Province, as claimed by the PRC. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about agreeing with the PRC or not. I don't agree or disagree - it's just about being neutral. Laurent (talk) 08:51, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black is the new white[edit]

Black is the new white (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Merger proposal to The new black expired. Subject is not notable enough to justify standalone article. ninety:one 19:41, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Koenig[edit]

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

Only sources in the article mention her in passing, no non-trivial coverage found. Handful of mostly unsourced minor roles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:19, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ÷seresin 02:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Three Fellas[edit]

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

Non-notable local event: a single comedy show. Prod contested by article creator in 2008. Jfire (talk) 05:00, 1 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 00:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @844  ·  19:14, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ComboFix[edit]

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

Last AFD was relisted twice without anything resembling a consensus: one WP:USEFUL and one suggestion to merge somewhere. Seriously, let's go or get off the pot with this article. It's written like an ad, is very listy, and lacks secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some users may dispute the validity of these !votes, as they are made by anonymous and/or newly registered users and therefore may be sockpuppet !votes. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet.

Comments made by users blocked for sockpuppetry.


  • Speedy Keep think it's unlikely this needs to be deleted outright. Maybe merged to an article on antispyware techniques in general, but let the people who would actually write such an article decide. PSPbothmanlol (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:*Comment Why wont you keeep it????? SaveComboFixArticle (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC) User blocked for sockpuppetry. Icestorm815 • Talk 22:44, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhamed bin Jasim bin Hamad[edit]

Muhamed bin Jasim bin Hamad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I nominated this article for speedy deletion under CSD A7, but it was removed and the reason given was "No need of deletion since the sources have been quoted". Yes there is a quote, but I could not find a reference there to the subject of the article, and it still does not satisfy A7 "An article about a real person .... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" Click23 (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also appears that the OP is using Wiki as there personal family tree maker. Click23 (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the pages the user has created, most should be deleted under WP:N and WP:BIO by WP:PROD. Click23 (talk) 16:06, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Bumpass[edit]

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

No reliable sources found, only directory listings and trivial mentions. Doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guidelines. Only major VA role is that of Squidward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:47, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but there are a few outstanding delete !votes. However, a clear consensus to keep has been established. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek love[edit]

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

The subject lacks true academic references. What is used relies on the subject of Pederasty, which is not the same subject and Pederasty in ancient Greece which again is not the same subject. I do not recommend merging as the article is filled with OR and POV. Research showed little to no information available through either Literature or online. Little to no chance of accuracy through general references. Term is relatively contemporary and does not meet notabilty. Many citations were removed as inappropriate. Some, seemingly odd to use as an ecyclopedic reference and others outright unreliable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amadscientist (talk • contribs) 15 June 2009

No: 'Greek Love' is not merely a "euphemism for sexual relations". At one time it may have been so, but the usage which is clearly outlined in the article refers specifically to homosexual relations in the context of ancient Greek society, and the nature of the relationships which were expected in that society. Nor is it merely "a euphemism for pederasty": it is, again, a term relating specifically to a particular attitude to sexuality in a specific social context. As for "agenda-based editing", isn't that exactly what this user is advocating? He/she wants to have the article deleted because he/she morally disapproves of it. However, we should bear in mind WP:NOTCENSORED. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please. "Man/boy" are weasal words used over and over. It's the inaccuracy of its use as well as the way the article overflows with boosterism.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To answer TheDecanome's question, it is different in relating the concept specifically to the context in which it appeared in ancient Greece. Since love between males had a special role in that society, one which it does not have in any modern society, it is a concept with a social meaning quite different from the meaning which "paederastry" has in our society. As for "there is something unique or special about it", I should think there are many thousands of articles about things which have nothing unique or special about them: if we were to remove them all we would have a much smaller encyclopedia. For example, there are articles about many authors of books, and probably only a tiny proportion of them are unique or special. There is nothing in the Wikipedia notability guideline saying that uniqueness or specialness is required. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very honest of Amadscientist to admit to basing his/her comment on a POV position, but, however much he/she or you or I or any number of us may or may not disagree with "pro pedophilia supporters", Wikipedia is not censored, and "I morally disapprove of the motive behind this editor's editing" is not a valid reason for deletion: the decision must be based on the content of the article, not on speculation (nor even on established fact) about the viewpoint of the authors of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed history section that I am about to reference was called frivilous.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming (move) to "Neo Hellenistic Greek Love" or "Neo classical Greek love" could be appropriate. Article can keep the emphasis on the 19th century movement with an overview explaining the ideology of the original Ancient Greeks and Romans, Christians etc. Then begin as the article does and go on to other forms of influence and authors like Evelyn Waugh and Oscar Wild, all the way up to it's influences on LGBT studies as well as film and televison.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator seems to bring confusion to this AfD. If he just wants to rename the article he should have discussed the matter on the talk page. If just wants to create a drama and draw a lot of people in, then he should find another forum. This AfD should never have happened, and is wasting time. --Geronimo20 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable and different from other articles mentioned, perhaps beginning with something like "Ancient Greek conceptions of love were in a hierarchy, with thoughtful male-to-male love, now commonly called 'Greek love', held in highest regard." -MBHiii (talk) 20:16, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuks Ukaegbu Ibeawuchi[edit]

Chuks Ukaegbu Ibeawuchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability found either for this individual (3 Ghits all related to this article) or the company. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Tasmanian state election, 1996. Merging may be done if gathered consensus supports it. ÷seresin 02:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely Greedy 40% Extra Party[edit]

Extremely Greedy 40% Extra Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this political party is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insuranceleads.com[edit]

Insuranceleads.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable website/company. No reliable sources provided, none found. TNXMan 18:08, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ÷seresin 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Bennett (footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD by IP user without explanation. Later edits indicated that the user believed he played against Doncaster towards the end of the 2008–09 season, although sources state otherwise. He fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Wikipedia:ATH#Athletes almost all professional football players that play for a even major clubs are - at least de facto - included here. While I personally think that this policy should be reviewed and additional requirements of notability shuld be added to said policy, as it stands he does pass this bench mark, as he is signed by the proessional team of the Wolverhampton_Wanderers_F.C.. Passportguy (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he is signed to the club, but fails the bench mark by not having made an appearance for them as the criteria states. --Jimbo[online] 18:23, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per being notable for one event. Should something change substantially in media coverage, the article may be re-created without a DRV. ÷seresin 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Wanless[edit]

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

Contested prod. This is article is a case of being notable for one event only and the only sources I can find are the same AP wire story, repeated ad nauseum. TNXMan 17:54, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Underwood[edit]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Sugars, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Underwood, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broncolor, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clement Bowman, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Levine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dalberg Global Development Advisors, and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Dalberg Global Development Advisors/1
Ken Underwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO - hasn't received any notable award; hasn't "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field". Also the article, having been written by at least one paid editor, reads like an advertisment. Laurent (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some results for "Ken Underwood" on Google News but I don't think that's him. For instance:
LA Times - "Ken Underwood, the hospital's chief operating officer" (not him)
New York Times - "Sabrina Underwood, a daughter of Cheong and Ken Underwood of Alexandria" (probably not him)
Usa Today - "National Safety Commission president Ken Underwood" (could be him but there's only one sentence and the article, overall, is not about him)
One can assume that the paid editor has already tried hard to find the best sources, and even these are not really satisfying. Laurent (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, given that you commissioned and paid for the article I'm inclined to regard you as having a WP:COI and, as a result, I personally put less weight on your opinion on this subject. However, if you can provide the evidence for his notability (e.g the 30 references - also, have a good read of WP:Notability and the more specific WP:ANYBIO and see if you can provide evidence of the criteria listed there), then that can be assessed on it's own merits. On a side note, a) I'm curious (a genuine curiosity, I'm not trying to make a point) as to whether your commissioning of the article was at the request of Ken Underwood and if it was for promotional purposes and b) I recommend having a read of and inputting some remarks at WP:Requests for comment/Paid editing because one side of the story that hasn't really been heard from there is the side of the people commissioning these articles. Ha! (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi all - Thanks for your various comments and thanks for the respectful tone of the conversation. I would like the page to stay up, but as many of you have noted, I am certainly not impartial to the topic or conversation. But neither am I going to do the work to dig up the rest of the references and articles that I can find. Lesson learned Ryannagy (talk) 00:36, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Flowerparty☀ 00:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lori Trager[edit]

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

Non-notable; no sources Fleetflame 17:46, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Capricorns[edit]

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

I'm bring this to AfD because I feel this doesn't meet the standards set at WP:BAND. This is a contested prod with the following statement, which sums it up better than I could: "Never appeared on any national record chart; only local releases, nothing nationally (U.S. or anywhere else); no coverage in any reliable sources independent of the act or either local record company that released the group's records; commercial listings in an online store do not demonstrate anything close to meeting the WP:BAND bar". Tavix |  Talk  04:06, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:41, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan-It-X Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Plan-It-X Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has been through AfD a few years ago (and apparently VfD before that), but has no RS documentation to meet WP:V nor any particular assertion that it meets WP:N. Google News search shows only non-RS and trivial RS mentions--unable to find enough to meet inclusion criteria Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:NOTAGAIN does discuss not frivolously renominating articles over issues that have been discussed. You have not brought up any arguments that were not addressed adequately previously. There are many reliable third parties that discuss the label, such as the Philadelphia City Paper. Some one appears to have added some sources while we've been discussing this as well. What claims are in dispute, anyway? jer the linear (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The nomination is pretty clear: "has no RS documentation to meet WP:V nor any particular assertion that it meets WP:N." What part of meeting V or N is optional? What part of V was met in the last AfD, when at the time of this nomination, there were zero independent reliable sources documenting what the article asserts? If these had been met when I nominated the article, I quite agree that this would have been a frivolous nom. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please indicate which notability guideline you believe this meets and what documentation you believe exists in the article to support this. Again, adding reliable sourcing to the article would help your case greatly. Jclemens (talk) 15:00, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ÷seresin 02:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 to 5 (video game)[edit]

9 to 5 (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete nothing to indicate that this planned but cancelled video game is notable - barely any context to tell us what it would have been about. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to List of Atari 2600 games along with 32 in 1. Both are "substubs" with little apparent potential for expansion. Dancter (talk) 18:56, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Figure Death Theatre[edit]

Stick Figure Death Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No third party sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:17, 31 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 00:08, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:30, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Flowerparty☀ 00:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Eacott[edit]

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

While there is an assertion of notability, there is no sourcing. That plus the article format suggest that this gentleman may either fail WP:BLP or be a hoax, though more research would be needed to tell which one this would be inclined to fall under. Tyrenon (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 7 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 17:25, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Roca Puyol[edit]

Albert Roca Puyol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I fail to see how a physical fitness coach meets notability standards. My speedy delete tag was removed by an anon with no other edits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Professor and was FC Barcelona' s fitness coach who made them the world’s most successful team in this year. He is considered the best physical fitness coach of Europe.Sultaniman (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also meant to mention that the article is the barest outline of a resumé. Drawn Some (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Has he won an award or had significant in-depth coverage in independent sources?"

Yes. Can' t you see the cups he won? Take a look at the bottom of this articles. Section: Titles 

   * UEFA Champions League. Season 2005-06
   * League 1st Division. Seasons 2004-05 and 2005-06
   * Supercopa de España. Seasons 2005-06 and 2006-07

He is part of the team. He also won medals for these cups.

Sultaniman (talk) 06:03, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete this content, per the consensus below that the content should be removed. The issue then becomes the target for the redirect, as there is some support below for a redirect. At this time, I will create a protected soft redirect to Wiktionary, per the larger number of people supporting that target. The talk page of the article may be used to discuss whether this is the correct target or not (especially given that it seems the wiktionary entry may be deleted in the near future). ÷seresin 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfinger[edit]

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

The few sources generally use the term 'greenfinger' in quotes (or not even this exactly e.g. 'green finger'), suggesting that this is not an accepted term. They generally only use it only once. This term would fail to make a dictionary by a long long way. And wikipedia is not a dictionary. Sources are all from 2008 onward. Wikipedia is not the news. No temporal coverage, a detailled look at the sources suggests this term is part of a fleeting news story involving a couple of people and the action of putting iron filings into the ocean. To make an article on this term, which has got so little coverage is nonsensical. Ultimately notability criteria is based on what wikipedians think is notable and the fact that this article has been nominated for deletion for the third time (first time successfully and second time a mixed reaction) suggests that wikipedians do not think this article should remain. Polargeo (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Am I missing something? Why would we want to protect either an article that shouldn't be here or a redirect to the wrong/poor definition of the word in wictionary. Surely we can protect if needed after deletion, but this may not be necessary. Polargeo (talk) 08:01, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per additional reliable sources found during discussion. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flu Bird Horror[edit]

Flu Bird Horror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable made-for-television Sci-Fi film. Fails WP:N and WP:NF. No significant coverage nor reviews in RELIABLE sources. Failed PROD after creation 2008 (prod removed by creator claiming he was still working on article - article has not changed since then). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you only added a single reliable source, the New York Times, which is just its standard movie directory listing, so it confers no notability. The rest were not reliable and have been removed. Specifically, dreadcentral.com, does not meet appear to meet WP:RS, and hometheaterinfo.com is a personal self-published site. While you mention Bloody Disgusting (which is RS), you added no review from it to the article. In checking, they did not review the film, and considering they usually review most of Sci Fi pictures stuff, that is rather telling. The only reliable horror site to review the film has been Monsters and Critics[31], and that one review is not enough to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Airing on Sci-Fi does not meet WP:NF nor WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proof please. Blog sites are not reliable sources. It has not been reviewed by reliable horror sites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not (yet) having a Wikipedia article about itself does not mean a genre-specific source is unreliable... it only means the article has not yet been written. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you continue pointing to primarily non-reliable sources and they have been removed. If you disagree on Dead central, bring it up at WP:RSN to reach a consensus that it is reliable (currently, it is not vetted). DVD Talk was not in the first batch of reviews you added, and yes, it is reliable, but that is still only two (the DVD Talk and the one I pointed out above that you declined to include). The rest you continue trying to add have not been accepted as reliable. - Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is deemed acceptable by consensus. Two people agree its fine, one person is against it. Since you agree he has found two reliable sources mentioning this movie, do you agree it is notable? Dream Focus 14:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? It hasn't been discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard nor anywhere else. You agreeing with him that its reliable doesn't make it a consensus that it is. And no, I don't agree its notable. Two sources is not significant coverage. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any rule that says you have to discuss it there. You use common sense. Do you disagree with his findings that Dread Central meets all requirements? Or are you just wikilawyering? Dream Focus 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not get to decide what is and is not reliable, and you certainly are not neutral. You think anything and everything is reliable, so your view is rather unhelpful. Sources which are questioned should be discussed at the RSN where experienced editors can agree whether or not they meet Wikipedia's guidelines for what is and is not reliable, not Dream Focus' idea of what should be considered reliable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't think for yourself, you have to let others do it for you. Alright then. Back to that nonsense once again. Common sense would indicate that Dread Central clearly meets all requirements. If no one doubts that, then there is no need to delete simply because it hasn't been discussed and added to an incomplete list yet. Dream Focus 17:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Collectonian, it seems that Michael Q Schmidt has made a good case that those sources are reliable, particularly Dread Central (though I don't think the Steve Barton who has a Wikipedia article could be the one who works for the site, as the Wikipedia article says he died in 2001). If you think the sites aren't reliable, then you should make some arguments refuting his claims that they have editorial oversight by experts in the field and/or are cited by other reliable sources. Sources don't need to be vetted at WP:RSN or any other location specifically about discussing sources - this is just as good a place as any other to discuss whether the sources are reliable. Calathan (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RSN was suggested as a neutral place, and when sources are questioned it is often asked "has it been discussed there" because it is a place where those experienced in source evaluation can generally be found, as opposed to here where until now there were only three participants, at least one of whom has repeatedly made it clear that he disregards all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, including RS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
C, Please do not use AfD as a forum to denigrate other editors. Not yet having an article on Wikipedia does not mean a source is unreliable.... it only means it has not yet been written. And PS, I will add the M&C you pointed to. Thanks for that. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:46, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Étienne Trudeau[edit]

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

No assertion of notability TB (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia guidlines under deletion/nobability/people/this article in a nutshell:
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
The article lists secondary sources that are independent of the subject. How much coverage is required for it to be "significant" is debatable, but I see no advantage to anyone in not including Étienne Trudeau. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The secondary sources listed are all but one genealogies (the remaining one being a photo of probably-non-notable building this person built). The only claim to notability made is that this person is a distant ancestor of two modern-day notable people. To my mind, this falls vaguley under the 'being the parent/spouse/child of someone notable doesn't make you encyclopaedic' dictum. - TB (talk) 08:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't really have a strong conviction one way or the other on this one, but was this the "first Trudeau" in the new world? I might lean towards keeping if this person demonstrates the large length of time Pierre Trudeau's ancestors have been in Canada. That said, such a factoid could probably be incorporated into his article quite reasonably. TastyCakes (talk) 19:40, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Infosphere[edit]

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

Non-notable website, fails the GNG. ukexpat (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth mentioning the most notable futurama wikis in the futurama article? I don't know. Just an idea. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are mentioned. Even the Portal:Futurama acknowledges it. --Svippong 21:39, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If an article is created that lists such events, the history may be undeleted for merging and this page redirected. ÷seresin 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Rock (event)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Let's Rock (event) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an account of an Apple PR event. It has no real notability, and all the information is already included in the articles about the products. This is simply an advert, or at best fan trivia. Fences&Windows 15:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a giant press conference. Do we have any other articles about press conferences? Fences&Windows 23:56, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mamata Charitable Trust[edit]

Mamata Charitable Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was originally a PROD, whose tag was removed by the creator with neither an explanation nor any real improvement to the article. Not only is the article written too much like an advertisement, Google only comes up with six hits about this organization: two short Yellow Pages listings, and four sites that just mention the name in passing. In addition, this article was created with a ((pp-semi-protection)) tag even though no such protection has been added. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 15:40, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Only verified content is its existence, see here, so there is nothing that is appropriate to merge. ÷seresin 02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Winnie the Pooh Project[edit]

Untitled Winnie the Pooh Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not enough info to warrant a page for this film AT THIS TIME. The film doesn't even have a name yet; premature page creation/crystal ball-ism. Proposed MERGE to main Winnie the Pooh franchise article, then deletion of this page. SpikeJones (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: please be aware of the naming difference between Winnie the Pooh and Winnie-the-Pooh. The former is is the Disney Franchise, the latter is the Milne version of the character. The proposed merge is to merge into the Disney Franchise page, as the movie announcement was made by Disney Consumer Products as a franchise extension of the existing brand. SpikeJones (talk) 02:00, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller[edit]

List of Wii games that use the Nintendo GameCube controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is just unecyclopedic trivial listcruft at best. A different way to play Wii games is somewhat important, but a whole list on it isn't helpful. I think this would also fall under, some kind of how-to play guide: as generally video game articles do NOT list every way you can play them. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



This is discriminate (no indiscriminate) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge thoughts[edit]

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

The result was Speedy delete (per WP:CSD#G4) and WP:SALT Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jenah Doucette[edit]

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

Another non-notable contestant who didn't won the show. Having been deleted two times. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:40, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton[edit]

Danzelle St Louis-Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination, PROD disputed with rationale "is in the 1st team squad of a current Premier Lge team and can be expected to play senior football for a League team shortly" (which falls under WP:CRYSTAL as there is never any guarantee that he would). Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to make his debut at a fully professional level - if this article was deleted and he then does make his debut, this article could easily be recreated by an administrator. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've given the IP above a Final warning for this and a similar attack on another AfD. Only 2 edits from this address, both attacking Angelo in AfDs. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know I'm just repeating what has already been said here, but I think I need to say it anyway. He may have made it onto the subs bench for a fully-pro team but he hasn't actually played for them yet - that's the key point we're trying to get across here. WP:ATHLETE applies to players who have actually competed at this level - merely sitting on the bench or being given a shirt number isn't competing, and therefore isn't enough to confer notability. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:46, 18 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hirschfeld[edit]

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

Low level minor leaguer. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:05, 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, I'mperator 15:03, 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.

<--Relisted-->

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Redhart[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable person. Writes ironic reviews on Amazon.co.uk, which are funny but not enough to warrant a WP bio. Article previously prodded. — sjorford++ 13:32, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Won't See You Tonight (Part 1)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
I Won't See You Tonight (Part 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable single fails WP:NSONGS I redirected to album single was taken from but creator reverted. BigDuncTalk 13:14, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freeligious[edit]

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

A non-notable religious preference which fails WP:Notability. There are no "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" available that can verify the article's notability (see Google search results here), and it therefore doesn't satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. TheLeftorium 11:45, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Roman Catholic Diocese of Steubenville. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Joseph Catholic Church (Ironton, Ohio)[edit]

St. Joseph Catholic Church (Ironton, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Catholic church in a small Ohio city. Average churches aren't notable, and everything I can see makes me think this is thoroughly average. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hun? There are two paragraphs of sourced information which can legitimately be merged into a more general article (in this case the diocese) by policy. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it common to merge pages like this into the diocese page? It sounds like a better idea than deletion; if it is common, I'll suggest a merger next time instead of AFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say it is common per say, as church articles don't come up all that frequently. However, it certainly would be consistent with the way similar classes of content are treated (the most obvious example being elementary schools being merged into district pages) and would also be consistent with WP:PRESERVE. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we do this, why shouldn't we include information on every other church in the community? Either we'll give a little undue weight to this church, or we'll end up with a church directory. Nyttend (talk) 21:03, 20 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep as article has been significantly improved since nomination and now meets WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RantMedia[edit]

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

fails WP:corp - lots of trivial mentions, lots of links to *associated* projects (such as a rock band that one of the founders is in) but nothing substantial that suggests or supports notability. I am also fairly surely this has been deleted at least twice before - or at least the elements that were stuck together to form this composite article. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the article PA1N, the station's zine. If the station is not notable, this can't be either.DGG (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, why can't you just CSD PA1N? It's a one line unsourced article that's plainly non-notable. Notability is not inherited anyway: if PA1N merits articlespace, it would only be as a redirect to a section in the RantMedia article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO, it's only a PARTIALLY unacceptable comment. Just because you disagree with my display of how this bullshit has made me feel about Wikipedia/deletionists, doesn't negate everything I had to say. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
Do they all get barnstars as well? (check out the bottom of my userpage) --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just you. You're obviously special. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 18:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
Based on the sources in the article and those listed by CelticWonder (most fall in the category of "trivial or incidental coverage")—I could not find any additional coverage in independent, reliable sources via a web search—I say "keep", but protect against recreation (i.e. require a deletion review to rereate) per Thryduulf if consensus is to delete the article. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I very much appreciate your inclusion of my references posted in the past, but those specifically were the attempt to prove notability of Sean personally. These would be articles about RM/RR:
₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 19:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
  • While all of these are independent, reliable sources, not all offer non-trivial coverage of the subject. The Globe and Mail, Langley Times (2002), and Exclaim! pieces offer only incidental coverage, and the 2003 Langley Times article is really just a short announcement. However, the Vancouver Sun and Computer Paper articles do seem to provide non-trivial coverage of RantMedia/RantRadio, as does the Wired interview. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 20:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Summary of non-trivial articles
  • Wired News (2000): article exclusively about the founders of RantRadio
  • Vancouver Sun (2000): article exclusively about RantRadio
  • Spin (2000): column entitled "THE FUCKIN' MAN" exclusively about Sean Kennedy regarding RantRadio
  • The Globe And Mail (2002): second page is solely about RantRadio and Cimm (also establishing a 5,000 listeners range in news print in 2002.)
  • The Langley Times (2002): An article about DisRadio.com, declaring RantRadio.com as "pioneers of industrial radio" and "the first to really get people listening to independent Internet radio", and goes on to include a byte from Kennedy.
  • Exclaim! (2002): "RantRadio.com has been particularly active in trying to repeal Tariff 22"
  • Computer Paper (2003): article exclusively about RantRadio
  • The Langley Times (2003): second page is primarily about Kennedy and RantRadio.
I beseech ANYONE to answer this question: What SPECIFICALLY is it going to take for a 10-year-running staple of internet radio to STAY in Wikipedia if this isn't enough??? ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 20:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

*Delete, fails WP:CORP and WP:RS guidelines. PKT(alk) 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rantmedia may have started as a single ShoutCast station, but it was an early one, and heavily involved in the radio copyright mess from a few years ago, coverage of which was included in magazines and newspapers. It may well not be important as a corporation, but it certainly is as a radio station, with a 10-year history. Its a (very) early web-only radio station that has now grown to 3 different streams, indicating a significant number of listeners. Add to that all the other projects under the Rantmedia umbrella, some of which have coverage in other media, and its notability is undeniable. It also has a large presence in the Vancouver scene, promoting local bands and DJs. However, there should be no problem putting all the personalities (sean kennedy et al.) under the same article, with redirects. Cheers!  The Steve  09:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep While the bulk of the articles described above as 'non-trivial' do not feature RantRadio as their focus (mention in the Exclaim! piece is limited to three sentences), it is the subject of the Vancouver Sun piece (albeit a regional supplement) and another in the now-defunct Computer Paper. It's my opinion that these, combined with the few trivial articles (particularly the 300-word Wired piece), might just meet notability requirements. That said, I point to two areas that need addressing:

  1. Not one of the articles concerns RantMedia - in fact, the name is not even mentioned.
  2. As it stands, RantMedia references very few "reliable, independent secondary sources". In all but three, the references provided point to sources connected to RantMedia or the RantMedia website.

For these reasons, I suggest that the article undergo a major rewrite. Victoriagirl (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The large number of sources, together with the cultural cachet of some (Wired, for example; also, Exclaim! is Canada's only monthly alternative music magazine and has been for over a decade, while the Globe & Mail is Canada's NY Times), demonstrate notability, per WP:N and as noted by Victoriagirl, Hobit and BLACK FALCON.
  2. Victoriagirl's concern about a re-write is valid as far as I'm concerned: the page is about 80% unsourced promo-spam, and the article violates WP:NPOV. Still, as Wikipedia's rules say, if you think an article meets criteria but deserves a rewrite, feel free to wade in and re-write it. "It's notable but the article sucks" is a valid argument for immediately re-writing the article, not a valid argument for deletion.
  3. If, per Thryduulf's argument, this is a re-create of a previously deleted page, then this is a CSD or PROD and not an AfD. I'd actually be in favour of a CSD, as then Celticwonder could take the discussion to a DRV and get the deletion overruled permanently by more senior editors. That's always worked for me.
    comment: I actually debated speedily deleting this as a recreation, but as I am not 100% certain that there is no significant material in this article that hasn't been deleted before, I decided to allow the AfD to run it's course.
    You also seem to be under some misconceptions about deletion review - the editors who contribute there are no more senior than those who contribute here. Decisions here are not "overruled" - outcomes are only "overturned" if there is consensus that one or more of the following apply:
    1. There was an error of process in the closing of a debate, and that this led to the wrong outcome (e.g. if the right thing happened for the wrong reasons, the original decision would not be overturned)
    2. The facts that led to a decision have changed, or more information is now available that wasn't at the time of the original debate, and this additional information would affect the result (for example, if more sources are presented, but these don't address the reasons why an article was deleted it would not be undeleted)
    Also, even if an outcome is overturned this is not "permanent", there is nothing to stop anyone else nominating the article for again (although doing so shortly afterwards is frowned upon unless it is for a different reason or there is more information now about that materially changes the outcome of the deletion review). Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I feel for Celticwonder, as it seems that nobody here will bother to explain to him, with reference to WP:N, how the article fails. Hobit has made note of this above.
  5. Unless someone changed the rules here in the past 5 years without me noticing, nothing in WP:WEB or WP:CORP is allowed to override WP:N, much less the three pillars. It's always better to disregard WP:WEB, WP:CORP and other such sub-guidelines, and just go by the main rules. (Why? We used to have a notability subguideline for porn, and got rid of it when we realized it violated WP:N and made Wikipedia look stupid.)
  6. With apology, by the above, "fails WP:CORP" shouldn't appear in a deletion nomination: Cameron Scott should assert "Fails WP:N" so we could have a broadly-accepted Wikipedia guideline to refer to.
  7. BTW, in case anyone wonders, yes I was canvassed, but I've also had this article (and the previous Sean Kennedy articles) on my watchlist whenever they existed. Contributors to an AfD are not meatpuppets when the article is on their watchlist, or when they have contributed to the article in the past.

There. Now time to go back to work.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clarification - I just noticed that Celticwonder hasn't bothered to INCLUDE the good sources (Globe, Exclaim, Langley times etc.) in any sort of "references" section. Celticwonder, if you don't add your sources to this article by AfD close (about 4 days from now), don't go crying to anyone when the article gets deleted. I'll leave more on your talk page. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*delete - I must apologize for all the above. My arguments up there are completely valid, but unfortunately, looking again at the article, I have to change my vote. This article fails WP:RS and WP:V because Celticwonder didn't use the reliable sources in his article and doesn't provide the easily accessible links to them. Also, it fails WP:NPOV because the references that he does use are nothing but a pile of links to RantMedia. This article's topic passes notability, but the article itself fails all three pillars of Wikipedia. If Celticwonder doesn't fix it in 4 days, delete. but please don't salt - the topic itself passes WP:N. You just wouldn't know it from the poor sourcing. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: AGTTH Your comments are GREAT, but PLEASE before you assume I'm responsible for those links not being there, refer here and realize they WERE there before others decided to remove them simply because they were hosted on RantMedia.ca. The original articles were 6-9 years old and in print (not online), so they aren't available anywhere else ATM. The links provided were clearly obvious scans of the original articles, but not counted as "independent secondary sources" simply because the link had "rantmedia" in the url, nevermind the fact that the CONTENT was independent. This guy is the one that started reaching in and ripping all the cables out, btw. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 16:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) "[reply]
They are still sources, and you can use them as references as the articles exist. In fact, any editor with LEXIS/NEXIS access (like me for now) can verify your sources as long as yu provide the paper, date, article title and page number in your footnote. In fact, you should have reverted whoever removed these. However, your article should use information primarily from these sources, not from Ran's website; and should use proper formatting and footnoting so that the average person can see that it's been well-sourced. You shouldn't use a "Rant in the media" section, as that isn't how we format articles, and it makes your article look like spam.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As AFTTH says, references to print articles are fine; there is not, nor shall there ever be, a rule that a reference to a print source is not valid simply because there is no online text available. Links to scans of articles, though, most especially scans on the subject's own website, raise concerns about Photoshopping and other fakery. Better simply to refer to the plain text in a standard manner and not raise such concerns. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I truly appreciate your genuine suggestions to help the article (the first few I've received, really), and have undertaken citing the article. The links to the article scans had been removed by an IP (I had assumed wrongly before that they were removed by an admin of sorts, which seems to happen a lot), hence my query. Please keep the article, everyone. It's notable. Look at the page and help improve if you can, but it's getting there. See here for some pertinent notes & WP links. It becomes very difficult to stand up for something while standing by and watching it arbitrarily shot down multiple times. My sincerest apologies to anyone I may have offended. Thanks. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 13:29, 16 June 2009
What is there now, a single article with multiple redirects, is probably the best form to have it in. Maybe, just maybe, this one article should be left alone to avoid many more discussions just like this in the future.  The Steve  03:03, 17 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I C Gupta[edit]

I C Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Though there are some references on him at Google News, there doesn't seem to be enough to assert notability of the doctor. Does not pass basic or additional criteria in our biographical notability guidelines. blurredpeace ☮ 10:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is, there is no hint of a place to look for more specialized references to his claims to notability. Seems like a resume or social ad. Anything innovative or provokative?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By about the fifth or sixth link down, it's not related to him anymore. I doubt those references directly mention usable information on him (e.g. birth date, fields of specialization, where he graduated from, etc). blurredpeace ☮ 19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, on closer inspection there are not even many mentions and I don't see any substantial coverage. I think this is a pretty clear Delete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:13, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris J Flowers[edit]

Kris J Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:AUTOBIO notability not shown. Not enough found to support the article. Triwbe (talk) 08:48, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eat Poop You Cat[edit]

Eat Poop You Cat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game. The website being used as a reference directs to this Wikipedia page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reliable sources, unfortunately. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Newby, Peter (1995). The Giant Book of Word Games: The Bumper Book of Ingenious and Enjoyable Games for all Occasions. The Book Company. p. 42-43. ISBN 1863091726. 2) Games Quarterly #11 (Winter 2006), pg 64. It also has its own website eatpoopucat-dot-com as well as a Facebook group. But for some crazy reason that's not considered evidence of notability. :) Could also possible be merged to whisper down the alley/ telephone (game)? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Facebook groups can be started by anyone, and anyone can put up a website. The places to go are secondary sources, like the two books. So, regarding these sources, from Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline
Make sure both sources address the subject in detail.
Make sure the books are published by reputable publishing companies
If there are specific people credited with making the game, make sure that the books come from another individual (although having a publisher may count towards that)
It may help to reproduce scans of the pages, if you have them (Put on a photograph repository site) to show that they address the subject in detail.
Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Compromise: redirect to new page: Telephone Pictionary. My vote is keep. I propose also a compromise, which may be irrelevant, as no one has mentioned that the title is...challenging? By which I mean that it includes a reference to feces, synonyms of which are considered by some 'curse' or 'swear' words. There is certainly a rich vein of alternative page titles that could be used, listed in the article itself. Anarchangel (talk) 11:29, 19 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Penis game[edit]

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

Not enough reliable sources. One is a student newspaper, and the other is a movie review, all of which only trivially mention the game. The sources dug up in the last AFD are all similarly trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first link is talking about game from Waiting... where one tries to get others to look at his penis. That is not what this article describes. Also, neither of those sources have significant coverage of the game as they mention it mostly in passing. As I mentioned before, my personal experience confirms this article, but I have not seen–and could not find–the significant coverage in reliable sources to verify and demonstrate WP:N. —Ost (talk) 20:24, 17 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Googly Moogly[edit]

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

Nothing but a list of uses of the term. No reliable sources found, no way for this article to be anything more than an original research-laden dicdef and unsourced trivia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:55, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Pherson[edit]

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

Advertisement for a non-notable book. My speedy delete tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


as often these are promotional ( " a case study in use of our widget with foo"). If the CIA can't do any better than this creating news, you have to wonder about the reality (LOL). Are there even any independent white papers ( " we used randy's technique and found WMD at our abortion clinic")?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:53, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Joyce Walker[edit]

Richard Joyce Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My suspicions were first aroused when an ip added that HMS Belfast (C35) was the flagship of this individual while at Normandy, a period at which Belfast was in fact the flagship of Admiral Dalrymple-Hamilton (and captained by Frederick Parham). But now I can't find any sources anywhere to verify the existence of Richard Joyce Walker, be he a captain, rear admiral or admiral of the fleet, the article is itself unclear. No sources relating to a career in the Royal Navy, as a government advisor, or as a representative of Deloitte. The University of Cambridge's alumni database does not record his attendance either at Trinity, or any other college. This may be a hoax, but certainly seems to be at least unverifiable. Benea (talk) 04:08, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was A9 as artist was just deleted via A7. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming Soon EP[edit]

Coming Soon EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Steady Lang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ayos Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Empty —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:04, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Bombardo[edit]

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

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:54, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Flowerparty☀ 23:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Yu[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD. Individual in question fails WP:BIO --- only non-trivial source about him is a brief interview in the Hong Kong Economic Digest (經濟一週). Google "Ted Yu" "Conrad Design" gets 7 GHits. "匡正" (the Chinese name of the company he started) is a generic Chinese word, the hundreds of thousands of GHits on it don't mean anything. Creator is part of a group of probable meatpuppet single purpose accounts repeatedly making spam articles about Conrad Healthguard, Conrad Design, etc.-related topics. cab (talk) 02:36, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fournier[edit]

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

NN musician, article claims notability; however, no support for statements. A number of GHits for blogs, but no GNEWS entries. Article Prod'd but author removed Prod without adding references to support claims. ttonyb1 (talk) 02:10, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:RS and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Necromancer: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The Necromancer: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted before; it has been brought back again and still doesn't appear notable; just a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Not even the external link listed on the page leads to any information about the release of the book or if the book is even in the works. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guest: I've re-written the article, hopefully making it more relevant. I do not think this article should be deleted yet. Undoubtedly, developments in the near future will add to the article, and when the book does come out next year, there will be a full article, including plot summary, critical acclaim and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.175.44 (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guest: I agree with Guest, this article has citations to verifiable sources now and would just have to be recreated in a very few months as more information about the book comes out. This article should be left and people should be encouraged to add more content to it such as a basic plot summary of the series of books and other useful items. It could also contain references to forums where the book is discussed that are reachable through the author's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.143.174 (talk) 17:47, 17 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opened per request. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep as per consensus and the absence (after two weeks) of calls for deletion beyond the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Weems[edit]

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

Please see the related nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State‎ for his book. Considering that the book does not appear notable, there is not much of a claim to notability here. The disbarment mentioned was not covered in the media, and the sources are just the court records themselves. There is also no significant media coverage of his work, besides a couple of obituaries in Turkish news and other passing references. He just seems to be mentioned by either pro-Turkish or pro-Armenian niche blogs or interest groups, mostly for his book. Dominic·t 13:03, 7 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 00:45, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 18:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B Synthesizers[edit]

Plan B Synthesizers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rather dubiously referenced article about a company with no particular apparent significance. The current article is a lengthy opinion piece, that if it were about a living person would undoubtedly be speedy-deleted as an attack page; the version prior to the recent expansion (created by User:PlanBguy, FWIW) is unreferenced and without even the vaguest assertion or indication of notability.
Disclosure: this AFD was prompted by a (gasp) post at a BADSITE (fetches the smelling salts). Just because you don't like the person saying something, doesn't mean they're wrong.  – iridescent 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles should be moved to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Synthesizer_manufacturing_companies.
A wider range of candidates are covered in industry magazines like Electronic Musician (http://emusician.com/elecinstruments/emusic_analog_renaissance/) or Sound-On-Sound (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr09/articles/goingmodular.htm). 209.190.181.178 (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 7 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 00:16, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Does not meet guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Tabilo[edit]

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

does not meet notability requirements according to WP:ATHLETE; top amateur tennis would be junior grand slam, not Under 12s in Canada or any other particular country Mayumashu (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank! Mayumashu (talk) 15:40, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Girls Can't Catch[edit]

The result was speedy deleted. —harej (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girls Can't Catch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure about the notability of this one (specifically WP:BAND). Aside from their debut single apparently not even being released until next month, the only Google hits I can find are Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and various wikis. In addition, the official website says nothing about an album in the works. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I've just declined a speedy on this, I think supporting Girls Aloud is an assertion of notability sufficient to pass A7. GedUK  18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the band were together in 2009 and not 2008. The single is to be released mon 27th july 2009. But this is a real band, and all labels are correct and that they toured with Girls aloud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.63.160 (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to AP Computer Science. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Biology Simulation Case Study[edit]

Marine Biology Simulation Case Study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable examination material  M2Ys4U (talk) 15:11, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Hartford Quilt Guild Quilt Show[edit]

Greater Hartford Quilt Guild Quilt Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Downgraded from speedy to prod, and then the proposed deletion tag was removed without addressing notability concerns. - Dank (push to talk) 13:54, 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) 00:03, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live (Live album)[edit]

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

Fails with WP:NALBUMS. Cannibaloki 18:50, 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) 00:03, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kane (American band)[edit]

Kane (American band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, article say the band writes and records for EMI but I can't find any sources saying they do, doesn't really seem notable Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:26, 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) 00:02, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BestSync[edit]

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

Software stub recreated after PROD. No claim to notability (WP:N) and no indication of such in a Google search.  Sandstein  10:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Laurent (talk) 11:23, 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) 00:01, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 18:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men's Blue and White[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Men's Blue and White (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I originally proposed Speedy under A7 for this but it was refused on the grounds that the group had won competitions (although the article does not say this, the awards were for the arranger of the songs) and on the bases that the are the oldest group in a consortium, however the consortium is made up only of the seven Claremont Colleges, which may make them notable there, but is that enough for an individual entry here?

There are no secondary sources cited, or that I can find, so I feel the group fails all the tests required in Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and that the article, although well written and presented should be deleted. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The historical importance alone of the group to the small but highly significant subgenre of collegiate a cappella music warrants the existence of this article. It's clear that much of the information presented requires further verification, but immediate deletion isn't the proper course of action here.--69.178.64.64 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) --69.178.64.64 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I just moved the above signature from the title to here, probably a typo) -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well written and presented article, there is no doubt at all about that. I don't know much about collegiate a cappella music, and thats a fact (I am a folk, roots and acoustic guy). So it pains me that having spent many, many hours patrolling the backlog of new pages, the majority of which are bland or boring but correctly referenced, that I have nominated an otherwise excellent article for deletion. But perhaps that detachment from the subject means that I am more likely to go by the principles of Wikipedia than be guided by a soft spot for a subject. Wikipedia:Verifiability sets clear guidelines, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" but not wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater I attempted to reference this article my self, and I failed and found nothing to verify they were of note or indeed to verify anything in the article other than the subject's existence. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:35, 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) 00:01, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Chavez[edit]

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

Notability? references? Nuβiατεch Talk 18:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straight to Video (song)[edit]

Straight to Video (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Only charted on sales charts, never entered singles charts. Permanent stub, no sources, qualifier in title makes for an unlikely redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:51, 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) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep it, —Preceding unsigned comment added by IlllllllllIlllllllllIff (talk • contribs) 15:18, 16 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay for It[edit]

Pay for It (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Same as their other singles. Only charted on sales charts, never entered singles charts, no sources at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:53, 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) 00:00, 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 following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. May be speedy-renominated at any time. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evening Wear (song)[edit]

Evening Wear (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Same as their other singles. Charted only on sales charts and not singles charts, no sources, no notability besides being by a notable act. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:54, 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) 23:59, 14 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.
  1. ^ RantMedia history
More