< 24 June 26 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. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scenic Route[edit]

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

Worthless stub on non-notable band. No sources, no hits, and the only claim to fame is an unsubstantiated claim for an award in Delaware. How this survived the first AFD I don't understand. Calton | Talk 00:01, 26 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} 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Goldfingers[edit]

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

Non-notable singer belonging to a non-notable band. All of the google hits among the first couple pages appear to be for an unrelated album. Prod tag removed by original author without explanation. Delete DMG413 (talk) 23:10, 25 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. Tavix |  Talk  23:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Michael Jackson[edit]

Death of Michael Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No need to have an article on the death of celebrities. We can cover his heart attack on his bio. Damiens.rf 22:48, 25 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honda GY6 Engine[edit]

Honda GY6 Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, not notable. I'm pretty sure the GY6 exists, and it has been used on something [1] but that's about all that can be verified, just barely. The sources who claim it is ubiquitous are all trying to sell you something on the premise that it is ubiquitous [2] i.e. parts are widely available and there is lots of tuning and performance know-how. I have to wonder why all this lore hasn't been printed in any books or magazines.[3][4]. Dbratland (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can even verify that Honda really did design an engine called the GY6, only that some companies are making an engine whose design they, um, obtained or acquired somehow, and they tout it as being of Honda lineage because the public respects the brand. Honda seems to be making no effort to lend credibility to these claims. I am one who is willing to set the bar for WP:V and WP:N pretty low sometimes, but not this low.--Dbratland (talk) 20:16, 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) 01:49, 18 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 21:42, 25 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 WP:CSD#G5. The page was created and nominated for AfD by the same banned user. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome (smiley)[edit]

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

Lacking in notability and/or reliability of sources. Bored of the world (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right there are plenty places that the smiley is used and it appears to be popular. The problem is that that does not establish notability according to Wikipedia guidelines. To establish notability we need to have reliable sources that discuss the smiley. I looked at 15 pages of google results and did not find any hits that were reliable sources that discussed the smiley so the information can be verified. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:05, 27 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} 23:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neptune's Party[edit]

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

I just searched just over 200 Google results, and here's what I found:

Most of the results revolved around the above items, The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie, and SpongeBob's House Party, adding up to a near-zero amount of reliable sources (at least within the 210 that I searched) for a special that isn't set to premiere until a year from now. We really shouldn't be relying on a crystal ball, anyway. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diggs Tailwagger for a precedent. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 20:59, 25 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 for delete. Too many of the delete votes simply stated the article was a POV fork, yet more of the keep votes had substance. There then becomes the issue of merging - the keep and merge arguments were equally valid and there wasn't a clear consensus to be made out of that. However, since merging can be done outside of the construct of AfD, and because there was no consensus for deletion, I am closing this as no consensus and suggesting those who voted for a merge continue that discussion on the respective talk pages. I am, however, deleting the redirects, as it is clear there was consensus to delete those. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler[edit]

Indiana State Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content/POV fork from Chrysler bankruptcy. The main article covers this in the section "Sale to New Chrysler". This was not a SCOTUS case, SCOTUS just issued per curiam denial, so it doesn't fall under a SCOTUS case notability aspect. Most of the content within this page is actually related to the bankruptcy of Chrysler and the sale and not to this particular case. Also, there are 29 redirects for this page including absurd ones - "Mourdock v. Obama" (which has seen been the redirect for another case before becoming one for this, edit summary note: "The lawsuit is real. It's the name that is unknown"). If this article is a keep, the redirects will have to be taken to RfD. Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a notable event and lawsuit filed by the Indiana Secretary of the Treasury regarding the state of Indiana and worthy of inclusion. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 20:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, perhaps I was not clear orginally, I think this is worthy of inclusion as a prominent event and historical article in Indiana, not because of its status in the courts, or its merits as a case. It recieved significant coverage in local media, and was a high-profile and important state event. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Delete the bad redirects. I started this article before the case was assigned a name, which explains the bad redirects. This subject is notable because it's the first time in U.S. history that a secured creditor was treated worse than an unsecured creditor. It's also notable because the U.S. President has been accused of violating U.S. bankruptcy law. U.S. bankruptcy law is very clear that secured creditors get precedence over unsecured creditors. Also, the article is more than 25K in length, has 34 references, and has been edited by more than 20 different users. The article was also linked to on the wikipedia homepage in the section in the news. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Encrusting it with your own spin/interpretation doesn't help you left it out of its sole context. --Calton | Talk 18:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The precedent is actually Nken v. Holder. The only ruling here was that a stay was not justified, and the petitioners have to go back through the normal system, and that would mean that the case becomes a SCOTUS case not earlier than the October 2010. Therefore my contention that the case has not yet achieved notability, it's Chrysler bankruptcy that has any notability. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:25, 30 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} 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis[edit]

Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:ORG, does not appear to be the "subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". The few reliable sources that mention this group usually do so in a single sentence. Appears to be best known for a letter to the editor published in the 1990s. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:31, 25 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 - including the IP nominator, who suggested editing or merging but not deletion. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CB radio in the United Kingdom[edit]

CB radio in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated by unregistered user 82.152.193.148 who placed the following reason on the talk page:

"Almost completely original research. Few references, full of opinions and plain rubbish (talk about "swearing in", for example). Better off reduced and merged into the main CB article."

I wish to abstain, as I am only completing the AfD nomination for the aforementioned unregistered user. --tgheretford (talk) 20:24, 25 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. Note: Googlism (web application) has been moved to Googlism. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googlism[edit]

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

Yet another parody religion. No sources other than their own website, and nothing I can find on, well, Google, to suggest that anyone other than a few blogs has paid this the slightest notice. Flying Spaghetti Monster or Anton LaVay, this isn't.  – iridescent 20:10, 25 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. Speedy, snow, whatever. An active railway station is not going to be deleted. StarM 01:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Street railway station[edit]

Wood Street railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I fail to see what makes this station notable. What happens, or has happened at this station to make it notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article? Gordonrox24 | Talk 19:31, 25 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 (no substantial content). ... discospinster talk 19:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting Back (tv series)[edit]

Fighting Back (tv series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was just created but the tv show appears to have just been made up. A search on Google for "Jordan Winstanley" "fighting back" yields no results at all, and the article doesn't provide any hint of how the series is notable (through a tv channel for example). ThemFromSpace 19:12, 25 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} 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neda Behnam[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:BIO and written more as a vanity piece or advertising than a biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 25 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 both NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apostolic Reformation[edit]

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

Agreed with the tagger that db-spam is warranted, but I'm making a judgment call that the end result will be better if I take this through AfD. That might help to get the message across, and if not, it gives us G4 in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two for the price of one: Kingdom dominion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 25 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} 23:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Rotation (song)[edit]

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

Yet another unsourced and unsourceable article about an Anastascia single. Seems to be a plague. WP:CRYSTAL violation, violates WP:NSONGS as well. —Kww(talk) 18:05, 25 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} 23:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meetinguniverse[edit]

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

Nonnotable hotel review website, given references don't support notability per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Non-Notable, References look fake, I do not find any of those referred source mentioning the subject under consideration. The editor might be trying to use ad banners as reference. Hitro 17:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the following:

"It’s about peers sharing information with peers. Current examples of the planner review sites that I like are meetinguniverse.com, meetingscollaborative.com and meetingsintel.com. Elitemeetings.com also has a peer review capability." themeetingsmagazines.com

"Several user-review sites have recently emerged designed specifically with the meeting planner in mind. MeetingUniverse (www.meetinguniverse.com), Meetings Intelligence Exchange (www.meetingsintel.com), MeetingsCollaborative (http://meetingscollaborative.com), and Elite Meetings (www.elitemeetings.com) are review sites for meeting planners with planner reviews of meeting venues and hotels. One of these sites may become the next “Trip Advisor” for the meetings industry. One thing is certain, however. If you are providing a service or a product to meeting planners, they will be reviewed at user-review sites and these will become increasingly important tools for meeting planners to make buying decisions." Corbinball.com

"This site's reviews are extremely detailed, based on the completion of about 70 questions. The ratings are compiled into a total score, and the scores are averaged in with scores from other reviews.

Overall property ratings are based on a compilation of planner reviews as well as supplier answers to a questionnaire. Properties are awarded 1 to 5 stars, with 5 being best, as well as a numerical score of 1 to 100.

No property receives an overall rating unless at least 10 reviews and the completed supplier questionnaire have been submitted, says Web site founder Russell Ridge, who also operates a ground transportation company in Salt Lake City. A disclaimer is posted next to listings that have fewer than 10 reviews. As of late October, only one hotel had received up to 10 reviews.

Only people registered as planners can submit reviews, and then only about properties where they have held meetings of at least 50 participants in the previous 12 months, says Ridge. Management looks at each review before posting it. Property search results show the highest-rated hotels first. Suppliers pay to run ads on the site and must also pay to be rated.

MeetingUniverse.com has a discussion forum, although it was virtually inactive as of late October.

When launched? Originally launched in spring 2006 as hotfireratings.com; relaunched February 2008

How many registrants? About 1,500

How many reviews? 200 reviews on 65 properties, 110 reviews on 100 other suppliers; 165 suppliers listed" Meetingsnet.com


Everything stated in the article is verifiable fact. I fail to see how facts are "irrelevant fluff". Please also refer to the article about TripAdvisor. If the MeetingUniverse article should be deleted then so should that. I would also appreciate it if you would check my references before calling them fake as they are legitimate and can be verified by a very simple and quick search in all of the articles. Use control and "F" to bring up the search box then type in "MeetingUniverse" to show all the places the business is mentioned. No where will you find them mentioned in banner ads or any other type of advertisement but rather as a topic discussed in the article itself.

Fixed what you called as "slanted" Do you feel that it is better now? Also, if you look at the link to the quote you will see that it mentions not only MeetingUniverse but also their competitors in conjunction with that quote.

I also fixed the inline citations as well as separated it into sections. Is there anything else I need to do to get those alerts removed?

That is somewhat better. Notability remains a problem; the third party sources all appear to relate to websites for the meeting planner industry, which suggests they have limited readership and do not make a case for notability outside the trade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can I make it so that the "Divide into Sections" alert as well as the "inline citations" are removed? What else do I have to do? Also, as for notability I added another reference to an E-Book that encompasses an industry larger than the meetings and events industry. Does this satisfy the "notability" requirement? Mfetzer3 (talk) 22:02, 29 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 nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyman Park, Baltimore[edit]

Wyman Park, Baltimore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This does not seem to be a notable neighborhood. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:16, 25 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 G4 Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Magicians' Guild[edit]

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

Was AfD'd in May 2008, reposted a few days ago, speedily deleted, nominated again for speedy deletion, but the creator keeps insisting, so let's bring it here again. Multiple, independent sources establishing notability are still lacking, so we should delete (hopefully for good this time). Biruitorul Talk 16:38, 25 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, default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stockland Batemans Bay[edit]

Stockland Batemans Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Seems to fail notability via the lack of reliable sources establishing its real world significance. Izno (talk) 16:21, 25 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. Withdrawn by the nom, early admin closure per WP:SNOW. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Walpin[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Walpin firing which resulted in deletion, but which the closing admin specifically excluded this article from his assessment. This article is about a marginally notable attorney who was fired by Obama. The issue here is that there is so little source material on this person that it is almost ENTIRELY related to his firing, per WP:BLP1E and especially WP:COATRACK the article seems to exist solely as a place to put politically-themed commentary related to that firing, as there is little else here besides that. Since there does not appear to be enough source material to actually write a neutral and WP:BLP-compliant article about this person, it should probably be deleted. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<Comments made by ChildofMidnight in violation of ArbCom sanctions have been removed. Further discussion below refers back to these comments.>

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Salda[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Reason given: A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 June 25 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability ZooFari 15:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify: when you say contested, do you mean earlier, or that *you* contest it, ZooFari? If you contest it why list it here immediately after? If you mean earlier, didn't you see the note? DreamGuy (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that this IP contested it, and another user disagreed, and then the PROD was removed again. So I listed it here. ZooFari 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, yeah... sock of a banned user doing block evasion, the deprodding again should have again been reverted per WP:BAN. But it looks like it'll be deleted with an AFD, which is better precedent in case someone tries to add it again. DreamGuy (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Carpenter (academic)[edit]

Jennifer Carpenter (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

BLP of Associate Professor in which all information about the individual is from a primary source (pages on the university site she would have written about herself). There is one independent source that is there solely to site the existence of aschool in Hong Kong and which does not mention this person's name. Fails WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dunno, this smells of scraping by. There are thousands of profs with articles in two or more top journals. And "published in numerous journals" is not a claim to notability, not for an academic, anyway. Hairhorn (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it all boils down to DGG's opinion that she is notable based on a few citations that millions of other professors have. Worse, he willfully and knowingly makes arguments that go against consensus expressed by guidelines, like arguing that notability can be inherited from an employer or from a publisher. This is not the way administrators on Wikipedia are expected to conduct themselves. Drawn Some (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's opinions are usually right on the mark. He also explains them well enough that they can be argued with on their merits, and if by having a dialog a new consensus if formed, it will be a better consensus. But see my comment below. Abductive (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Sometimes his opinions are right on the mark but at least as often he argues to keep clearly non-notable articles by making up borderline non-sensical reasons or actually uses arguments as he did here implying that someone can inherit notability from an employer or that having a university-branded publisher makes a book or author notable. If he doesn't think our notability guidelines are any good he should advocate for changing them but he shouldn't deliberately circumvent or ignore them. That is disruptive. Drawn Some (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG is arguing for a shorthand way of presuming notability using citation counts, based on the likelihood that if one searches hard enough, one will find irrefutable evidence of notability; reliable sources that say that the academic did notable work. I think that DGG worries that there is a shortage of people on Wikipedia with the time, access rights and qualifications to do these searches, and is worried that if citation counts aren't accepted as evidence, the floodgates will open and good articles will be lost. Abductive (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though I am not going to disagree with the statement that there are insufficient people working on this subject, my argument is quite simply that WP:PROF specifies, and in my opinion correctly, that notability is shown by having " made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." This impact is measured by citation. That what is meant by the term, impact on a discipline, and the secondary sources are the citation indexes. I am not in the least challenging consensus this time (though I sometimes do, and when I do, i try to say so specifically). I support the WP:PROF consensus--as well I might, for I helped form it. I'm using exactly the consensus standard, and I think she meets it. A little borderline, yes, but still she meets it. DGG (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An occasional WP:IAR is fine but the purpose of AfD is to see if articles meet our guidelines for inclusion, not to create new guidelines. We have several editors who consistently ignore consensus as expressed in guidelines at AfD and it makes it much more difficult and creates problems like the bilateral relations situation. Totally unacceptable and disruptive. Drawn Some (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tend to subscribe to encouraging full discussions and don't see this point of view as disruptive at all. DGG civily stated an opinion and made a point. Focus on the comments, not the person making them. Are the comments incorrect? Please explain why.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see WP:KOOLAID--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion is fine. Discussion is based on the guidelines for notability. Occasional WP:IAR is fine but constantly ignoring GUIDELINES is disruptive. Guidelines should not be routinely ignored, especially by an administrator. It is very disturbing. I am particularly referring to repeated claims that someone is notable by some kind of inheritance from a publisher or employer. Drawn Some (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question again, I get that you disagree--fine. But WHY do you disagree, and WHY were the comments "disruptive"?--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a matter of me disagreeing. It is consensus expressed in guidelines that notability is not inherited in this case, other guidelines at other times. I am not claiming that the comments in this AfD alone are disruptive, but the PATTERN of consistently ignoring or arguing against consensus expressed in the notability guidelines IS disruptive. AfD is not the place to change the guidelines through a constant pattern of ignoring them and deliberately seeking to undermine them. It is disruptive because it slows down the process of AfD. AfD is to implement a general consensus on notability and that general consensus shouldn't routinely be overridden by a few vocal editors. Gaming the system and processes to achieve a result against consensus is highly disruptive. If DGG were an IP he would be warned and eventually blocked. The notability guidelines are no less important than guidelines on sockpuppetry or civility. Here's another good example of how this behavior is disruptive and interferes with decision-making: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jak_&_Daxter_vehicles. You know, this is probably not the place to continue this conversation, maybe it should be at RFC. Drawn Some (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying I still have to disagree. If someone wants to state an opinion, and that opinion is against consensus, then they should be able to do so as long as they are civil about it. It's not disruptive, it's a discussion. True consensus will prevail, and if it's real consensus it can withstand the test of occasional disagreement.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I agree with you 100% but pivoting on the word "occasional". I even think it's healthy. But in this case it is not occasional, it is "usual" and it is highly disruptive. Like I said though, this isn't the place for this discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WABBITSEASON -- WP:DUCKSEASON !--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point of view is that an article on a professor can be appropriate if their work influenced the field/world enough that the related Wikipedia articles would be different. I realized some time ago that every sentence in a college textbook represents the life's work, or at least a major project, of a (now important) academic. But if you can't find a reliable source that says that Dr So-and-so discovered/influenced/transformed/redefined some concept, then you have no secondary sources and the article should be deleted. In the case of academic publications, review articles are secondary sources par excellence. Is there a way to look for citations in review articles only? Abductive (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way of distinguishing review articles from original research articles unless one knows the field in detail. Some journals publish both types of article in the same issue. Most papers of original research contain an introductory review section at the beginning. An article is unlikely to be cited in a review until it has been recognised by cites in the original research area. An argument could be made that cites in articles of original research are the more important but I know of no consensus that one type of cite is regarded as more important than the other. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • I always want to see a claim of notability. For example, the person who created this article also created one for Menachem Brenner, another finance prof in the same school. Dr Brenner is "also the co-inventor (with Professor Dan Galai) of the volatility index based on the prices of traded index options". See, that is something encyclopedic. Abductive (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some reasons would be helpful. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 27 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 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Configuron[edit]

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

Configuron: a neologism that gives undue weight to one particular point of vue.

Result of a search with Google Scholar:

Conclusion: despite obstinate efforts by its two main proponents, this neoglogism has failed to enter the scientific mainstream. -- Paula Pilcher (talk) 14:34, 25 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. Speedy deleted under G7, prempting a quick close of the AfD. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Guide to Green Dragons in Chaos Tunnels[edit]

Direct Guide to Green Dragons in Chaos Tunnels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:GAMEGUIDE \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writer of article Hey hey. (Took forever to figure out how to respond) I spent four hours on this article! Here look I'll explain to you what it is. There is a game of runescape, have you heard of it? okay well there's a map of chaos tunnels and you have to keep going through portals to get to the monster you wish too if you research it and see what people talk about, it's not easy. There are good chances you will die. I originally had put that information on notepad for me, because I NEEDED to look at it quickly, or else I had a chance to die. And the thing is, I'm sure a lot of people sit there, and do the math in their head what tunnels to take to get to the specific monster "Green Dragons." Because, that is in fact a popular monster. I checked everywhere and no website had what I was looking for. I can't be the only person in the world looking for it, in fact I know I am not, so I put it up. Please don't delete it :( Additional details:: When it talks about a bunch of monsters in order, it's because everytime you use a portal, you enter the room with that monster inside of it. and need to know what portal to use next. And if you check out this link http://www.runehq.com/guide.php?type=map&id=0946 you will see how complex it can be. please please pleeeassseeee consider it, and figure out what it really is all about before you delete it? <3 you ;]

I do not believe you hit save page? I don't see the update to my link =s Am I not seeing it correctly?


ha cool. i see the wiki place you guys gave me is what I am looking for :D im' happy now ^.^ thanks lol i was sad for a bit.

stephy : alright I am granting you guys permission to delete my page, saving you guys time talking it over :) thanks!! <3 you guys are real nice about things

Cool. Post it to Gamefaqs.com instead.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 16:38, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate World Championship[edit]

Ultimate World Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pure original research. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think we are dealing with a case of WP:SNOW. OfficeGirl (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I PRODd-ed it first so no speedy is possible, but I do think this will be a snow-closure before the 7 days are up. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I don't want you to link to the video as it would change nothing. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, because I just went an checked their rematch from Genesis 2009. West nor Tenay say anything about this championship nor talk about any championships Angle or Jarrett have ever won. They talk only about their feud.--WillC 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one where he angle slammed jeff off the stage they talk about it before the promo and during kurts entrance you might want to check again and if you can find kurt vs brock for the IWGP title with captions they talked about it their as wellWrestlings Savior (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would fail WP:V and WP:RS, and still would fail WP:N. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Slipknot (album) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

742617000027[edit]

742617000027 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a non-notable track and all information included can be used in the album's article. It does not cite any sources and includes original research, and if this information is to remain on Wikipedia (for example, in the album's article) this will need to be addressed. REZTER TALK ø 13:34, 25 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} 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hauptwerk Virtual Organ[edit]

Hauptwerk Virtual Organ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Several reasons:

  1. It lacks information on the notability of the subject matter. WP:GNG
  2. It does not cite any references or sources. I'm not counting the "Crumhorn Labs About Us" ref because the specific page doesn't exist any more.
  3. It relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Nameley, the company website. It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications.
  4. It reads like a review, advertisement, fan site, news release, and is otherwise written in an overly promotional tone, compromised by peacock terms. Its tone and style are not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:SOAP
  5. It may have been edited by a person who has a conflict of interest with the subject matter, and it may contain original research or unverifiable claims. WP:OR
  6. It contains instructions, advice, or how-to content (how to create a virtual pipe organ). WP:NOTHOW
  7. All of the encyclopedic content duplicates what is already covered in Organ and Pipe Organ.  – jaksmata 21:26, 18 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) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's free... According to the company website, it costs either $224 or $539 depending on the version. – jaksmata 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. You people are out of your minds. There are so many mediocre articles in Wikipedia, and this one actually provides information on an excellent product which is (in my opinion) too good for the average idiot reading Wikipedia to even appreciate. It needs more rigorous referencing, but should NOT be deleted. It is perhaps one of the most revolutionary products to come out in organ and harpsichord practice in the history of synthesized music. I own the product, paid for it, and think that it deserves a reference in Wikipedia. I am too busy to improve the article, but if you have enough time to complain about it, then why don't you try to improve it? Perhaps because you don't understand it and never used it, and therefore have nothing useful or intelligent to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.173.172 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


I, Kenneth Spencer, was the original author of the page. I have deleted the discussion as I am very annoyed that my work has been deleted from Wikipaedia. Who is Jaksama anyway and why didn't he or she contact me before deleting the article? The contribution was made in good faith following many requests for assistance in the understanding of Virtual Pipe Organs. Other than the fact that I own a copy of the software and have built a virtual pipe organ myself I have no connection with Hauptwerk. Furthermore, I have been accused of stealing the content of my schematic of the virtual pipe organ. This schematic was in fact my own work and nearly all the photographs and diagrmas in the schamatic are of my own hardware or were drawn myself. The rest of them, and very few at that, were all reproduced with permission, as was declared.

I shall now proceed to delete the rest of my contributions to Wikipaedia, including those on two English Villages, and on the nature of Compton Scattering in radiation physics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaspencer (talk • contribs) 13:03, 11 July 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

City Of Beacon Fire Department[edit]

City Of Beacon Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fire dept. A single-minded user deprodded this without explanation. Abductive (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - ugh, indeed. Somebody needs to quickly put our friend wise as to WP:NOTE before he makes any more. That whole template and most of the pages on it will likely need to be squashed as well, as only a few aren't hopeless redlinks or redirects. 47 separate non-notable firehouses? Yeah right. Bullzeye contribs 22:28, 25 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} 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Batie, Jr.[edit]

Leon Batie, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removed prod, bringing it to AFD for further discussion. Article is about a U.S. Army officer who received a small burst (and I do mean small) of news coverage when some fast food franchises he owned were seized by the company for being an absentee owner. This may have been a sad misjustice, however there are some serious issues with the subject of the article, such as: 1) Article appears to be autobiographical, raising serious conflict of interest concerns. 2) All published, reliable information about the subject is about this single issue, raising serious WP:BLP1E concerns. 3) The entire article seems to be a coat rack to allow the author of the article to complain about the unfair treatment he received. 4) Per WP:NOTNEWS, human interest stories such as this aren't really appropriate for an encyclopedia. I cannot find any way the subject of this article merits inclusion in Wikipedia even considering this single news story, and as such it should be deleted. Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete If you have an article somewhere concerning the legal aspect of deployment on the home front this would go well there, otherwise it wounds like an ad and really ought to be deleted. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:46, 25 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} 00:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eoghan Carew[edit]

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

PRODded my myself with the concern that "fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully-pro league"; PROD was removed by article creator DavidDublin (talk · contribs) who claimed that "Carew played in the League of Ireland which is a professional League." However, thie asumption is incorrect in two ways. Firstly, the League of Ireland is NOT a fully-professional league (confirmed by WP:FOOTBALL). Secondly, Carew's club Kildare County plays in the FAI First Division, the second tier of football in Ireland and a level which is certainly NOT fully-professional. Carew, therefore, still fails WP:ATHLETE and the article should be deleted. GiantSnowman 12:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - WP:GNG says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." But none of the news reports you have brought to our attention meet this - they do not "address the subject directly in detail"! GiantSnowman 12:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the article. I have added 2 sources which do address the subject directly and in detail. I have linked it up to the wiki. The teams he has played for and the Championships that he have one already have full wikipedia pages for them. His father is also one of the most famous Kildare Footballers of the millenium. David —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • No, the only source which addresses "the subject directly and in detail" is this one, which is his club profile. Also, just because the team he plays for is notable enough for an article doesn't mean that he is. ALSO, notability is not inherited from his "famous" father. GiantSnowman 15:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if thems the rules then Eoghan Carew goes. I disagree with the rules, Kevin Doyle began with the Wexford Youths who are Irish First Division, Roy Keane started with Cobh Ramblers also Irish First Division, John O'Shea and Daryl Murphy also with Waterford Utd. If these guys early careers aren't documented on wikipedia, this is the sort of information that will be extremely hard to find in the future. I have also seen countless articles I have written for such players re-used in club match day programs up and down Ireland. Proves that these are useful. I know I've lost the fight. Just giving my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing setting Carew apart from Doyle, Keane, O'Shea etc, is that they have all gone on to play fully-professional levels. I can imagine there are thousands of players who go through the clubs in the FAI First Division who don't amount a great deal. If Carew plays at a fully-professional level then the article can easily be recreated. --Jimbo[online] 08:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are thousands of FD (FAI First Division) players that don't go on to play for fully-pro clubs, there are also thousands that do, and not just to England, we have fully pro teams here in Ireland too. How can the article easily be recreated - all the info and references are lost? Check Daryl Murphy, his Waterford United career and any background on it is all but forgotten by the wiki. He was worth £100,000 when he transferred from the League of Ireland. I don't understand why these articles are being deleted. People want these articles (check how many Irish players are being created on the wiki. check the Irish Football wiki project). People use these articles (check Padraig Amond/Ger O'Brien when they were transferred to a fully pro club their early career and background was already filled in, lets face it, for famous players the early career and background is that most difficult part to source and write. check the match day programs that use the players wiki pages to help write their pre match programs and their player profiles). Why delete them? What makes a player suddenly notable by playing one minute for a fully pro-team? There are internationals in the FD and players that have played fully pro in the past, and believe me they are many times less notable and celebrated by the club than the club captain/top scorer/young potential star. You reach a point where your best players are not allowed have articles but some useless barbados international is? The FD is not some back water amateur league. It is mostly semi-pro with a couple of fully pro teams (Shelbourne/Sporting Fingal) and run by a fully professional organisation - the FAI. It is covered by local, national and international media - for example sky sports.
  • The article can easily be recreated by requesting to an admin that it be reinstated - once he/or any other subject becomes notable. With regards to articles on "captain/top scorer/young potential star" and "some useless barbados international", you might think they deserve an article for being a decent player, but another fan might think they're not - it's too subjective, which is why notability criteria is in place. --Jimbo[online] 11:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Thanks for the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Carew has competed in the League of Ireland, First Division is still League of Ireland. He got paid therefore professional. Many of the top teams are fully professional, other teams are semi professional.

Secondly, I'm not sure where to post my comments on this issue. I put them on Carew's talk page first but seems that I should put them here. How do I sign it? How do I quote other peoples posts to make a counter point?

Thirdly. This probably doesnt matter now but this was my defence to keep the article.

Carew played in the League of Ireland which is a professional League. It is the highest level of soccer in the Republic of Ireland. It is covered in the local, national and international media. The national broadcaster carries a weekly show focusing on the League. International broadcasters such as Sky Sports and Setanta Sports carry news/footage/matches from the League.

The Republic of Ireland national soccer team is ranked 35 in the World. And the FAI League of Ireland is ranked 30 out of 53 European Leagues. Teams from the league have competed with Hamburg, Dinamo Kiev, Bayern Munich, Red star Belgrade, Deportivo, Nantes, Paris Saint Germain, IFK Goteborg in recent European competition.

There is an interest for these articles on wikipedia.

Amateur sports persons are all over the wikipedia because there is an interest. Eoghan Carew can be removed if the list of GAA players, the list of Lacross players are also removed. Both are purely amateur or semi professional leagues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lacrosse_League http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Geraghty

This makes this article noteworthy.

Also see point 3: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wiki_spirit —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidDublin (talk • contribs) 14:03, 30 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 Mahmudiyah killings. If, as here, a policy (WP:BLP1E) applies to an article in a relatively straightforward manner, I am bound to consider arguments more strongly that argue for its application; conversely, I am bound not to weigh arguments that do not address why the policy should not apply here. The "keep" arguments of Judo112 and Geo Swan do not address the BLP1E issue and are thus discounted. Taking all this into account, we have a consensus to apply the BLP1E rule to this article.  Sandstein  05:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dale Green[edit]

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

He did partake in an absolutely hienous crime, but it is also WP:BLP1E. His role is already covered in Mahmudiyah killings Niteshift36 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree (I nommed Barker's [16]) except that Green stands out from the others. Only he did the killing, his trial went on for years publicly in civilian court (the others were dealt with quickly in military court), and there was all the discussion generated by suggestion of the death sentence, plus he was the ringleader. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His bio could be expanded, his entire biography was laid out in court [17] (Just word search for "Green"). Biographical information hasn't been added to the article in 2 years, so what you see now does not depict the actual status of information available about him. Ryan4314 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its always funny to see that the "deletion" thinkers always refers to one of the Wikipedia rules or guidelines which are always wide in interpretation. And no, mutch of what is in this article is spesificly about Steven and not the event itself. and it will be lost of the article is either merge or deleted.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also WP:BLP1E fails to have anything to do with this article as Steven is known for more than a one time event, he has been in both the killing and a mutch so media covered trial. With possible appeals and othr reactions or twists it totally fails that BLP again.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it equally funny to see that the "inclusion" thinkers try to split hairs like "the crime and the trial are different events" when everything still stems from one event. The trial is a result of the crime which drops it right back into WP:BLP1E. What you are doing is akin to saying that the crash into your back bumper is one event, your impacting the windshield is another and then demanding two seperate crash reports being completed by the police because they were "different events". Niteshift36 (talk) 20:29, 30 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. A7 - this is an unsourced sub-stub article on a company that makes no claim to significance. ~ mazca talk 19:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cross Navigation and Trading Company[edit]

Black Cross Navigation and Trading Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Note, article has no references, and is about a failed company that never really started. While its precessor may be notable, this company wasn't even notable in its time, much less now Fuzbaby (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:53, 25 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 16:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Track+[edit]

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

The article is written like an advert, no citations, references, no attempt to establish notability

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOWBALL. -- The Anome (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Wells[edit]

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

Notability unestablished, page almost entirely unsourced. "Recent death does not establish notability." Mikerichi (talk) 11:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He was an established journalist who wrote many articles for reliable publications such as the Guardian and New Musical Express. That fact alone makes him notable. I'm not going to scrabble around looking for references to those articles to illustrate this point; the onus is on you to demonstrate he was not notable. --Richardrj talk email 11:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't decide - the existence of articles about him does suggest notability. On the other hand, some of the claims appear specious - for example, he's not mentioned in the Mekons article. Deb (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work with regard to sourcing and defining Wells' involvement in certain areas such as The Mekons, but he certainly seems notable enough to me. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a disgrace this article is even being considered for deletion. Theres nothing academic about the removal of common sense. At one time I might have empathised by suggesting linking to the pages on zines or actually putting an email through to the NME to find someone to verify this. I'm wondering if whom proposed this for deletion ever read the New Musical Express for any period of time. I read it for only a year and its validity is beyond apparent. [John Luke, 13:53, 25 June) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.116.208 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The Register seems to find him notable enough in their article. Wakari07 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For the reasons mentioned above. "Recent death does not establish notability" misses the point. He is notable for being a well-respected journalist for a number of well-respected newspapers. --Sonofulster (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 'mark for deletion' is obviously trolling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.20.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Please be aware that this has, and is receiving media attention, so would all editors please display the appropriate level of decorum and respect. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The register's report about this deletion debate also may contribute to the notability of the subject, keep. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only editor around here who hasn't shown "the appropriate level of decorum and respect" is the one who nominated this article for deletion. --Richardrj talk email 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but a reminder doesn't hurt anyone. :) \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - many articles, many obits. palfrey (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Palfrey. Willking1979 (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seething Wells was a major figure on the new music/comedy scene in the early Eighties, and Steven Wells was a widely known and respected journalist. The article may need fact-checking and citations, but what on earth has that got to do with deletion?

Hudspith (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I take it you folks don't read NME, I've only been read it for a short period of time and I know of this person. [Dan Williams, 15:32, 25 June)
  • Keep Not just a notable journalist, but a famous one: the serious media are already starting to crank out obits: see [18], [19]. On another note, I observe that the nominator's main activities since setting up their account seem to have been contributions to talk pages and AfD discussions, and that their very first interaction with Wikipedia was to start an AfD process. -- The Anome (talk) 14:31, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erving Morelli[edit]

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

Hoax article, no information regarding this person in The Internet Hockey Database Raphie (talk) 10:12, 25 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} 23:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LYNX Photonic Networks[edit]

LYNX Photonic Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was prodded as G11 but there was enough room for doubt, and it has sat at CSD for over 24 hours. Hence moved to AFD. Manning (talk) 09:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! I've done your example in the meantime. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 15:41, 25 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 WP:SNOW. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Blindness[edit]

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

Was PROD tagged as hoax, but the PROD tag was removed. There are no Ghits for this concept; all hits for "paper blindness" refer to other things. I have access to PubMed through work, and there are no hits at all there either. That reading makes your eyes weaker is one of the classic myths. Finally, none of the references mentions paper or reading at all -- they refer to scleritis or to dry eyes in general. Delete as hoax. bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 25 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 per A7 and BLP1E. Manning (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV note : This closure was reviewed on June 29, 2009; please reference the discussion here. The speedy closure of this discussion was not endorsed, but upon further review of the article it was deemed unlikely to survive relisting at AfD. As such the deletion is allowed to stand, but this should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the out-of-process manner in which it was deleted; BLP1E is not to be interpreted as a criteria for speedy deletion. Shereth 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James P. Barker[edit]

James P. Barker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed. This article is already redundant to his section on the Mahmudiyah killings‎ article, subject is no more notable than the other 3 killers (barring Green of course. Ryan4314 (talk) 08:23, 25 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. Although consensus would seem to support a merge no suitable target article appears to exist, so it would be unreasonable to close this as "merge". This close does not prevent anyone wishing to create a list of characters from going ahead and doing so. Flowerparty☀ 09:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nakor[edit]

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

The only references given are to two reviews of two of the novels this character appears in, novels that have their own articles. I cannot find references granting this character (and probably other Feist's ones) an article of his own, nor any real world significance for him. Goochelaar (talk) 08:09, 25 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erand Hoxha[edit]

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

Previously bundled nom here - renominated to get clearer consensus on single article. The article is regarding a footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as there is no evidence to prove the Albanian Superliga is fully-professional, failing WP:V. Also fails WP:N due to any references asserting notability. --Jimbo[online] 08:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd say that UEFA Cup in particular is notable in itself before the group stage. That strikes me as above the top level nationally for example which is what you'd look for for notability -- Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Playing in Europe really isn't enough to warrant an article - players from micronations such as Andorra, San Marino and the Faroes get to play in the UEFA cup qualifying rounds. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:47, 25 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 a copyright violation from the link listed below. PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webelos Planet[edit]

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

Contested CSD G11. Article is blatant advertising for a resort which does not claim notability. Deadly∀ssassin 07:10, 25 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 Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of United States Human Space Flight[edit]

Review of United States Human Space Flight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fork of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee GW… 07:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response within the discussion page of Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans Committee - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Review_of_United_States_Human_Space_Flight_Plans_Committee --Medic463 (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for the support on the "Conclusions" matter Hunster, I will bare in mind what you have said and keep my eye out for good sources. I am also willing to remove this section out of the new page. With regard to article deletion CONSIDER THIS: The Review of US Human Space Flight is a very important topic in world history, and mega-important within Space Explorations history - for example it could conclude to put an astronaut on mars (when they put a man on the moon it was an event that 600 million people watched), or to push forward plans for a base on the moon. Ok this is speculation but it is not unreasonable that they may conclude this. And to have the page "The Review of US Human Space Flight" in the wiki deletion category next to "Kitchen and Bathrooms" is unbelievable. If anything the "Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee" page should be deleted (I mean how important is that!), or become a section in the "Review of US Human Space Flight" article. Change is not a bad thing. --Medic463 (talk) 10:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered and improved the article, deleting the conclusions. --Medic463 (talk) 11:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a merge and redirect - but to the correct page. In my neutral opinion, the "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans" is the important topic of information here and should be the title of the page. Surely the committee should be a sub-topic within this page as the committee would not even exist without the review - they are a serial fork. And P.S. this page title is wrong anyway, the correct title should be "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans" --Medic463 (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would still prefer the full title (including "committee"), as that is the official name of the board conducting the review. --GW… 23:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Well, actually.... Although it is the "Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans", the official name of the committee really is, "Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee." The documents defining these names are published, cited in both articles, and clear to read for anyone who cares to do so. In one case "United States" is spelled out; in the other it isn't. (sdsds - talk) 00:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
But Sims, your argument is that you prefer the title (including committee) "because that is the official name of the board conducting the review". Well that is great - if for some strange, unknown reason the board are more important than the review itself. Your logic suggests that the board of Kellog's is more important then Kellog's itself, and I don't see any Kellog's board wiki pages. The important information can be transfered.--Medic463 (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have transfered the information but haven't added "Plans" to the title because is still up for deletion and think only an admin can do that. - Looks good! check it out Review of United States Human Space Flight --Medic463 (talk) 12:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the 3 or 4 editors (people?) in the world that care about this, it appears that no one wants 2 pages. And I'm getting a vibe that anyone who has been following this discussion has either quit wikipedia altogether or topped themselves. Anyway I propose the following:
  • Your proposal violates the GFDL so I'll have to oppose it anyway, but why that title? --GW… 10:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to a request for clarification posted on my talk page, this violation is because the deletion of two articles following a merger to a third title would leave no edit history, which is a requirement in order for contributors to be properly credited for their work. --GW… 14:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are some very good reasons on this AFD page as to the name change. And the work around for GFDL compliance would be for some kind of name change / redirect, but I'm not convinced anyone really cares about the GFDL or takes it seriously anyway. --Medic463 (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
← I still fail to see the point of moving the original article. Perhaps an RM could be conducted once this closes to gauge consensus, but I don't think there is an issue with the current title. --GW… 14:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to the deletion of this article and an RM to gauge consensus on the title of the committee page. PS if I find out that an editor is actually on the committee and wants the page titled in their favor for financial gain or other personal benefit, then I will beat them to a pulp be very upset --Medic [ talk ] 20:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC) and / or spam all the appropriate wiki detection pages.--Medic463 (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medic, if you make another threat like that, I will indef block you. I don't care if it was serious or meant in jest, that was entirely inappropriate. I would strongly suggest you retract that. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hunster, you would have to be quick on the block button to beat me to it. I have had just about enough of Medic's attitude and single-minded lone crusade and acts of bad faith. – B.hotep •talk• 17:20, 28 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Stilsbury[edit]

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

I closed a prior AfD on this article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stilsbury, as delete. However it was brought to my attention that work was done on the article towards the tail-end of its AfD period. Starting another AfD on this article to re-assess its notability status as of that point in time. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "He was only in the WWF for a brief time" - In reality, he was there for a year and a half.
  2. "He didn't do anything noteworthy" - In reality, he had feuds with Frenchy Martin and Killer Khan televised on the company's major television programs; he also defeated several big-name wrestlers, including Nikolai Volkoff and former WWF Champion Iron Sheik.
  3. "He should be subject to WP:CREATIVE" - I don't believe that wrestlers fit this definition, as they are not similar to scientists, engineers, or visual artists. WP:ATHLETE fits, as professional wrestling is an athletic performance, albeit a scripted one. This establishes his notability, as he performed for the world's biggest wrestling promotion (as a character that was featured regularly, although it was often as a "jobber to the stars", similar to Lanny Poffo). The alternative would be to use a combination of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER, as professional wrestlers are also television personalities. In this case, he would be considered notable because he has a cult following. THis can be seen by his induction on the WrestleCrap website and his inclusion in several books. It is further demonstrated because he is included in a line of action figures by LJN Wrestling Superstars.
  4. "WP:ATHLETE is being interpreted too broadly" - I agree that wrestling one match for a major company should not warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. As I stated before, however, he wrestled for them in a featured role for a year and a half. A good comparison would be Adam Bomb's tenure with the WWF: he was pushed at the beginning and had victories over big-name stars, but he later moved into a jobber to the stars role and ultimately developed a cult following. I can't imagine anyone claiming that Adam Bomb's tenure in the WWF is not notable.
  5. "He was an embarassment to wrestling/WrestleCrap inductees suck/He was a laughing stock" - The quality of his gimmick or wrestling style is not appropriate to include in an AfD discussion. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument.
In conclusion, this is a well-sourced article about a notable character in the world's biggest wrestling promotion. There is simply no precedent for deletion the article of a long-term WWF character (and yes, a year and a half is a decent tenure with a company like the WWF). GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree about the peacock language. It was there before I started editing the article, and I removed it in response to your comment. I'm not convinced that the wrestlers you mentioned are good parallels - certainly, the WWF never gave any of them a victory over such high-profile names. The win over the Iron Sheik was also four months before the Sheik's arrest, so your speculation regarding the reason for the win is incorrect. At any rate, I just wanted to mention that the information for reference #2 actually comes from the picture of the card on the linked page, so that text is not credited back to Wikipedia, although the rest of the page (which is not used as a source) certainly is. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chung Lee did which is why I said he was the best example. He got something that Stilsbury didn't get - a non title match against a reigning champion on television (IC champion Ricky Steamboat just after Wrestlemania 3 on Superstars). I know I saw Stilsbury against Honky Tonk amongst those other results but they were house shows. As far as reference 2 goes, I think that needs a third party source given the WWF were trying to put him over with that which places it's reliability in accuracy under a cloud. !! Justa Punk !! 07:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "November 2, 1986: Butch Reed defeated Outback Jack". At that time, many feuds were only featured on a couple of television episodes--they also had a series of matches on house shows, however. The article also doesn't give full results of his television exposure. I limited it to a couple of feuds, but more could certainly be added if you'd like. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Applying WP:CREATIVE would show a thorough (and perhaps intentional) misunderstanding of visual artistry. Wrestlers are a combination of athletes and actors, so WP:ATHLETE and WP:ENTERTAINER are the only applicable notability guidelines. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was my mistake for saying creative.......WP:ENT is the next paragraph. I just used the wrong short-cut. I don't misunderstand the industry at all. Just take a deep breath and WP:AGF once in a while. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind the special cases. The GNG always applies, and it's sufficient to decide this.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't, Marshall. The GNG is a guide only and can not be applied as one size fits all. In this case I firmly believe it fails. I note the last reference from GaryColemanFan to the "shoot" and I would consider that unverified speculation by the wrestler concerned. TaintedZebra (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the General Notability Guideline. You can read it here: WP:GNG.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:35, 26 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} 12:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case race[edit]

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

Completely unsourced drinking game of dubious notability. Contrary to WP:NFT and WP:NOTMANUAL as it is a step by step guide to playing the game. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:19, 25 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. Obvious A7 candidate. Speedy tag removed by chief article contributor without reason given. Manning (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Balamanigandan[edit]

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

Article written by B. Balamanigandan himself, see here. Did a Google search while there are hits I could not find any third party coverage. Fails WP:PEOPLE. MS (Talk|Contributions) 05:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC) *Note:I'm also nominating :BBM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The page is a duplicate of the above. Or is it the other way around... Removing. A look further in the history shows the IP removed the information from the original page to write about B. Balamanigandan. MS (Talk|Contributions) 06:15, 25 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} 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Levy[edit]

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

Article does not currently establish notability of subject; does not appear to to satisfy the suggestions for notability given by WP:PROF or WP:POLITICIAN. While there are some articles mentioning the subject as an also-ran for political office, I do not believe that these references constitute significant media coverage. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:59, 25 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} 12:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VH1's 100 greatest songs of the 80's[edit]

VH1's 100 greatest songs of the 80's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. Only one reference to a not quite reliable source in my opinion, is the only coverage on here which is not making it notable. This list is also subjective to one networks opinion on songs from such a vague topic. Other "VH1 Greatest" articles have been deleted also and there's nothing different with this one. Rockin56 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's subjective in the way that having a page on Obama is. An open vote doesn't really count as "subjective" in this case. Still article should be gone.Gyrferret™ 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article on Obama containing 100 facts voted for in an unaudited poll by VH1 viewers maybe!  pablohablo. 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then instead of Obama, let's make it the 2004 Bush Election...Gyrferret™ 04:56, 30 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. Probably best to re-list individually any clubs that appear to fail notability guidelines. Black Kite 19:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Knights[edit]

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

Notability; All clubs are in either the Western Australian Premier League or Division one, with possibly the exception of the Premier League final, games between these teams dont recieve significant coverage in local print media, none in the broadcast media. Players in the leagues are not professional players, though some do go on to play at professional levels of the game in Australia and overseas. Gnangarra 03:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full list - all non-notable clubs

Premier league

Cockburn City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Canning City Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | ECU Joondalup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Floreat Athena (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Inglewood United (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Mandurah City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Perth SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Sorrento FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Stirling Lions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Swan United FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) |

Division one

Ashfield SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Bayswater City SC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Dianella White Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Fremantle Spirit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) | Morley-Windmills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) |

there is only one professional league, there is no second tier league in Australia these are state base leagues but even if we consider them to be 2nd tier league the issues is significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. Gnangarra 12:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without stating an opinion (as yet) on the notability of these football clubs, the difference between the cricket clubs and the football clubs is that the next tier up in cricket is representative selection; a Test or shield player actually belongs to one of the clubs rather than the state body. This is not the case in football, Perth Glory are a club in their own right, not a representative team from the Perth club competition. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTABILITY says have significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject, every article needs to meet this requirement. Gnangarra 12:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right; verifiability is non-negotiable. Hesperian 12:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FourFourTwo seems to cover the league, as does AussieSportsInfo.com. I dare say there are news reports to be had elsewhere - this Google search seems a good place to start. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Game results would support notability of the league but the clubs still lack independent sources to meet notability. Gnangarra 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's some merit in this approach, some questions need to be answered the couple of potential sources mentioned are they commissioned works(primary source)? are they independent(reliable source) of the subject? Gnangarra 01:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the club-specific sources I've mentioned are commissioned works. The soccer-in-WA sources that Hack mentions above are not. Hesperian 01:31, 26 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. WP:NFT does not apply; also, many of the delete "votes" fail to establish why the topic is non-notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never have I ever[edit]

Never have I ever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable drinking game, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Begging your pardon, but WP:NFT is for something that only a few people know about. This game is something that is well known in the general public and there are a lot of Google search results for it-- are you sure you've never heard of it? OfficeGirl (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Begging your pardon.....it was made up in someones garage/dorm/basement/bar. The article smells of WP:OR and lacks real notability.Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS- I found some cursory sources in less than 90 seconds with a Google search. There are numerous other drinking games that have individual articles and there is no doubt that this CAN be developed properly according to Wikipedia standards. OfficeGirl (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find google hits......goggle hits arent the measuring stick of notability. Mentioning it on a blog generates a hit, but fails to meet our purposes. Plus the title of the game itself makes the searches harder. Instead of saying "I got hits", would you like to provide links to the ones that are reliable sources that we are looking for? As for the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasoning....well, other drinking games are nominated for deletion too. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Googling this drinking game reveals 150 million hits on google. I believe deleting it would be giving up too early. There have to be SOME valid secondary sources among those 150 million webpages. Unless a diligent search for reliable sources is conducted and NO sources are found, I see no reason to give up and delete this article. This article was marked for deletion because of non-notability. I believe it's huge popularity is evidence enough that there is no cause for deleting this article. Imsome (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being featured in most books on the topic of drinking games and several TV shows clearly demonstrates that WP:NFT does not apply. I'd need a much stronger argument than "never heard of it..." -Thibbs (talk) 20:12, 30 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 A7 Speedy Delete. Manning (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Italo "El Maestro De La Melodia"[edit]

Italo "El Maestro De La Melodia" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable music producer. Google search shows little outside of self-promotion. Article is chock full of red links - hard to say if any of the few blue links are actually related. Wknight94 talk 04:09, 25 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. Withdrawn Seems I didn't do my homework well enough. Sorry for the trouble. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kitchens & Bathrooms[edit]

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

This band doesn't appear to be notable; while they have released two albums on Sonic Unyon, they fail to meet any other criteria for notability, primarily that of sourcing. The article provides only one reliable source, and I'm hard-pressed to find any others on Google; only the first four or so hits are relevant (even after multiple attempts to exclude hits selling remodeling stuff), and none are usable for establishing notability. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notability for their albums is enough notability for the band. When it is difficult to find informations via Google this one more good reason to have an article here. Profile on Allmusic should help that this is not a hoax : http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:djfqxqwhldfe~T0 --Ilion2 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a hoax; I can tell that it's not. It's not Wikipedia's purpose, though, to create new material where none exists elsewhere. Our articles rely on content available elsewhere, and if there's not enough to support an article, we have a problem. Hersfold (t/a/c) 04:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why deleting the whole article when challeging only parts of the content. By the way, there is no new material in the article that did not exists elsewhere. --Ilion2 (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying - I'm contesting the fact that this band is notable, as there aren't enough sources to adequately support an article about them. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their music albums are availabe on e.g. amazon, so they exists. And their albums are enough notability for the band. So this is enough to write an article about the band consisting at least about the band members, their origin and their albums. I think this is enough for now. I so no reason at the moment to talk about the one or two sentences in the article which you perhaps mean you can not verify with enough reliable ressources. I do not see a constructive discussion about reliable ressources in a discussion about deleting the whole article with strange reasons like "fail to meet any other criteria for notability". One criteria is enough. --Ilion2 (talk) 05:48, 25 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. Without sources it can't even be merged. +Angr 16:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spieprzaj dziadu![edit]

Spieprzaj dziadu! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced POV article that fails WP:N. It is un-encyclopedic and contains little content other than "he said it". Ostap 03:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • To closer: If more sources are added and I don't come back to change my comment, please consider this a neutral. Currently the only "source" is the original polish conversation. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. Are we going to create articles about all remarks of politicians? This is a silly article, about an unsignificant utterance, made during an informal conversation. It has been blown out of proportions by some Kaczynski bashers, and to keep Wikipedia neutral, there is no space for such crap. Or perhaps we should write an article about Polish prime minister Donald Tusk chewing a gum during a meeting with Angela Merkel. Tymek (talk) 22:51, 25 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 00:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les FRES[edit]

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

Nn software, google hits show littlenothing about this program. Can't find 3rd publications or an official site... Perhaps only a French program?ZooFari 03:37, 25 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Guibert[edit]

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

Contested prod. Former wife of a notable musician and mother of another one. However, her only claim to independent notability is a request she made to Napster, for which I am unable to find reliable sources establishing that event's notability. I tried redirecting to the article on her son, but the article creator objected to that. Delete or Redirect.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect since reading WP:BIO and looking at WP precedents on similar characters. As creator of the article, can I just go ahead and do this?Linguistixuck (talk) 04:52, 30 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 For Better or For Worse. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mtigwaki[edit]

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

In-universe twaddle, almost no sources. Delete or merge, just get rid of it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:58, 25 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 - default to keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Markedonov[edit]

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

Fails each of the WP:PROF notability criteria. Being a department head does not make one a notable academic, and neither does having one's name appear in a smattering of newspapers, among them the propaganda outlet Tiraspol Times and the Moonie-owned Washington Times. - Biruitorul Talk 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, he was cited 73 times (including self-citation) according to this google search. I know students and postdoctoral researches who were cited more. Biophys (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody can claim anyone is prominent. Neither of those sources are reliable for proving prominence... and in fact if that's the best you have I'd say the opposite is true. DreamGuy (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then keep. Who cares?Biophys (talk) 20:55, 27 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 Daughtry (band). –Juliancolton | Talk 16:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Songs by Daughtry[edit]

List of Songs by Daughtry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary, as Discography covers any notable music. Falls under WP:NOT. Author may have had good intentions, but anything notable is covered elsewhere. --Teancum (talk) 02:22, 25 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 deleted as vandalism and a totally unverifiable hoax. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Poole[edit]

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

Likely hoax. Only source is a blog which is more suspect than normal blogs. There are 16 Gbooks hits, none of which is this particular one. Google search wasn't productive as there were too many with the same name, but in context of the French revolution, nothing related to this particular person. Was prodded by Blanchardb and DGG and the page creator removed the PRODs without addressing any of the issues. Strong Delete SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:06, 25 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} 12:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties[edit]

List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no assertion of notability or significance, no independent sources Dlabtot (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all you've done is add material that speaks to the notability and significance of the Highty-Tighties. However, no one is suggesting that article be deleted. This discussion is about List of drum majors, commanders and directors of the Highty-Tighties. What makes this list notable or significant? Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting information off from a main article has been done in the past. This list can't be merged into the main article for the simple reason that it'd be overwhelmed; there's too much information here. More research and development is needed on this article—it's pretty abysmal—but that's not a justification to delete. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the most solid guideline is this language, from the guideline on stand-alone lists: "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." In other words, a list having NO notable entries, like this one, does not belong in Wikipedia. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:32, 27 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-deleted as CSD G10 negative unsourced BLP, and as CSD G3 blatant hoax by User:Jclemens. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Murphy[edit]

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

I came across this article because I had deleted another article by the same editor, one that was an obvious hoax. For this one, I have not been able to find any sources that verify the information in the article. The ESPN website does not corroborate the information; see this search for example. I suggest deletion due to failure of WP:V—but am bringing this to AfD to ask other editors to try to find sources, in case any do exist. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:57, 25 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 Seems to be a WP:POINTy nomination. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Black Panther Party[edit]

New Black Panther Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:N; lacks signicant coverage and reliable sources. Radiopathy •talk• 01:32, 25 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 00:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Sleper[edit]

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

Bio written by user:Jackiesleper. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:28, 25 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 per WP:POINT. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2012[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United States presidential election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, of interest only to the US Radiopathy •talk• 01:17, 25 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 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoklet[edit]

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

Contested prod. A non notable forum that fails WP:WEB. The article supplies no independent, reliable sources and none appear to be available on searching. Nuttah (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prodded this article after finding it on the WP:NPP backlog. It appears to me that it violates WP:WEBSITE as the nominator has stated, and I was unable to locate sources confirming notability. The prod lasted almost six days, during which time copyrighted material had to be removed which was added by the person who removed the prod. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 21:44, 18 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 01:06, 25 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) 12:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Maine basketball teams[edit]

List of Maine basketball teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, any 5 people who play basketball together anywhere in Maine? There is no threshold for notability, or at what level of playing (college? professional? high school? night leagues? intramural? pick-up games? which makes this purely a directory with no encyclopedic purpose. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 18 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 01:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scjessey's comments --Teancum (talk) 02:26, 25 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 00:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bimbala Das[edit]

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

Prod previously denied (with no real explanation). Clear case of WP:ONEVENT. Hekerui (talk) 01:00, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine Media Watch[edit]

Palestine Media Watch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All references I have been able to find are for Palestinian Media Watch. There was previously a reference to what was meant to be its website, but the link is dead. Googling it appears to bring up virtually nothing (all results are for Palestinian Media Watch, except for a link to a blog that isn't there). It seems that the sole claim to fame for this organisation is a reference in an article by The Economist, and it seems that it was not mentioning it due to its particular notability, but just due to similarity in name to Palestinian Media Watch

Just to clarify, I proposed deleting everything except for the introduction of the article a couple of weeks ago, on the grounds that it seemed to be violate NPOV and in style was unencyclopedic. Since there was not response or protest, I did so. I am now proposing to delete the article itself on the grounds of notability and lack of verification. TachyonJack (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 18 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 00:56, 25 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 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebbetlevvus[edit]

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

Non-notable student club, deprodded. Abductive (talk) 22:10, 18 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) 00:52, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick O'Luanaigh[edit]

Patrick O'Luanaigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game designer. Very little independent secondary source material. Brianga (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the article should stay, but it does need more sources and information. The reason I think it should stay is because of him being the head of the company nDreams and his importance to it and also his past work with SCi Games and Eidos Interactive. JDC808 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 25 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 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoundMan-Server[edit]

SoundMan-Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable product, deprodded. Abductive (talk) 22:42, 18 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) 00:47, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cass Community Social Services[edit]

Cass Community Social Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Primary sources, a directory listing, and a trivial mention. Targeted viciously by SPAs. No notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:20, 18 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) 00:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

organisations don't necessarily need national coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 25 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 00:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roadblock (Young Money song)[edit]

Roadblock (Young Money song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources that it is an official single, only a youtube link to a video. Str8cash (talk) 00:41, 25 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 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrifice (Young Money song)[edit]

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

No sources indicating it will be a single, just a link to a youtube video of the song Str8cash (talk) 00:30, 25 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 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look How I'm Doing[edit]

Look How I'm Doing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. At best, it should be redirected to Unleashed or Wherever I Am. --Pokerdance (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 25 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 deleted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Grivoyannis[edit]

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

An obviously popular teaching professor, but not-notable by the standards of WP:PROF. Abductive (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject appears to have published several books. It would be helpful if prodders on these pages would do the citation searches themselves rather than leave them to others. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I am aware that the subject published a study guide to one of his classes, and an in-house research monograph. I reject your presumption of bad faith nominations. Abductive (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No presumption of bad faith was made by me. My comment applies to all prodders. What were the results of your citation searches? They will help other editors to assess the AfD more effectively. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I use the ((prod-nn)) template, which has links to those Google searches. Maybe the AfD template should include those links as well. Sorry for over-reacting. Abductive (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I expanded the search on WorldCat and found out that he has one book, Current issues in monetary policy in the United States and Japan, currently in close to 250 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Not bad, but taken alone it is still not enough for notability under WP:PROF criterion #1. I also did a Google search with the book’s title and the word “syllabus”, and got no hits, suggesting that the subject does not meet WP:PROF criterion #4 either. Changed my recommendation to a “weak delete” though, given the WorldCat holdings.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VIRAT[edit]

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

One-year-old on-going research program DARPA. Non-notable; too early to tell if this will gain any traction. Text mainly came from the RFP document, hence reflecting the viewpoint of DOD program, and not in encyclopedic style. Vsion (talk) 16:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[30] That's in addition to the DARPA document,[31] the Ars Technica article,[32] and the SatNews story,[33] which the article already has. Topic is notable and while any article could use some improvement, I'd hardly consider the tone unencyclopedic. In fact, I'd say keeping track of little-known areas like this is one of the strengths of Wikipedia's model. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:14, 28 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 ReelzChannel. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Mob[edit]

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

No notability. gordonrox24 (talk) 16:03, 18 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) 00:32, 25 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 G12 Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leander A.S.C[edit]

Leander A.S.C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination. This was prodded with the reason: Non-notable swimming club--even if an Olympic swimmer once swam with them, I don't believe that notability is inherited in that way. Google News reveals a few hits where swimmers from the club are mentioned, but no discussion (even in passing) of the club itself. I de=prodded it & sent it to AfD for discussion, because it seems possible that a club that sponsored such notable athletes might possibly be notable & that a discussion might be warranted. Not my field, and I have no opinion myself. DGG (talk) 00:30, 25 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) 12:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Christopher[edit]

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

Prodded by User:Abductive with reasoning "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: Ross Christopher – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." and I agree. DreamGuy (talk) 14:47, 18 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) 00:30, 25 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. Per WP:NOTAVOTE; I've determined that the keep "votes" provide stronger arguments than those in favor of deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of copywriters[edit]

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

This list (1) is pointless (who is ever going to come looking for it?); (2) can never be complete and useful, given the vast number of copywriters (whatever that means) in the world; (3) is a magnet for spam; (4) is made redundant by the category "copywriters". GNUSMAS : TALK 08:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is no spam because I keep deleting it! GNUSMAS : TALK 13:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that, just like I keep deleting spam from List of social networking websites and other lists: that's why we watch, the system works, and again, it is not a reason for deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no list, there will be no spam on that list. Conversely, having a list and keeping it spam-free will not help keep articles on alleged copywriters spam free (the category will still exist). Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death in Public[edit]

Death in Public (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability of the band basically amounts to having been compared to My Bloody Valentine and mentioned on BBC Radio 1 (with Geocities links as sources). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 18 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) 00:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I failed to find any reliable 3rd party website that shows proof of charting. My !vote remains weak delete.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:59, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impact Press[edit]

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

No assertion of notability —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific CMOS[edit]

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

This is a product placement for a product launched yesterday, which is somewhat disguised as an article. There is nothing different about an sCMOS than a regular CMOS. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sCMOS is not a product, it is a new technology which is based on CMOS, however there are significant differences between the two. It is also likely that this will become an industry standard in the same way that EMCCD supassed CCD in 2001. These two factors mean it warrants its own page. However I agree that some changes are needed in the article to make its importance clearer and I have gone about making these. Akalabeth 10:36, 18 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akalabeth (talk • contribs)


ad-style, and makes claims about "secret sauce" that would only be helpful if their secrecy, rather than technology, was notable. Independent notice of claims (" wow, this has 100% QE and pixels are responsive right up to their edges" ) would not even seem possible at this point but could establish notability without revealing secrets. Presumably the lens technology would be the interesting component and AFAIK this is secret although they also mention anti-blooming that is a problem with CCD's ( at least it was in mid 1990's as I haven't bothered to look lately ). Authors should try to find something like IEEE or even IEDM conference papers to cite as start on notability. If they have an integrated achromatic SiO2 fresnel lens it may make an intereting paper but not as presented in current form. In the absence of these, I'm not sure how you justify this as a new technology ready for an encyclopedia. If they can cite patents or otherwise make notability fine however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:09, 18 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) 00:20, 25 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 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Davis[edit]

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

Lead singer of a red link band, featured in a supposedly notable film. News sources are mostly trivial. A7 declined Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:30, 18 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) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 02:49, 25 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 Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog.House (album)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Since the band is only barely notable because of having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, their releases do not deserve individual articles. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog.House does not meet the basic notability requirement of having "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable". Further, the group itself may not be notable, since its only claim to fame is having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, which does not satisfy "Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". I was waiting to see the consensus on these albums before nominating the group itself for deletion, but perhaps I was wrong there. Conical Johnson (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All three of the albums are not notable on their own but should be included as part of the article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should not be deleted, even though one of the criteria to make a group notable is "... an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". " The group article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should be kept because even though there is only one notable member because that member is especially notable and the subject of a featured article.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:53, 25 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 Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernails (album)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:N. Since the band is only barely notable because of having had Maynard James Keenan as a member, their releases do not deserve individual articles. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:33, 18 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) 00:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All three of the albums are not notable on their own but should be included as part of the article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should not be deleted, even though one of the criteria to make a group notable is "... an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians". " The group article on Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty should be kept because even though there is only one notable member because that member is especially notable and the subject of a featured article.Rcurtis5 (talk) 17:23, 25 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 Morning View. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aqueous Transmission[edit]

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

Per WP:NSONGS, this song has not received significant coverage to warrant an article. It isn't even a single, and hasn't received any awards or anything else to make it notable. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 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. لennavecia 15:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Angus[edit]

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

Non-notable person with no media coverage; fails basic criteria of WP:BIO. Top ghits that presumably relate to this person are self-created home pages and social networking profiles. Article appears to have been self-created as well. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable. Kingturtle (talk) 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly not notable, plus the article is only one sentence long.Rcurtis5 (talk) 16:35, 25 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 00:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Acting Alliance[edit]

Voice Acting Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable website. Fails WP:WEB ttonyb1 (talk) 02:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 25 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.
More