< 5 June	7 June >

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

The result was withdrawn for the purpose of unbundling the nominations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Revere[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable minor leaguers, should have never been created have never reached majors or at least AAA, delete.

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason given above:

--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just realized all the awards and top prospect stuff won by Revere, so clearly he's notable but the rest are definetely not notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - striking the Revere nom, as the nominator appears to be withdrawing that one. Leaving the AFD itself open, as the nominator has expressly left the situation open for the remaining, bundled players. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Strongly recommend that these be unbundled and nominated individually. Each one will have different sources and need to be considered individually, so a bundled nomination just makes it more difficult for everyone.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Will do.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - based on discussions here and on the nominator's talk page, he is unbundling this AFD. Given that the named player for the AFD itself is not coming back under AFD, this can be closed as Withdrawn by anyone who comes along who knows how to properly do such. (I really don't). - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 6 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 Mutter. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Herz brennt[edit]

These songs, which are non-singles from the album Mutter, aren't notable by themselves. I thought of merging, but the pages are pretty much just original research on the lyrics. Spellcast (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing worth merging, although Zwitter does sound interesting theme-wise. Fails WP:NSONGS. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to relevant album pages for the ones that are not disambiguated & possibly the others if they have any incoming links. Failing NSONGS doesn't mean a redirect can exist, and song titles are generally considered plausible search terms. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per ThaddeusB. Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Mein Herz brennt"; Redirect the rest to the Mutter album. "Mein Herz brennt" appears to make a claim for notability via its use in commercials, films and shows. The rest should be redirected, although I could see keeping "Adios" and "Zwitter" if more sources can be found. Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being used in films does not notability make. Without evidence of sources to make a solid article, it should currently be redirected (with the other non-disambiguated songs) or deleted. Spellcast (talk) 03:52, 13 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 NAC Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow 4[edit]

Same as a former Arrow 4 logo article that got deleted successfully a few months ago. Georgia guy (talk) 23:50, 6 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. AdjustShift (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Us[edit]

Non-notable film, only red link people involved, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an article about depictions or documentaries on Iraq War. I don't think it should be lost completely but there seems to be insufficient notability for a stand alone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildofMidnight (talk • contribs) 0:26, 7 June 2009
Delete. Fails WP:NF Niteshift36 (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable film. Can't find any logical article to merge this into. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:55, 8 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. While notability has not been firmly established (most sources are blogs, and the reliable sources are not about the subject as such - the PM is questionable), there is enough doubt to say there is no clear consensus to delete. SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Appelbaum[edit]

Contested PROD. My rationale was: No grounds for notability per WP:BIO. Subject was the eighth author on the cited paper on cold-boot attacks, and there is no indication that his contribution to the project was major. No references to any other publications by him. No reliable sources given except the NY Times article (which doesn't demonstrate that he was a major contributor to the described project) and except for other coverage related to the cold-boot paper, no reliable sources with biographical information that I could find.

User:ThaddeusB, who contested the PROD, stated intent to add reliable sources, but until such a time as those sources are added, I stand by my original rationale. ParsnipChips (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — ParsnipChips (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STrong Keep (It might have been nice to at least give me a chance to add the sources I mentioned before sending it here, but oh well). In addition to the coverage about the cold boot research mentioned in the nom (which is pretty extensive), there is lots of other RS coverage of him. Let's start with this in depth interview & this one. The there is this article about his citizen journalism. ZDNET credits him with discovering a major security bug. So does Wired. Credited with uncovering a significant Vista bug. Additional, there is lots of coverage about some MD5 research he was a part of & he is often quoted as a security expert by RS. [1] Finally, perhaps the best source of all: Makes Popular Mechanic's "The Internet's Top 10 Most Controversial Figures of 2008" list --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wikipedia has no deadline --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain, please, how any of the sources you mention indicate that the subject satisfies any of these criteria from WP:BIO?

"Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

* The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

* The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

* The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

* The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries."

ParsnipChips (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see now you are pretty new to Wikipedia, so you might not understand how our guidelines work. WP:N is our primary guideline to establishing notability - the other notability guidelines exist to help clarify unclear cases. To be considered notable, a subject must meet the general notability guidelines or one of specific ones. Put differently, the specific guidelines exists to "bypass" the general one for things that are inherently notable but which sources are hard to find. (Almost) anything is notable if it meets the general notability guideline - "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There are a few exceptions such as WP:BLP1E and AfDs discussion where the consensus is that the subject is too trivial despite minor WP:reliable source coverage (e.g. Internet memes), however the general rule is "RS coverage=notability" and you have offered no compelling reason to ignore this general rule. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it, I've been editing Wikipedia for four times as long as you have. This is not my usual account. I've been assuming that there are no reliable sources that actually confirm the subject's notability (rather than mentioning him as the eighth author on an academic paper), because so far, no one has added them to the article. If you, or anyone else, care to edit the article to reflect the asserted reliable-source documentation, then perhaps I'll see it differently. ParsnipChips (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there is no need to be rude - I could not have possibly known you were using an alternative account (apparently) solely for the purpose getting this article deleted. Second of all, while I do intended to edit the article such is not actually required. Articles should be judged on their potential, not current form. Wikipedia has no deadline. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of those sources are big names. They all assert his notability, especially the PM and Wired stuff, and if the "major security bug" he found can be verified than that is ever more notable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you may be taking WP:BIO at face value, a word-for-word definition of notability. Those are specifically guidelines for helping claims of notability pass or fail. 76.115.39.183 (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently restarting a crashed browser logs you out. :\ That above comment was my own, oblivious to my logged out status. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: He's twice called a photographer, but this isn't elaborated at all. His article appears within the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Some of his photos appear on Flickr. (Some of mine do too.) But how is he notable as a photographer? -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In several of the sources I mentioned above, his photography is mentioned and this one is only about his photography. Additionally, a Google search reveals that there are plenty of people talking about him being a photographer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That google search brings Wikipedia and its scrapes, the man's own sites, and echoes around the blogosphere. The particular page you link to is a bit more interesting but it presents no evidence for the claim that Jacob’s work has been published in newspapers around the world [...]. His work has also been published in or by [...] the BBC, Scientific American -- a claim that's surprising in view of the pleasantly pretty samples that it shows. -- Hoary (talk) 04:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he was only a photographer he wouldn't be notable, but doesn't mean it can't be mentioned in his article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. But the article says he's both a photographer and independent computer security hacker and elsewhere too it puts him forward as a photographer. Now, plenty of amateur photographers are rightly celebrated (e.g. this one) and others merit and get some attention (e.g. this one). But I'd like to see more evidence of acknowledgement of achievements before so boldly describing somebody as a photographer. How about an independent computer security hacker and a keen amateur photographer? -- Hoary (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly I would not object to him being described as a security expert & amateur photographer. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've altered the article; I hope uncontroversially. - Hoary (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article Researchers Find Way to Steal Encrypted Data : New York Times seems to not mention Applebaum; I cannot find any evidence of notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you think 7 sources I listed above (of which the NY Times story wasn't one of them) fail to establish notability? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the PM article ~~-- keep on this basis.~~ The first two do not seem to be more than webzines and the Spiegel article seems more of a mention than being about him. ~~I think the PM ranking article does it though.~~ Per Parsnips arguments below I do not think the PM article does it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PM article says almost nothing about Appelbaum himself and is almost entirely devoted to the cold boot paper, work that was done by a team of eight people. PM's poor editorial judgment in deciding to credit Appelbaum, seemingly arbitrarily, for a collaboration in which he played a small part doesn't have to be replicated here. By the standards of WP:N, the PM article does not address the subject in detail (its focus is on a research collaboration in which the subject played a part; the article does nothing to clarify just what his contribution to this collaboration was, either). ParsnipChips (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who disagrees with this particular reading of the PM article, or with your assessment that they exercised poor editorial judgment and acted arbitrarily--seriously, you think they're that dumb? You claim he played a small part, but the arguments you raised above for that position were not based on anything besides the order of the names in the paper. (To paraphrase: there is no indication that his participation in the project was minor.) BTW, Parsnip, you sure put the S in SPA. Drmies (talk) 03:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed this comment elsewhere in the discussion. As I've said in other comments, it's not a matter of order of names, but that the source didn't document Appelbaum's contribution to the project. As it is, all we can conclude from the sources is that Appelbaum was a member of a team that worked on a certain project and that he was the member of the team who decided to talk to the media. Finally, let's focus this debate on content rather than editors, please. ParsnipChips (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that information necessary for notability? We know he was involved in two papers: cold boot attacks, and MD5, both important papers. How much he did, we can't be sure of without extensive that most would agree we don't seem to have. However, sources we do have portray Mr. Appelbaum as quite the important hacker and security consultant. We know that he's well-known in the sub-culture he's involved with. Obviously he didn't just sit by and watch the others do all the work, and vice versa. But with everything else besides the papers, are those specifics necessary to determine notability? Yes, it's true, more than a few sources only mention his name without expounding upon his content and value to the team, but on that same note, we have plenty of sources that about him specifically, and knowing he was involved among other things seems to confer notability to me. Do we need the specifics? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nom mentions a paper on cold-boot attacks, and it's brought up a bit more in this discussion thus far. Unless I'm mistaken, that would be this. Would this different paper (admittedly, in which he was one of a more than a few authors) be of any use? Apparently it made some waves.[2], [3], [4], [5], and [6]. (Note: a few of those "waves" are blog posts, but from large enough companies that I'd think they meet RS, or similar constaints on blogs. I could be wrong. Still, a couple are press releases as well.) Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mystified by the assertion that being listed as a coauthor on either of these papers is grounds for notability. Out of the nine authors on the cold-boot paper, only two -- Edward Felten and Seth Schoen -- are the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Both of them have other achievements that are independent and verifiable. Of the seven authors on the MD5 paper, again, only two -- Alexander Sotirov and Arjen Lenstra -- have articles. In fact, the article on another author, Benne de Weger, was deleted for non-notability. Would you really argue that all ten remaining authors should have articles devoted to them? ParsnipChips (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No where did I say that this paper closes the case. I merely brought it up as another brick in the wall. One more small note to be made, showing the many things this subject has done. I did not make my decision upon this single paper, and I don't believe anyone else has either. "Would this different paper (admittedly, in which he was one of a more than a few authors) be of any use?" If this were the only case of his presumed notability I could find, then indeed you right. In fact, I might even say you are correct right now as well. Being a co-author on a paper does not make you notable, unless there are many other sources saying you're notable. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 16:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Relevant sources abound. They may be small, almost trivial mentions in some, but the PM and Wired hits seem relevant enough to pass WP:BIO. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, might not be a "clear Keep", however, he seems to have a bit notability and the references seem to be good. SF007 (talk)
Delete I just don't see notability in multiple trivial sources. - Vartanza (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Could you elaborate on why you would call Wired and Popular Mechanics trivial? Both articles are fairly in depth, with the focus on his actions. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 00:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I chose the former. The Wired article says Jacob Appelbaum, who presented a flaw in Apple's File Vault encryption at the 23C3 conference in December, says he was motivated by anger. "Apple doesn't just treat security researchers poorly, they lie to their users," he asserts, revealing a depth of animosity toward the company's security policies many researchers have echoed in recent months. Does it say any more about him? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking deeper at it, you're right: it doesn't mention Mr. Appelbaum any more than that one part. However, I wouldn't call that note trivial. Wired sought to have in that article specifically about Apple's software security, which I think implies his role in that field, a place we can look for any other sources. They also mention the 25C3 Conference, which allows for a greater search radius. I looked around through google and found a good amount of things mentioning him in ways a bit more than trivial name dropping. Possible sources include: [7], [8], and [9]. From what I saw, they give some more info than what most of us have seen already, but I could be wrong. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired isn't exactly known for their serious coverage of any academic field. I'm wondering whether anyone thinks that Wired is a reliable arbiter of who is notable in the field of computer security, or whether it's that they're of the opinion that a mere mention in a mass-market publication confers notability for the purposes of Wikipedia? ParsnipChips (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired doesn't have to be known for its serious coverage of any academic field. And I don't think that anyone here has implied that a (singular) mere mention in a mass-market (or other) publication confers notability even as the term is dubiously used within WP. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be, but I'm wondering what people voting on this debate so far think Appelbaum is notable for. If it's computer security research, surely there ought to be citations that go beyond passing mentions in popular publications? If it's something else, then what? ParsnipChips (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now starts Jacob Appelbaum is a resident of San Francisco, California, and an independent computer security hacker. I don't suppose residing anywhere other than Mir or atop a pole confers notability, but he seems to have won a certain degree of notability as an independent computer security hacker. I shouldn't be surprised if dozens of people with more notability as this still lack articles; the obvious remedy would then be to create some of the latter. (Would you perhaps like to create some yourself?) -- Hoary (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was asking precisely because he doesn't appear to be notable as a computer security hacker, and the only evidence anyone has offered consists of brief and shallow mentions in the mass media, most of which focus on work by a large team of which he was a member, not on his own accomplishments. ParsnipChips (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire articles written about the subject are not "brief and shallow mentions." Wikipedia doesn't decide what is important - reliable sources do. You might think that his contributions are unimportant, but that doesn't matter - the fact that "mass media" thinks he is important means Wikipedia does also. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, finally we've identified the difference of opinion here! Recall that WP:N says "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context. For example, news reports often fail to adequately report methodology, errors, risks, and costs associated with a new scientific result or medical treatment." This guideline, and others, suggest that the purpose of mass media references is to provide details to ground articles in fact. "Wired says Appelbaum is famous, therefore we should have an article about him" is not a valid argument based on WP:RS. "Wired says that Appelbaum made the following significant accomplishment, and makes his individual contribution to it clear, in a way that can be verified with other sources as well" is. But I don't see anyone making the latter argument. ParsnipChips (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought that Appelbaum's notability was academic. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider specifically the paper he wrote on MD5 or some such, then I think this applies: out of a team of eight or so, he is mentioned frequently, albeit briefly, while other names I haven't seen or seen once. Because we see him frequently mention in any source discussing the paper in any detail, that is "a way that can be verified with other sources as well", to quote ParsnipChips. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just can't understand this. If Alice and Bob collaborate on a project and there is no reliable source that clarifies their relative contributions to the result, and if everyone agrees that the existence of the project does not automatically confer notability on both Alice and Bob, but there are a lot of media interviews that talk about the project as a whole and mention Bob to the exclusion of Alice, does that confer notability on Bob without conferring notability on Alice? Why? If the work they did is sufficiently important, then they should both be notable. Is the criterion for notability "person has made an important contribution to their field," or is it "person has spent a lot of time talking to the media about their contributions"? ParsnipChips (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who worked on the paper are as follows:

Alexander Sotirov: Google = [10], [11], [12], [13]

Marc Stevens: Google = [14], [15] (that last one appears to be the result of search function for his name, finding scientific papers he [or someone named Marc Stevens] has authored; take it as you will)

Jacob Appelbaum: N/A

Arjen Lenstra: Arjen Lenstra

David Molnar: Google = [16], [17] (PDF), [18] (that last one may not pass WP:RS, it looks to be a letter of some sort)

Dag Arne Osvik: Google = [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

Benne de Weger: Google = [24], [25], [26]

If that came off aggressive or insulting, I'm sorry. However, I hope this shows that all the participants are relatively notable. Each and every one has at least some reliable sources to attribute to them specifically. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make a point about the other participants, but rather to ask whether the people arguing Keep here think that all of the other participants should also have articles. And as I pointed out upthread, the article on Benne de Weger was already deleted. If the people arguing Keep think that every one of the people in the above list should have articles, and it's just a question of someone having time to write them, then OK. But that's not what I'm seeing. What I'm seeing is the argument that the person who talks to Wired is notable and the people who did the same work but didn't chat with a reporter aren't. And I find that very strange. ParsnipChips (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lot of those people probably could have articles, but that is entirely beside the point. No one is arguing he is automatically notable solely for being an author on that paper. If it was the only thing he ever did, you might have a point, but it isn't. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other grounds for notability being cited. The only cite offered for his "citizen journalism" was a blog post (the spiegel.de) one -- not an RS. ParsnipChips (talk) 00:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I listed 6 sources that had zero to due with the cold boot stuff. Those 6 are a representative sample and hardly exhaustive. This is the last time I am going to say this: the grounds for inclusion is non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources not any specific accomplishment considered in isolation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating over and over that trivial mentions in sources that are mostly not reliable for the domain areas they are covering are non-trivial mentions in reliable sources doesn't make them either non-trivial or reliable. ParsnipChips (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire articles about the guy are not trivial coverage regardless of whether you think the source made a mistake in covering him. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the articles aren't about him. They're about work he was involved in. That the source happened to attach his name to it is incidental. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Popular Mechanics thing? That's a pretty hefty title from a avery influential publication. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said upthread: "The PM article says almost nothing about Appelbaum himself and is almost entirely devoted to the cold boot paper, work that was done by a team of eight people. PM's poor editorial judgment in deciding to credit Appelbaum, seemingly arbitrarily, for a collaboration in which he played a small part doesn't have to be replicated here. By the standards of WP:N, the PM article does not address the subject in detail (its focus is on a research collaboration in which the subject played a part; the article does nothing to clarify just what his contribution to this collaboration was, either)." The question I was trying to tease out is: Are we citing the PM article to document Appelbaum's work? If so, it's the wrong citation, because it doesn't clarify his contribution (we either have to concede that all the coauthors on the paper are notable, or that authorship of this paper is not grounds for notability). Or are we citing the PM article to document that Appelbaum is famous? If so, this strikes me as an application of the "Bob is a celebrity because he's famous for being a celebrity" principle and that's something that I thought Wikipedia tried to avoid. ParsnipChips (talk) 01:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see it (and I may be warping core policies, but I really hope that isn't the case), the AfD discussion process keeps with the idea that notability is guilty (i.e., non-notable) until proven innocent. You prodded the article, and it was contested. It was brought it with the intention to delete the article, but discuss it a bit beforehand. That being said, notability follows the opposite princible: innocent until proven guilty. By creating an article on someone, we are to assume they are notable. People like yourself (and myself) can question that notability, and try and prove the subject non-notable. Then, in the next step it AfD, where those partaking either agree with the nom or do not. In this case, we appear to be at ends. I'm of the opinion that this man is notable, and here are some sources that show he notable, because he is talked about in those sources. Yes, you're right, it would be nice if he was discussed in more detail. Some of the sources only mention him once (like most of the reports on the MD5 paper, or Wired), but others, like the PM piece, are more biographical. Not as biographical as we'd all like, but more biographical than, "Authors: ...Jacob Appelbaum..." Like yourself, I don't want Bob to be a celebrity because he's a famous celebrity; logically, it makes sense, but it adds nothing encyclopedic. However, in this case, we merely need to subsitute "celebrity" for "notable", and citing the PM article makes much more sense, I think. "Bob [Jacob] is a notable [hacker] because he is [was mentioned in mutliple RS's] for being a notable [hacker]." If that skews your point, I'm sorry, but that's how I first thought of it. So, yes: we are using the PM piece to show he is famous. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, for this at Popular Mechanics plus the totality of miscellaneous bric a brac around the web. -- Hoary (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All due respect to ThaddeusB, WP:N is explicit. There is really one simple way to show that something is notable; it must have significant coverage in reliable sources. Multiple instances of insignificant coverage (such as passing mentions) do not satisfy, nor does significant coverage in a single source for a specific instance (which might specifically violate WP:BLP1E). The sources found thus far to establish notability fall short. -- Atama ^chat 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to add that I'm not conceding that the PM article counts as "significant coverage" either; that is debatable since he is only part of the team that is the subject of the article. I am just pointing out that even if one accepts the premise that the PM article alone establishes notability, which has been argued by some on this page, it still does not satisfy WP:N. The prior comment that a single article plus "bric a brac" establishes notability by Wikipedia's standards is false, that was my point. -- Atama ^chat 20:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I would say that I provided 4 sources which are certainly not trivial coverage that should be considered reliable sources. A source doesn't have to be well known to be reliable and I see no reason to assume Guerrilla New Network, Amateur Illustrator, and Spiegel Online are unreliable sources (the fourth source being Popular Mechanics, of course.) Also these are just the first sources I found, and are hardly the entirety of the coverage he as received. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- By the way, the Spiegel Online article linked to was a blog. We also don't assume that sources are "reliable" unless proven "unreliable". More so the opposite. Personally I've never heard of Guerrilla News Network or Amateur Illustrator. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to know why the delete !votes are completely ignoring Appelbaum's contributions to the MD5 exploit and focusing solely on the cold boot exploit. The MD5 exploit (http://www.win.tue.nl/hashclash/rogue-ca/) has gained almost as much attention as the cold boot exploit and Appelbaum is cited as the 3rd author on that paper. (The impact of the discovery is hardly trivial - for example, it caused VeriSign to remove MD5 from their RapidSSL certificates).[27]
Between the MD5 paper, the cold boot one, and a couple other papers Appelbaum is cited on 25 Wikipedia articles alone. And the guy is not even primarily a academic researcher. By my count, at least 40 RS articles reference his opinion (on a variety of topics) as notable security consultant.
Going back to the cold boot article, the deletes seem to be assuming his work on the project was unimportant because he was listed 8th. However, most articles about the subject list him and maybe one or two other if they signal anyone out. The Washington Times says his role was a leading one.[28]. As noted several times, Popular Mechanics gave him the primary credit. If you look at the sources that mention names, it is either Appelbaum or Schoen that get the most mentions, so clearly his role couldn't have been as insignificant as some claim.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"cited on 25 Wikipedia articles alone" -- we don't use Wikipedia articles to gauge notability for the purposes of other Wikipedia articles. As for the MD5 exploit, unless there are substantive reliable sources that document Appelbaum's role in the project, I can't see why that swings things either. Finally, I don't know about the other !voters, but I'm not assuming his work on the project was unimportant. I'm pointing out that there are no substantive reliable sources that show he made a substantial contribution to the project. In addition to the lack of sources, he is listed as eighth author on a paper that doesn't alphabetize its authors. But that's a secondary point. ParsnipChips (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except there are many source that say he had an important role, but you just dismiss them with comments like "PM's poor editorial judgment..." --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment I was asked to comment. As far as i can tell, the usual criteria for researchers do not work very well here, one way or another.The primary notability is part of two joint projects; one very widely known one, the cold boot attack --a famous piece of work, that even I as a non-specialist very much knew about, as I think does everyone else with the remotest interest in the subject, and the MD5 work, which as a non-specialist I did not know about, but which seems sufficiently notable also. The question is evaluating his role in the work. One cannot judge too much by position of authors--there are many factors. One has I think to goby the testimony of those in a position to know,and in this subject I would count not just formally published testimony in the conventional sense, but the informal ways in which people in this subject communicate. There's been a lot of discussion above, but in the end I come down to Keep for two reasons: first, I trust those who have commented on this here, and, more objectively, the fact of having been engaged in both projects is compelling. Normally, as a generalist I don't go too much by experts, but this is one subject where we do have enough experts for them to judge reliably. DGG (talk) 00:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious -- how do you know whether anyone who has commented on this deletion discussion is "in a position to know"? The citations that have been offered (to blog posts and so on) suggest that the people offering them are not "in a position to know". (I'm not an expert in any related subject either. Rather, I don't see sufficient reliable-source citations and I thought that was the usual criterion for keeping an article, not the opinions of whoever happens to see the deletion discussion.) ParsnipChips (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In their very first response, ThaddeusB lists a number of sources, and while some of them individually aren't of the NYT caliber, they add up, as far as I'm concerned, to notability. That these articles and interviews discuss different aspects of Applebaum's career hurts a bit--if all of them focused on that cold boot thing some here might have opined differently. To me, it means that Applebaum does a lot of different things and is recognized as such. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 10 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 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cast and Crew of The Terminator (1984)[edit]

The Terminator article already has an adequate cast/crew section. Can't see how this level of detail is notable e.g. "Cleaning Man at Flophouse" or the various actors who aren't even credited in the film's credits anyway. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Simply duplicates the important information in the main article. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with The Terminator There is nothing about a cast list that warrants an article separate from the film itself. Eauhomme (talk) 04:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't want to see the precedent set for a "Cast and crew of" article about every film ever made. There is a place where one can expound upon all things Terminator, and encourage the author to build that site. I'll leave it to someone else to say "Terminate this article"-- if nobody does, then I'll be back. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 19:16, 10 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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ustad Surjeet Singh[edit]

recreation of article with no improvement to previous iteration, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surjeet Singh (Sarangi) Hekerui (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - forgot the criterion earlier. Hekerui (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough for me. I request editors to please read the areticle rather than basing their opinion based on the "speedy delete" statements from the above editors. A web search reveals multiple sources and as per WP:POTENTIAL this article must be improved rather than deleted. --Tradeempty (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN, playing for All India Radio can show some basic notability to avoid A7, but clearly NOTWP:N. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compost cup[edit]

Contested prod, but patent nonsense which should probably have gone speedily. Speedy Delete. I42 (talk) 18:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. WP:NONSENSE. Pburka (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but doesn't qualify as patent nonsense. (Possible G3, however). Only things showing up for this are you tube videos; 0 gnews hits, most non-wiki ghits are for compostable drinking cups.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - No sources or references, you can be pretty sure this is patent nonsense. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The CSD criteria "Patent nonsense" means that the text is literally incomprehensible, which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A definiton of WP:NONSENSE is "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". I find this to be the case here. For example, you will see that the contest supposedly started in 2007, is run annually, and the 2009 event is yet to take place - meaning there have so far been two such events. This makes the line "it is vital that this foul is kept to a minimum as this is proved year in year out" (my emphasis) patent nonsense. I42 (talk) 07:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patent nonsense specifically excludes poor writing -- seems to me that this is either a case of poor writing or exageration, in which case G3 could apply. Still not speediable as patent nonsense, though.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a speedy-- as pointed out in this debate, these fellows have their own YouTube video [29], although not enough sense to have mentioned it in the article. The page is, essentially, an attempt to be funny by someone who lacks the ability to be funny. Mandsford (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable cup. Giant Snowman 13:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment i believe after researching the page this is a genuine attempt to develop a tournament. doing some research i discovered they have genuine sponsorship and regulations to play. deleting the page would be short minded and restricting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by VeryEgsited (talk • contribs) 20:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — VeryEgsited (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Then feel free to add sources to the article that will help it meet WP:V and WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 9 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. It appears to be in the grey area (consensus-wise) about if the Minnesota Twins league he is part of is a professional league (and thus qualifying Lehmann under WP:ATHLETE). However, as discussed below, there are no reliable sources that myself or other users can find for this player, and because of this, no general notability can be established. ~fl 05:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Lehmann[edit]

Only claim to fame is two low level minor league all-star appearances far from notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. A quick gsearch for Daniel Lehmann and for Danny Lehmann turned up nothing more than passing mentions. Just 13 games at AA so far, which doesn't meet my standard for "fully professional". As for the Single-A all-star appearance, assuming there's as many players on an all-star roster as the regular rosters, each player in the FSL has about a 1 in 6 chance of making the all-star team -- an honor, for sure, but not enough to give notability in the absence of in-depth coverage.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he plays at MLB level. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He's an All-Star minor leaguer who spent this past spring with the Twins. He'll be in the majors in no time.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 23:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. To make a comment like that, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:13, 7 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 extended rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lehmann and the lack of in-depth coverage. ~fl 06:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burnett[edit]

All-Star in 2007 but appears to be non-notable. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Gsearch not turning up notability through in-depth coverage; has just been promoted to AA two days ago, which is not "fully professional" in my book. All-star appearance is an honor, for sure, but it looks like any given Midwest League player has a 1 in 8 chance of making the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Save - He was an All-Star last season and pitched 6 innings of shutout baseball in the second game of the playoffs for the Miracle. He's a great pitcher who will be in the majors shortly. He was already up for deletion once and the decision was save.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous Afd = Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players. Having read the close, I'm a bit confused. Wizardman specifically noted one to keep, one to delete, and didn't make a specific call on the rest. I'm not sure we can assume the call was to keep -- no consensus is equally possible. We might need to ask Wizardman for clarification. (Yet another reason why I dislike these mass noms.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little more poking led me to more information. Wizardman actually closed this one as delete, and Johnny Spasm took it to DRV two days later. A number of commenters there, including the DRV closer, said they felt the close should have been no consensus, not delete. Calling the decision "save" is a bit of a stretch. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, I was new to Wikipedia, and wrote Wikipedia entries for the entire Miracle roster. The only articles that I argued for their restoration were the ones that MET the Notability guidelines. For that matter, I ever reccommended an article I wrote for deletion, Edward Ovalle. I've since made certain that every Miracle I've written an article for met notability guidelines. I know what I'm doing--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not question whether you knew what you were doing, just said that implying the previous AfD ended in "keep" for this player is a stretch.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a stretch? If a trial ends in a hung jury, is the guy who didn't go to jail, and is walking the streets wrong for saying "I was found not guilty"? Bottom line is the consensus was to keep the articles. I put up no argument for the utility infielder or the other players who probably didn't deserve articles in the first place and weren't notable. The ones I argued in defense of were the ones who were truly notable. I've since made sure that I remained within the guidelines that were set as a result of that debate. For that matter, I waited until Cris Cates' second All-Star selection to write an article about him. I learned my lesson a year ago, and my track record in the past year shows that.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the trial ends in a mistrial (which is really the better analogy here), the guy walking the streets because of it certainly wasn't found "not guilty".--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Previous afd failed because the mass nomination was a mess. The minor league player articles did not yet exist at the time. The current consensus is to merge these articles. Spanneraol (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Minor-league players are professional athletes. They are paid a salary to play the sport and are employees of a ballclub. No opinion on this article (yet), just wanted to get that straight. Johnny, please remember to be civil in your comments. Matt Deres (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply While you're right in that they're athletes, it does not necessarily mean they're notable, which I'm sure you know.--Giants27 (t|c) 02:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Further the guideline at WPBB seems more applicable here. I haven't been able to find a decent third-party report on this player and the linked guideline suggests that minor league players are not inherently notable. Weak delete it is, for failing to meet notability. Matt Deres (talk) 02:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Singleton[edit]

A low level minor league all-star, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. Gsearch not turning up notability through in-depth coverage; hasn't played beyond the Single-A level, which is not "fully professional" in my book. All-star appearance is an honor, for sure, but it looks like any give FSL player has a 1 in 6 chance of making the team.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singleton is my personal favorite player on the Miracle. I've seen him play several times, and can say first hand that I believe he'll be the Twins' starting second baseman in no time. He was selected for the All star team by minor league baseball managers two years in a row. That should tell you something.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Miracle is a 100% fully professional team. It isn't even debatable. The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count. He clearly doesn't know what he is talking about.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:11, 7 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 extended rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Lehmann, and fact the news sources about him seen to only look at him on the field (i.e. "Steedley won us the game"), the news sources aren't really about him, they're about the team he is involved in. ~fl 06:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Steedley[edit]

Non-notable low level minor leaguer, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. I've added a ref for a small award, but not seeing much notability out there.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Minor league All Star selections are made by minor league managers. If a guy makes it two years in a row, that should tell you something. Steedley will be in the majors shortly.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: previous AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fort Myers Miracles players.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Contrary to what was said in the other AfD, the Miracle is not a professional team . They are a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of people who say "The Miracle is not a professional team" should not count.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor league teams are professional teams. They pay their players. The issue of the notability of the players is separate from that. But the team is certainly professional. Spanneraol (talk) 13:21, 7 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 Already redirected, afd started by banned user. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Doomsday Zone[edit]

Lacking in WP:NOTABILITY. Sevenagechunt (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - meaning, merge to the games Article if possible, else Delete. Not enough notability or context to stand alone. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as a plausible search term but a subject lacking notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I don't think it needs discussion here - editor should have just reverted un-redirect. I'm going to redirect it. ~ Amory (talk) 14:52, 8 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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Arthur Schwartzmiller[edit]

WP:BLP1E. Subject is only notable for child molestation conviction. لenna vecia 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:42, 7 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. AdjustShift (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Romania Extra 300L crash[edit]

Fails WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N and WP:AIRCRASH. The loss of life was minimal (1), the flight was not commercial, no notable individuals were on board, news coverage lasted at best a day, and there was nothing unusual about the crash. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, probably - nothing to suggest that long term notability exists. Crashes and accidents happen all the time around the world, only one death, not that significant.--Sevenagechunt (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with an article about minor crashes. --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS Niteshift36 (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of lasting importance. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of plane crashes. Sebwite (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list; that title redirects. There is a List of accidents and incidents involving general aviation, but it notes that it "is intended to be a complete listing of those accidents and incidents with Wikipedia articles". It gets an article ar it doesn't get anywhere; probably best as far as GA accidents go as there are so many of them. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pilots crashing in aerobatic aircraft are not that uncommon or notable. MilborneOne (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. was this reported outside Romania or Europe? LibStar (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't reported in the UK that I noticed, and a search on the BBC News website doesn't find any results. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Thryduulf (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Student Television[edit]

The Facebook-like entry on this student club reveals that it is was not broadcast, but narrowcast on the university's closed circuit television system for a couple of years. Now it seems to be viewable on the Internet. There is no sign of any outside interest, awards or anything else for this student club. Deprodded. Joey the Mango (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Joey the Mango (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very limited student endeavor with no evidence of notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost a A7 for no indication of plausible notability. As with many attempted articles on student clubs , emphasis in the article in on which student held which position. I still remember some of my high school and college club elections vividly, as a good preparation for some processes here, but as for putting them in an encyclopedia? DGG (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be found. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even notable locally. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mind-boggling amounts of detail about a minor student TV project. No reliable sources mention it. Fences and windows (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 01:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian-American Association of Detroit[edit]

This article, started in September, is of an organization that does not seem to be notable to me. When I prod tagged it, it was under construction, and the creator's (who had done no work since October) response to my prod tag was to remove it and continue adding details, but no reliable sources.

I want the Wikipedia community's opinion on whether or not it is notable before too much more work is done on it. Careful Internet searches revealed only a few indications that this club exists, but nothing that would be notable. For example, it does not seem to have influenced politics in Detroit, incubated any famous businesses or had any controversies in its 82 years. Joey the Mango (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like an advertisement for a non-notable club. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment has anyone actually searched in newspaper articles over the entire period of the clubs existence? Any Detroit library should have files. To the best of my knowledge, there are none on the internet, but that's not the sum of human knowledge. it is possible that the war-time years in particular might have some material. DGG (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When they only get cursory mention in the book Belgians in Michigan, I think not. (The context is quite peripheral, the subject is a feather bowling club) Joey the Mango (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frequent references to 'we' and 'our club' suggest that either the principle author is too close to the subject for impartiality, or the text was lifted verbatim from the club's publicity. Wavehunter (talk) 16:06, 11 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 --JForget 23:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CIO Vocabulary[edit]

Where to begin....? It's mostly an somewhat random list of terms and definitions that might be useful to someone in a CIO position. No indications at all of why terms might or might not be on the list. In general a big mess, and I really don't see much worth the effort to salvage. TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I declined a speedy on this, but I've been wrestling over whether to prod it myself. If kept, it should be moved to Glossary of CIO terms, cleaned up, and made to conform to MOS:LIST. But then there's the issue of Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lead_and_selection_criteria: "Lists should begin with a lead section that presents unambiguous statements of membership criteria." What unambiguous membership criteria can you state? Without that, I have to say delete.

Delete I put in a G2 tag when this was an exact copy from the sandbox (there was other Sandbox text in the article then) , thinking that the author brought it online ahead of schedule. Looking at it now, I'd still say that. It's a random unreferenced list of words, software names, processes etc. Too broad in score for a list, not article material. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: vaguely defined, potentially unlimited and ultimately unencyclopedic. WP:NOTDIR, WP:LC, WP:SALAT, and so on. — Rankiri (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The WP:OR and general non-encylopedic style is chronic. --Triwbe (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Abce2|AccessDenied 19:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Delete~~ - The lead section appears to infringe the copyright of this eWeek article. Cnilep (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The copyvio seems to be limited to the lead section. I have made the lead section a div and listed the page at WP:Copyright problems/2009 June 7. Cnilep (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete even converted to a proper List this would not do much more than a :Cat. I like the idea of bringing them to a list, but this is not the way to do it, IMO. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:13, 7 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. Jamie^☆S93 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic groups with a larger diaspora population than their countries of origin[edit]

WP:OR by WP:SYNTH (novel categorization/grouping). The list contents are valid (just doing math with cited data) but the topic itself is not citedly notable. There's also no citation for the hypothesized reasons (which are two separate issues: diffusion across border vs longer-distance/more abrupt displacement). Maybe some geopolitical/humanities folks know of some studies of these trends? DMacks (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting topic for an article elsewhere, but not suitable for Wikipedia. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is massive amounts of literature about how the drawing of borders affects ethnic identity, but this is a completely flawed approach based on an imaginary world of pure nation-states. Without a firm definition of which cross-border ethnic groups "belong" to which countries, this is inevitably WP:OR. For example, why should Tajikistan be considered the "motherland" and Afghanistan the "diaspora" for Tajiks? Simply because the former has "Tajik" in its name? Why not Uzbekistan, since the standard language of Tajikistan is based on the Bukhara dialect? And are the non-Persian-speaking Tajiks of Xinjiang part of that "diaspora"? What do you do with ethnic groups like the Nanai people whose urheimat is split across the boundaries of two multi-ethnic countries, in neither of which they are the "titular nationality"? Which Mongolic-speaking groups "belong" to Mongolia? Which Turkic-speaking groups "belong" to Turkey? Et cetera. cab (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more WP:LISTCRUFT in the same vein of this beastie. Please, no more of these, Montemonte. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ethnic "identity" is a very tricky one, and this list just sheds more confusion than knowledge, and inevitably so. No way to do this neutrally and encyclopedically usefully, will constantly be comparing apples and oranges, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 05:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree, it's WP:LISTCRUFT Niteshift36 (talk) 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful list, but add some reference into the list.
Delete. I'd bet Britain has a larger diaspora than its population too. And the Vikings, as they settled in North-East England and Normandy. How far back do we go? This list isn't of much use, as ethnic groups aren't well-enough tracked to cite this information reliably. Fences and windows (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title of the article, refers to an important sociological issue. Kasaalan (talk) 21:45, 13 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. Jamie^☆S93 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Neck Ginger Ale[edit]

another case of an article that should have been CSD being needlessy forced to AFD. Non-notable product made by a non-notable company. Ridernyc (talk) 07:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's not even an assertion of notability, let alone any evidence. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:29, 11 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 redirected to Red Terror. It was a duplicate page in a foreign language, should serve fine as a redirect to the main article. Jamie^☆S93 21:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rode terror[edit]

this is the same hisorical event as described in the article Red Terror. This is not needed twice. Adbo2009 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect. No need for an AFD. Pburka (talk) 18:02, 6 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. Jamie^☆S93 20:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanera avenue[edit]

Non-notable local street. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A street doesn't become notable just because a member of a notable band lived there once. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is a run-of-the-mill two-block residential side street, as seen here. Sebwite (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone else commenting before me. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Banter Magazine[edit]

New magazine with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Gsearch not turning up notability for this one (and possibly another one of the same name). WP:COI issues don't help; borderline G11 speedy deletion candidate. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wasn't able to find any signs of notability. A more specific Google search for "Banter magazine" "Island's Best Magazine" OR Chimpy showed no results, which leads me to believe that the whole thing may be a hoax. — Rankiri (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Insufficient notability for new magazine (that may or may not be verifiable). ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:48, 7 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 both. Jamie^☆S93 20:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Creature Comforts[edit]

The only real indication I see of notability is "Band of the year" from what appears to me to be a local award. This just does not meet notability requirements in my eyes, sorry. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing the one album from then as well. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 the band, then A9 the album. No notability asserted at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Fails notability all around. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:53, 7 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 NAC - speedily deleted per A7 by Jimfbleak.. ukexpat (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arian Al-Moghimi[edit]

Terrorist/Freedom fighter (depeding on your point of view). But not notable as not high ranking, WP:ONEEVENT Passportguy (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dying in battle doesn't automatically infer notability to soldiers/terrorists/freedom fighters. Pburka (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, getting killed is no assertion of notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC),[reply]

Speedy delete per A7, so nominated. ukexpat (talk) 02:59, 8 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. Jamie^☆S93 15:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua_Fourrier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Joshua Fourrier

Delete. Notability not established. Author is responsible for one article, this one. The article lacks any meaningful information, is orphaned, and clearly was written by the subject as an autobiography. Notability is the key issue here. I can't find any information in this individual beyond personal pages on MySpace. The career in radio and television seems to have eluded any notable sources Prop21 (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article was vandalized by an IP a while back - here and here, I have now reverted those edits. I haven't done any search for notability yet. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I had noted the previous versions when I nominated. The article is autobiographical. The author, "AirAzonaRadio," has only done one article - this one - and it's got personal information that is uncited and unverifiable. The links provided on previous edits are either the subject's own creation or links to web sites that make no mention of the subject. In that regard, it could violate WP:NPOV in addition to WP:NOTE.--Prop21 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Insufficient notability for this self-promotional article on subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Salting is hardly called for here. -- Banjeboi 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Where was the New Page Patrol when we needed them? Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with WP:Heymann clause if notability and sourcing issues are addressed. I made a quick look for online sources and found pretty much nothing. Perhaps there is a name mispelled or some other circumstance but I'm not seeing a reason to keep here. -- Banjeboi 01:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did a quick search on Google for "Joshua Fourrier" and got nothing other than this article. I did another search for "Josh Fourrier" (not Joshua)and got some stuff, but it looks like it was all self-published. A MySpace search revealed the guy does, indeed, live in Arizona and his name is spelled "Fourrier" just like the article. I think misspelling is not an issue, here. The article is all-too-common: Aspiring radio and/or television performer who created his/her own page on Wikipedia as a blatant form of self promotion. The network he is claimed to have been on, "Air Azona Radio" I can find no information on other than with this guy's name attached, mostly YouTube videos that he loaded. The television show was claimed to be on Free Speech Television, which does exist and is public access television but there's no record on their web site of it existing, but then again it's public access. Look at the article's early history...it was clearly created by a Wikipedia amateur who hasn't done anything on Wikipedia since...then it was semi-cleaned up by various users and bots. This was a drive-by new article, if you want my honest opinion...original author completely abandoned it. My vote remains delete.--Prop21 (talk) 16:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think it's a hoax as much as someone who actually did some cool public access TV at a very young age. Had they also done the publicity to land articles in pront this would be a different story. As such this will be great background for if and when they do become notable according to sourcing. Seems a snow delete to me. -- Banjeboi 01:10, 13 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 it has been changed back to a redirect. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 19:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadbury Wispa Gold[edit]

A tag for proposed deletion was added to this page, however the creator changed it to a hangon (despite this not being valid for a prod. This page does not need to exist in its current form as the information listed (all two sentences of it) already exists in the Cadbury Wispa article. This page should be deleted, or at the very least changed back into a redirect. It was changed into a redirect before, but another editor took it upon themselves to revert back into a useless article. magnius (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see a need for redirect either. Totally non-notable product. Just because it exists doesn't mean it warrants an article. Quantpole (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Not a useful redundancy and not a useful redirect. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually keeping as a redirect would be fine. Perhaps protection of that is in order. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a reasonable redirect. The editor problems need to be dealt with separately.--RadioFan (talk) 16:58, 8 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. 69.X and Cool3 make good arguments that this baseball player is notably short. Some people weren't moved, but no attempt was made to refute this claim. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 20:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Chris Cates[edit]

minor league athletes fail WP:ATHLETE which requires playing at the "fully professional" level. Minor league players with no other notability do not meet this standard. This team is two levels below the majors. Note the caption on his picture. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the minor leagues are "fully professional," and plenty of minor league players have their own pages. All of those players listed as all-stars on Cates's page have their own pages as well. If you want to nominate all of these minor leaguers for deletion, you will have a lot of nominating to do. The caption should be removed but that's beside the point. As the minor leagues are "fully professional," by the listed standard, minor league players should be eligible. Also, that league is three levels below the majors, so I question your knowledge of minor league baseball. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would argue that making a minor league All-Star team is considered "notability." I've added a citation mentioning his all-star selection. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That other minor leaguers have pages is not a valid argument. They may need deleted too. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and why aren't you signing in? I checked and minor leaguers are not considered meeting WP:ATHLETE unless they are otherwise notable, like moving on to the majors. Good, three levels below majors, even less notable. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "signing in" because, uh, I don't have an account to sign into. Those pages listed all survived an AfD before, and I found a discussion from two years ago where there was some agreement that a minor-league all-star was notable. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should only apply in cases where there are a handful of bad articles. These are all well-sourced and there are many, many examples of minor league baseball players (particularly high round draft picks) or even college players who have pages. By the definitions in WP:ATHLETE, college basketball players and college football players are not notable. Do you really want to open up that can of worms? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge somewhere. As per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Athlete_notability, a quick gsearch is not turning up notability. Lots of passing mentions (I added one of those to the article), but nothing of substance. The highest level he's reached is single-A ball, one of the lower ranks of the minor leagues -- many editors (myself included) do not consider this to be fully professional. There is also no general consensus that minor league all-star appearances without corresponding in-depth coverage automatically confer notability. Naturally, if someone turns up sources that will make this pass WP:GNG, I'll gladly change my mind. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found quite a few notable Google hits, actually, such that when I typed in Chris Cates it suggested Chris Cates Twins, Chris Cates baseball, and Chris Cates Louisville as search options. Quite a few of the hits involved the fact that Cates is the shortest player in pro baseball and was the shortest player in college baseball, but being notable for his stature in addition to his baseball abilities doesn't make him any less notable. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Striking my previous !vote because of two of the three sources added by 69.253.207.9, which are actual articles about Cates, rather than passing mentions. I'd still like to see a bit more than these -- feel free to add them. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just nommed some more of these, all except for some exceptions should be deleted.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, nominate most of the individual pages for the players listed in 2008 Major League Baseball Draft that haven't gone past A ball. The number 1 draft pick is surely notable and Pedro Alvarez for the controversy that surrounded his signing, but none of those other players are any more notable than the minor league all-stars nominated for deletion. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's been playing professional ball for three years and has been an All star for the last two. Sorry he didn't make it while he was in rookie ball. There's no question this article deserves to be kept. I wouldn't have written it two days ago if I didn't think so.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players per standard procedure. Spanneraol (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Miracle is a minor league team. Minor league players don't qualify under WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niteshift36 has stated in several other "Article for deletion" entries that he believes they should be deleted because "The Miracle is not a professional team.". To make a comment like that, he clearly doesn't know what he is talking about, and his opinion has no merit.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He may fail the fully-professional requirement of WP:ATHLETE, but I believe that Cates passes the GNG with his other claims to notability. In particular, being the smallest Division 1 baseball player (incidentally, in many sports playing in NCAA Division 1 is considered to satisfy WP:ATHLETE as "the highest amateur level of a sport") and the shortest player in pro baseball. The fact that this is documented with independent news stories (rather than just stats sites) further demonstrates a pass of the GNG. He's been featured in Sports Illustrated [30]. He's been on CSTV [31]. He was interviewed on ESPN First Take [32]. Whether or not he meets WP:ATHLETE he's been featured all over the media; that satisfies the GNG (even if the attention is just because of its height). Cool3 (talk) 04:15, 9 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. Jamie^☆S93 14:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Anding[edit]

Unsourced article - I've tried to find any mention of this purported former England national team footballer, but have failed. Although his career was a while back, I still find it rather unusual that there is absoultely nothing to be found. So this may well be a hoax Passportguy (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - so clearly a hoax. England U21 team? During WW2? U21 team came into existence in the mid 70s according to it's wiki page! Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - can find no mention of him, plus his "stats" would make him by far Englands highest capped player and goalscorer 81.96.65.76 (talk) 13:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete and utter hoax! Giant Snowman 13:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - total bollocks, not a word of truth in it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I assume this article was written in the middle of a dairy farm, cos I'm getting a strong whiff of BS from it. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AdjustShift (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telesio - Galilei Academy of Science[edit]

Vanity article about unnotable pseudoscience web organization with no reliable secondary sources Mathsci (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any decent sources (hits seems mainly to be about their annual 'awards', but there isn't coverage in reliable sources), no news hits either. The whole organisation looks slightly odd. It is stated on the website to be at the 'University of Pecs' in Hungary, when the article says it is a British organisation, and I can't find any reference to it on the University website. Quantpole (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party sources at all that I can find; only blog discussions etc by those connected with the group. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A search turns up blogs, Youtube, etc, but nothing that meets our criteria. I see that despite the address in Hungary the website says 'The Academy is based in Croydon'. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Against Deletion[edit]

I am getting totally confused the meaning of this magic word Notability here. Why are you pushing this so hard? There are hundreds of article without any google hits. On the other hand why is the google is the judge in notability issues by chasing hits?

Answering to Quantpole who has been so kind to check up on Hungary but must be accidentally missed this page [[33]] I pretty much believe this address can qualify as British: Airport House, Purley Way, Croydon, Surrey, CR0 0XZ UK.

I would like to use this guidance in our case Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations

1. As above mentioned Hungary and UK can be considered as international scale of activity, hopefully in your eyes as well.
2. Notability: I believe you are missing an important part. This is not about the organisation on the google, this is about the absolutely stunning minds at this organisation. They are helping and supporting each other within the framework of this Academy. We are still actively working on building up the article but you make this almost impossible to finish. Wikipedia seems very far from its principle as The Free Encyclopedia

As you have found the awards. I also would like to ask you to devote some time and check who are those people at the award ceremony. I believe you can find some reliable person including Nobel laureate winners and so on.

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

Why is this massive fight against this organisation? Where does it come from? This is a non profit organisation which has absolutely no political or commercialise goals. Devoting massive amount of money from private sources to support scientists from all over the world. I believe none of you have read the aims and goals section of the article.

I would like to address you: Why Wikipedia treats us like criminals? Is it really a crime that we are lack of some google sources. So to make it simple no matter how much good this Academy can provide to the whole world, and to the science world without this current third party issue the Academy has to be deleted??? Why?

I am absolutely sure you could make this page stay. It is just a matter of point of view. I need you think about outside the box. If you want to you can let this article to evolute into a great Wikipedia article but we need more time. Please do not bother to answer unless you do not use your third party sources google wildcard.

Thank you for your time --Webmaster6 (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your repeated use of the first person plural "we" and "us" reflects that you are closely associated with this institute, correct? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think your definition of notability and word as used in Wikipedia jargon are different. From WP:Notability, "Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article." Also from the sub-article on organizations, "Notability applies to individual topics, not a topic's overarching classification or type. For instance, the notability of a parent topic (of a parent-child "tree") is not inherited by subordinate topics, nor is notability inherited "upwards", from a notable subordinate to its parent. If a topic is notable, there must be verifiable evidence that it independently satisfies the general notability guideline." In effect, this means that it doesn't matter how notable the people are who are in the organization, the organization by itself must be satisfy notability requirements. Practically, the effect of the rule is that in order to demonstrate notability, reliable, independent secondary sources about the subject must be found. Find those, and this article should pass the deletion.

Reliable, independent secondary sources are important. For one, they prove the subject exists and is what it claims to be. People make stuff up, going so far as to create fake webpages, blog entries, etc. to give the illusion that something exists. Without reliable, independent secondary sources, how is anyone going to know if this organization is in fact real? Another purpose of the notability rule is to keep Wikipedia from filling up with articles about every person's cat or school club. You are going to need to prove that "outsiders," i.e. people or organizations, preferably notable themselves, who are not part of this organization have cared enough about it to write something about it: that way they serve as reliable, independent, secondary sources. It may just be that the organization currently hasn't attracted enough attention so the sources don't exist yet. When the organization has attracted some attention and there are reliable, independent, secondary sources to prove it, recreate the article and cite them. Until then it will be deleted. Sifaka ^talk 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. You put this parent child topic relationship in a very strange angle for me. In my interpretation an Academy is an intangible asset. The Academy is nothing without its members. How you can describe an organisation without its individuals. I believe it is nonsense. We can prove every single member of the Academy as a reliable source. For example

Franco Selleri [34].
From China, Chen-I-Wan [35]
Michael Duffy, he is the organizer of one of the most important conferences that has taken place eleven times at Imperial College, London and now extended to Moscow Technical University (Bauman) and to the Calcutta Mathematical Society . See [36]
Lawrence Paul Horwitz [37]

The Academy can provide thousands of publication by the members but we need more time. All I am asking why cannot you just put on the tag this article cites few sources please improve it??

The Academy has got associated institutes on an international scale, absolutely independent reliable secondary sources. What is the reason that Wiki cannot except that? Why can be the Academy on the Hungarian wikipedia without even a single problem?

I would like to ask you to tailor the WP:Notability rule for this case as a non profit organisation and share with me only that part that applies here. I think this parent child topic does not apply in this case. I need to know what would satisfy the notability rule, by examples? What kind of article or information that you are looking for on the google about this Academy? Please give me some concrete examples that you would accept. Thank you for your cooperation. --Webmaster6 (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you say, the academy is nothing without its members then there is no need for an article on it: articles on its notable members would be quite sufficient. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please if you are not able to answer my questions at least do not twist my words. I came here for help and do not assume any wild or nonsense thoughts. Just think for one minute if these "notable" minds are formed an Academy what they are capable of. It is definitely worth to notice. I am certain I can get your information but I do not know what you need. Thank you. --Webmaster6 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example, French Academy of Sciences is known to be notable (in the sense used in Wikipedia), as there are many books (reliable sources - written and published by someone who is reputed to be reliable in such area) written about it by writers who are independent of it (they are not its members, they are not its employees, etc.). Google Book search with "Académie des sciences" finds books like "Science and social status: the members of the Academie des sciences 1666-1750" by David J. Sturdy, "Royal funding of the Parisian Académie royale des sciences during the 1690s" by Alice Stroup, "Specialist control: the Publications Committee of the Académie royale des sciences (Paris), 1700-1793" by James Edward McClellan... Thus we can write an article about French Academy of Sciences by making a summary of those sources. And now - are there any similar sources about organisation in question? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources and searching yields no potential (as noted above). Also what's with the music on the homepage? That isn't helping at all. meshach (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is getting nowhere but I wonder why since there should be no argument and this possibility of deletion should never have arisen. I would like to know first what Mr Spackman thinks he's up to? In fact, who is Mr Spackman and how is he in a position to cause this pointless furore? If he's so desperate for 'notability', simply go to the main Telesio-Galilei web page, click on the 2009 medal ceremonies feature and then click on the invitations item. You will see with no further problem that Telesio-Galilei is represented at the major Yalta conference mentioned, Telesio-Galilei's founder and preseident are listed amongst the co-chairmen (alongside a Nobel prize winner), and a number of its gold medals for 2009 are to be awarded at that meeting. Is this the situation of a non-serious scientific organisation? I think not! If you, Mr Spackman, feel this insufficient evidence of 'notability' then I have to say you must be following an agenda of your own of which I know nothing. Faithdd (talk) 11:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The organisation is virtual. There are no secondary sources showing it exists beyond its website. For the same reasons, notability seems impossible to establish by the normal criteria of wikipedia. It seems to have been created by Francesco Fucilla and his cronies, who again have no notability in science. Wikipedia is not a mirror for fringe/pseudophysics websites. Francesco Fucilla seems to be connected with a company - steriwave.plc - which purports to be able to use an irretrievably flawed grand unified theory of physics to facilitate interstellar travel. Since he seems to have been the force behind the writing of the article, it's very hard to take it seriously, even with all the attempted name-dropping. Mathsci (talk) 12:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Faithdd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is undoubtedly a WP:SPA sockpuppet/meatpuppet account and could be indefinitely blocked if this turns out to be the case. Mathsci (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely NO name dropping on my part. If you check out the link I have given, you will readily find that what I have said is true. If being linked with such a prestigious scientific event in Yalta is not sufficient for establishing notability of a genuine scientific organisation then, as I said previously, you must be following an agenda unknown to the remainder of us.

As for your remarks about 'sockpuppet/meatpuppet account', I have no idea what you mean. These are genuine points made by someone becoming more and more disillusioned with the reliability and fairness of Wikipedia itself. I do hope I'm proved wrong on this last point.Faithdd (talk)

Probably you need to read WP:DUCK. Mathsci (talk) 23:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination for deletion was not made by me—see [38], —and I have not voted on it. I am quite relaxed about the article staying, if the organisation’s notability is established, or about its going if it’s not. Ian Spackman (talk) 12:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remain perfectly relaxed about the article staying, if the organisation’s notability is established, but it looks less and less likely that that will happen, given the time that its supporters have had to meet the rather minimalist notability guidelines. So I guess it is time for me to cast my vote.

Delete: no notability established through citatations of even marginally reputable third-party sources. Ian Spackman (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as seconder to the PROD on 31 May. At the time I could find no third party WP:RS material on this organisation and I have been no more successful today. Ian has been more than patient with repeatedly explaining on the talk page what was required in the way of sourcing over the past two weeks and nothing other than diatribes have resulted. I think enough is enough and it is now time to delete. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An academy science that was funded in 2007, not recognized or sponsored by any notable body, that started awarding 11 gold medals the year after the fundation.

I look at the only source that could arguibily pass WP:RS and show notability (the BBC article turns out to be apparently only for the area of Wales and written by a person that is related to this academy (Myron Evans, as commented by Mathsci) so it's not an independient third-party source (he's chairman and fellow of the academy and he received one of the awards of that ceremony)...

This academy needs way more independient coverage before it can pass WP:N. I suggest in good faith and good intentions that the authors talk to the academy members (if they know them) and try to coordinate efforts to get the academy to appear at sources that satisfy WP:RS' "independient third party sources" thing, and that they try again when that happens. Also, the authors will want to look at WP:ORG for "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" and all the explanations given there about how to pass WP:ORG. At this moment, the academy doesn't really qualify, so good luck for the next time when the academy has received more coverage and you can list it here to give it another try. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability[edit]

Media coverage in China and North America of The Telesio Galilei Academy award winner 2009

I looked up the last. Wonderful—that really does help. To quote from the link, on Jiang Chun-xuan’s gold medal award: “his greatest achievement lies in proof of Fermat’s last theorem.” If that is true then clearly you should add that fact to the article on Fermat’s last theorem. For some reason Mr. Jiang seems not to be mentioned there. Ian Spackman (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Webmaster6 (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first two links have colour pictures of Fancesco Fucilla, who funds the prizes and website and also edits the article and talk page. The only mention in the British press of anything connected with this academy is the proposal for an unaccredited Myron Evans University (MEU) when it was declared illegal by the Welsh assembly. [39] This virtual institution, now rebranded as the Maxwell-Einstein University [40], is affiliated with Fucilla's virtual organization. It is quite amazing what can be put on websites. Francesco Fucilla is professor of geoscience and the history and philosophy of science at this private unaccredited and possibly non-existent university which grants Ph.D.'s apparently. Mathsci (talk) 14:38, 10 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. WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lob ball[edit]

WP:NEO violation Disembrangler (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: falls under WP:MADEUP. — Rankiri (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails our verifiability policy. Google hits on "lob ball" appear to describe a baseball/softball variant unrelated to the game the article describes. Sorry, but you can't just make up a game and stick it on Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MADEUP, WP:V, WP:N and WP:NEO. Highest Heights (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Madeup. I think it's high time that a CSD:Madeup policy is created, at least for things like this which say In 9/10/08 it was made. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's been suggested and rejected several times at WT:CSD. If a subject can't be verified then it still needs a few more eyes on it to make sure others can't verify it either. IMHO "blatant unverifiability" should be grounds for "snow delete" at AFD but not "CSD". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would work better on YouTube. I get the idea of playing on a court that is divided lengthwise into three sections, and each side has to stay out of the middle third. The obvious problem is that if sportscasters keep saying "third" it will eventually sound like "turd" (He stepped out of his tird and into da middle tird before da ball went into da opposite tird so da trow dudn't count..) In fact, I guarantee it will go viral if you can have the narrator say "turd" as much as possible while describing the action. Mandsford (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP. The rules make a little more sense on this one than most new games on Wikipedia, but that does not make it any more notable. Eauhomme (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MADEUP. Note: the edit summary of the first edit (i.e. when it was created) reads, "Raised awairness on homemade game". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:57, 7 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 Samuel Weems. The content can still be deleted or BLP-improved from there if the consensus of that article's editors so determines. Sandstein 06:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia: The Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State[edit]

There is very little assertion of notability about this book, and article appears to be more of a coatrack. The only sources are from an American Armenian lobbying group and an online book review from a pro-Turkish think-tank (the other link is dead). The book does not appear to have had significant sales or have had significant media coverage. All I can find are passing references (as in "Samuel Weems, the author of 'Armenia the Great Deception (Secrets of a "Christian" Terrorist State)'") which don't actually discuss the book itself. Seems only to have been noted by obscure blogs or interest groups on either side of the debate. Dominic·t 12:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blatantly non-neutral negative review of a non-notable book. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WorldCat shows not one library holding it and there seems to be no possible reasoning to establish notablity such as in-depth coverage in reliable sources or any of the measures of WP:BK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawn Some (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be useful to understand that this book is part of a genre of Genocide denial. Although it is nor read in the west, in Turkey Weems was something of a minor celebrity. His book was translated into Turkish and Russian. It is cited fairly widely cited in Turkish. After all, Turkey is a country with a government-agency for the promotion of denial of the Armenian genocide. That agency paid for the translations and distributes the book to school and university libraries in Turkey. MAny Turks surf the web. I actually think it is an act of civic responsibility for Wikipedia to make accurate information about, for example, the Armenian genocide available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.35.50 (talk) 14:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with both the NPOV (and possible BLP) concerns, but fundamentally, there's no assertion here that this book is notable. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a broader perspective. This man is widely read in Turkey and in Turkish, where readers are told that he was an american JUDGE and where a government ministry promotes his work as valid history.160.39.35.50 (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs some work and better sources, but seems notable enough to me.--Amethystus (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the author to unify the content. DGG (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge albeit the title of the article may be quite telling... Atabəy (talk) 01:06, 10 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. Guess I'm splitting the baby. THINGS has improved markedly, and is notable. Mr. Gillis, however, does not appear to make the mark, and litttle of the "keep" discussion here tried to make the case that he does. Delete Barry J. Gillis. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THINGS (1989)[edit]

Non-notable movie. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. I wonder who the author might be. The film is not notable even for how terrible it is and it doesn't seem to have the large fan base claimed in the article as the only possible reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Mr. Gillis sounds like a creative and interesting fellow but he has not yet achieved notability and Wikipedia is not the proper route to fame. Drawn Some (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry J. Gillis has been on radio shows, and national televison, he is the author of 4 books of poetry, and a novel as well. THINGS (1989) has been featured in THEY CAME FROM WITHIN, A History of the Canadian Horror Cinema, and stars porn star Amber Lynn. The movie is reviewed extensively on the internet on various sites, and has played at the South African Horror Festival. It has been featured in magazines such as Rue Morgue, and various other magazines. The movie is also considered a classic movie as it is 20 years old. It is featured on the Internet Movie Data Base, (IMBD) and has a worldwide following. Just because you never heard of the film, or because you think the film is small, has no bearing on whether the article should be included on WIKI.

Wiki is an encyclopedia about truth, and has nothing to do with trying to gain anyone fame as the other author who wants this deleted suggests.

Amber Lynn was one of the biggest stars of the 1980's in the porn industry, if not the biggest female porn star, and this makes the movie notable as well.

It is obvious from the person who has expressed their desire to have THINGS 1989 deleted that he is not a fan of the movie, but if you read the message closely, this person has obviously seen the movie.

There is nothing in the article on THINGS (1989) stating that it has a massive fan base, it states that it has a cult following, and if you look up the meaning of cult following on wiki, you will see what it means.

The person who wrote to have THINGS (1989) deleted from WIKI is bias in their message thereof, and what this person writes should have no bearing on a movie that has been released in 1989 on VHS, and then again last year on DVD.

One may not like PLAN 9 FROM OUTTER SPACE by Ed Wood, however, it is still a part of filmmaking history.

THINGS (1989) should not be deleted because of someones bias, and subjective thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) 12:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — Barryjedmonton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I completely disagree that THINGS (1989) and Barry J. Gillis should be deleted from WIKI. Although I neither a fan of the movie nor a fan of Barry J. Gillis, both entries are notable in the scope of North American Cinema, and the outspoken Gillis, who I have had the opportunity of interviewing myself one time, also has an interview site on the net, and has interviewed the original director of THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, Mr. Tobe Hooper (which by the way TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE was a favorite movie of Spielberg) for an upcoming documentary on low budget films. http://www.AFTERDARKINTERVIEWS. Like the man or hate him and his movie THINGS (1989), it cannot be denied that the man and the movie are notable. Just my two cents on the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 13:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Sorry, I should have indicated that the standards we use to judge notability in this instance are at WP:NF. Notability has a particular meaning at Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Drawn Some. I find myself defending inclusion of a movie that I am not particularly fond of myself, but I believe what I am really defending is the history of film, which I happen to be a critic of myself, and this is the only reason that I am defending THINGS (1989), as it is not one of my favorite films, however it does deserve inclusion, and after I go over the requirements as you have kindly let me know about as I am very new to this, (although I have used wiki in my research many times), I would appreciate for the sake of the history of film that you would change your mind to have the movie included as well as Mr. Gillis because it seems to me that this is only the right thing to do, especially after I have looked over the notability requirements that you have directed me to look over.

I am not sure if you have the power to change your decision and I really do not have much of a clue as to how all of this works, however the film is notable. Like I say, I am not a big fan of the film, but the movie is notable, and it is wrong not to include the film in the wiki data base. It meets the minimum requirement of wiki requirements, and surpasses the requirements as well. So where someone is saying that it is not notable, it is because in their own sphere they have never heard or may not know much about the film, and this is no reason to be bias against a film.

1. The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics.

THINGS has been reviewed by many movie critics, and it has been featured in alot of horror and low budget movie books that I collect and read. There is more about the movie on IMBD.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0183881/ and the trailer is on you tube as well as other info on the movie.

2. The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:

Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release.

There is two pages devoted to the movie in the book I have here THEY CAME FROM WITHIN, A History of Canadian Horror Cinema, where it is sited as the WORST CANADIAN MOVIE EVER MADE. Here are just a few sites that I found. http://www.canuxploitation.com/review/things.html http://www.oh-the-horror.com/page.php?id=370 (http://www.dansemacabre.pl/teksty/43.html Interview in Polish, from some magazine in Poland with Barry J. Gillis, and Andrew Jordan) There was a review of the DVD in Rue Morgue Magazine last year that I know of.

The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release.[3] I know the film has been reviewed in many horror magazines, and throughout the internet as well.
The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was originally released to the North American Market in 1989 on VHS, and was re-released on DVD, including a reunion of cast and crew, and behind the scenes of Amber Lynn.

This is 20 years after its initial release.

THINGS (1989) Screened at the SOUTH AFRICAN HORROR FESTIVAL LAST YEAR, and this is almost 20 years after its release. http://shadowrealminc.com/horrorfest/2008horrorfest.htm

The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema.

3. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking.[4]

I know it has not recieved any awards, although it is often sited as the worst movie ever made and released. It's worse than Plan 9 from outter space.

4. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive.[5] When I interviewed Gillis about 8 years ago he told me that the movie was in the National moving Archives in Canada.

5. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program.

From what I see, the film does meet the requirements, and I have only listed a few references that I personally know about the film.

As a critic of film, and especially horror films, I will tell you without a doubt that THINGS (1989) does deserve inclusion on wiki, and I would hope that for the sake of film history, and for the sake that it does meet and exceed the minimu requirements that it is included.

Geez, I cannot believe that I have spent this much time defending a feature film that is not one of my favorite films, although for alot of people it is their favorite movie. I meet people who enjoy and love the film all of the time.

Here's the official site for the movie as well. http://www.THINGS1989.com

I think I have to go and pop a few Aspirins after defending a movie that is no where near the top of my list,lol, although it does deserve inclusion. It's a wonder that it has not been included on wiki in the past.

I also would like to thank you again Drawn Some for replying to my message and letting me know the requirements. I have a few movies in mind that are not on wiki right now, and I will include them in the future.

Thanks Again, and I would hope that you would actually vouch for the inclusion of the movie, THINGS (1989)

How does this all work Drawn Some?

Let's say that I put a movie up on wiki for inclusion that i notice is not in the data base, and then someone says it should be deleted, and then there is a discussion,etc,etc. Who makes the final call on these kinds of matters?

In any event, thanks again, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 14:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both. Having a website, being reviewed, being screened as a film festival and being used on film school course do not meet the bar for notability. Having a porn actress star in the film is not notable. Likewise writing a bio and filling it with bluelinks to notable people and events does not make that person notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And who are you to say that this is so???? You should go over the guidelines yourself for inclusion because THINGS (1989) not only meets the guidelines, it exceeds the minimum requirements. So you should do your homework Darrenhusted before you type the nonsense that you just typed. There are films on Wiki that don't even deserve to be their based upon the guidelines that I have read. THINGS (1989) meets the guidelines.

What is Wiki anyway??? A place where somebody has to keep fighting for an entry until everyone gives up and just lets it be included???

Is this how it works???? I'm starting to think this is how it works, and you are wrong Darrehusted, it meets the guidelines, and exceeds them. As I say, go and do your homework BIGBOY... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 16:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americanmoviecritic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, User:Americanmoviecritic removed User:Darrenhusted's delete vote with this edit here. I have restored the previous version. Matt Deres (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to remove Darrenhusted request for deletion, I am new to Wiki, and I apologize for this action.

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

~~Delete both~~Updated below. Both articles are so difficult to read and figure out what's important. And there's absolutely nothing from RS that I could find. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're telling me that the INTERNET MOVIE DATA BASE is not a reliable resource????

Hard to read??? What's your level of education, grade 2???

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Americanmoviecritic[reply]

Knock it off, now. Insulting people during an AfD is a sure-fire way of getting blocked. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a link to THE ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARDS classification ratings is not reliable either, and although their is not a link for it, THINGS was reviewed in Variety many years ago.

I think that alot of you have nothing better to do with your lives than to make other people feel miserable.

There is enough reliable resources for the movie THINGS (1989), alot of you are just biased towards horror movies, that is quite evident to see.

There is no way that you checked all of the links and resources to make such a comment spaceman. I think your brain is in outter space...

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

I recieved your warning, but don't you think other people should be warned for their insults? I find it insulting that Spaceman says that none of the sources are reliable. This is very insulting especially when I know as a fact that certain resources such as imbd do not list anything without a movie being reviewed in the Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and other various sources. imbd has strict guidelines for what they include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanmoviecritic (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a world of difference between someone saying that IMDb isn't a reliable source (which it isn't at times) and saying that someone has the education of a second-grader. The fact that you can't distinguish between the two is unfortunate, but regardless, you need to knock off the personal attacks or find somewhere else to spend your time. This is not negotiable. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but willing to be convinced otherwise - if enough convincing evidence is placed on the table. There are no references given for any of the statements in the Barry Gillis article, but the novel does appear to exist.It does not appear to be notable, however, as so far as I can find it is self-published. It appears to have been published through lulu.com (a self-publishing site) but is not available there now. It seems to be available elsewhere as a .pdf download. I would assume the poetry is also self-published. What appear to be the titles are rather confusing. (Possibly I am missing something there - I've just emerged from a discussion of amendments to amendments to proposals.) As to the film, I quote: "Up until August 22nd, 2008, the only way to see Things was on VHS if you could even find a copy. Left Field Productions in association with Cinema Sewer released a limited edition 19 and a 1/2 year anniversary edition DVD (available from the film's official website)." http://www.oh-the-horror.com/page.php?id=390 That doesn't suggest a very wide distribution (albeit wider than that of the filming I have been involved with...). The article I quoted does mention a cult following - but it only takes three to form a cult. I would echo Evula's comments, and add that histrionics don't count for much here - not as far as positive outcomes are concerned. Evidence and rational discussion do. Peridon (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep despite the strong case being made by User:Americanmoviecritic to delete. The movie is verifiable and the reviews linked to do appear to be legitimate, borderline reliable sources. The film has been reviewed and shown at film festivals. This is enough to squeak by WP:NF. Pburka (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change that to Strong given the excellent work Schmidt, has done. Pburka (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem there will be no more personal attacks. I am actually making a strong case to keep the movie in the data base, and NOT TO DELETE the movie. I am relatively new here, and I'm just starting to get the signature thing down, so this is why you may have mixed up my point of view. I totally disagree with what you are saying about the imdb EVula. The imdb is, and has always been the most reliable source of information concerning the movies that have been produced and made. I would challenge you to make a list of movies that imbd has on their site that are not real movies EVula. In fact, I will check in here on a constant basis just to see if you can even list one feature length film that is listed on the imdb that is not a real movie, or a movie worth noting.

Also, this subject is very subjective, and a biased one at that. I have searched the wiki data base under low budget films, b-movies, exploitation films,etc,etc. There are movies on Wiki right now that are included in the data base that do not have the same notority and following as THINGS. You may not know much about this film, but I will tell you that this movie is well known in the exploitation and horror world, and it did enjoy a main stream release when it was released on VHS. It was in every blockbuster video store that I ever walked into. You may not have noticed it if you were in the romance section of your local video store. Do me a favour and Check out the films of Nick Zedd. Not one of his movies has enjoyed a release as wide as THINGS, and yet he and his movies are on Wiki. Why? Because, Exploitation and horror films serve a purpose in our world. (Just an example) But, check it out.--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

Comment Americanmoviecritic, there are a couple things going on here. First of all, IMdB is not always reliable - although they try their best, they're still dependent on user updates and inaccurate or outdated information, movies that will never be made, etc. do make their way into the database. Second, the article for the movie on IMdB only confirms that the film exists, which is certainly not the issue here. I'm sure this is a suitably horrible movie, as you contend, but unless critical discussion or recognition can be found for it it's difficult to argue that it's really notable. WP:NOTE is the guideline you want to go by in this case. I encourage you to spend some time finding sources to flesh out the article. Kate (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both and send to WP:CLEANUP as meeting inclusion criteria of WP:GNG which instruct "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and per the inclusion criteria of WP:NF as "historically notable" per "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" and "given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release" (seems quite clear). Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"WOW", I must say you are quite the PROFESSIONAL here at Wiki, and I will strive to see how you have done the references and have added resources using HTML,etc,etc. I am quite impressed with the way you have rescued an article that was earlier not up to par, to an article that truly deserves to be in the Wiki encyclopedia. I will follow all of your advice as there are other topics, as well as movies that are not in the data base as of yet, and I am beyond impressed with what you have done. Everything you are saying makes sense, and I can understand fully now why Wiki is the great resource that it is, and I can fully see why it was up for deletion before. Again, you have taken a page and made it so Wiki friendly that I am astonished beyond reason. I will follow your rules down to a "T" in the future, and will work on articles in the sandbox first before putting them live on Wiki. I would like to someday be a true Wikipedian, as I believe that this is the best resource in the world. I also see what you mean by making things into references because the other way it looks like someone is trying to sell or promote something, which was not my intent when I was adding the resources, but that was the way that it came off. The way that you added resources, and the various sections that you created and everything else that you did will be a perfect bluprint for when I add other movies to the resource, as well as other articles that have nothing to do with movies. I notice that sometimes when you search for something on Wiki, there is nothing on the subject under that name, so a redirect can be done, or an entire new article can be created. I think that this is one of the most fulfilling experiences I've ever had, to feel a part of something, and to create resources and knowledge bases for the world to use. I noticed for the initials J.F.K the other day that nothing came up, so I made a redirect to the John F. Kennedy page. Even making an addition as small as that felt really good. I am in awe with Wiki, and I see why so many people volunteer their time to help out in such a great human undertaking. I have noticed that some people specialize in certain subjects... For instance a person who really likes wrestling, or cars, or any other subject under the sun, will specialize in that endevour, and because of their love for the subject, they are learning themselves as well as making Wiki the best resource on earth. When looking up any subject on the internet, I always use Wiki as my first resource before anything else. Anyway, this has been a great experience so far, even though in the begining I was very leary when people were "attacking" a few of the articles I was working on. However, and as I said before, I understand why they were "attacking" the articles. For instance the Rue Morgue Festival of Fear is the biggest horror convention in Canada, and people were saying to delete it, yet the World horror convention is listed on Wiki, (held in the U.S.A, and Canada on an alternating basis) and it is a much smaller gathering of people. In any event, I fully understand now how things are done here on Wiki, and I'm probably not the first person who has had such a rude awakening,lol,lol. I'm sure even the greatest Wiki Pedians have had similar experiences when they first came here to contribute. I really appreciate your advice, your understanding, and your dedication to Wiki... As I said before, it's people like you Micheal, that make the world a great place...

--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

Delete both for lack of independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Also, the filibustering by Americanmoviecritic/Barryjedmonton isn't winning you any support. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: The WP:CLEANUP forced by AfD resulted in this stub that was sent to AfD only 3-1/2 hours after its creation to become THIS, now showing significant in-depth coverages in multiple genre-specific reliable sources. While the author is a bit verbose in discussions, established editors might understand his consternation at the initial lack of any actual help toward improving the article. New editors need guidence, not dismissal. New articles need improvement where possible, not deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the imdb is not always reliable as far as every single fact is concerned. However, every movie listed on the imdb is a real movie, unless someone can point out to me otherwise. I have yet to see a movie listed on imdb that was not real. I will challenge anybody out there to give me the link to a title listed on imdb that is not a real feature film or movie. Mistakes can happen, and human error is real. And again, I wouldn't believe that the imdb should be used as an only source by Wikipedians, and sometimes there facts are wrong on a movie, but again, I have never seen a movie listed there that wasn't a real movie... --Americanmoviecritic (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Americanmoviecritic[reply]

[41], [42] Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

?? With respects, I am amazed that you're using a blog to source something negative about IMDB, as even they themselves admit to a small error factor and its suprising small when considering the size of their database. They have due process as do all such institutions. Heck, even the New York Times admits to their own error factor. It happens. But it is not pandemic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they never made mistakes, and the Segal movie that was cancelled... imdb does have a section where movies in production can be listed. Again, I never said that they could not make mistakes, which they do. But the mistakes are usually with facts of a movie that is a REAL MOVIE.

Can someone help me out with something on this page???

I was trying to add an additional FURTHER READING reference, and I messed up and in the references their is a "Cite" mistake, and I still have to learn how to properly put in references. Anyway, could someone help me by fixing the reference that says DANSE MACABRE. Currently there is writing in red there.

In The ADDITIONAL READING area I was trying to add this as I have this book and their is a review of THINGS there by Micheal J. Weldon. When I went to add it for ADDITIONAL READING I screwed up somehow. I'm going to have to really practice how to add refernces by practicing in the sandbox.Psychotronic Video Guide to Film review of THINGS

Anyway, for one of you Wikipedain Pros, it would only take you a few seconds to correct where the reference for Danse Macabre is. You will see the mistake it is in red, and I cannot figure it out.

Thanks

Americanmoviecritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imdb is "famous" for having some inaccuracies, and THE UNDER SIEGE 3 listing that was there, and is now unlisted, would have been listed at the time as being in production. On imdb PRO, there are also movie listed that are only in the development stage or only have a treatment written, and they do say that a page will be taken down if the production is cancelled.

The challenge I am talking about... Is the challenge to find a movie listed on imdb that is not a real movie, that is the challenge. (not one in production, or one that has been cancelled that they had listed such as UNDER SEIGE 3, as I am quite positive that UNDER SEIGE 3 would have been listed as being in production at imbd.

I'm challenging someone to find a movie that is currently listed there that never existed in the first place, or is not a real movie. If someone can prove me otherwise, I will stand to be corrected. My point is... Is there inacuracies there??? YES Do they make mistakes? YES But, I don't know of any case where they have listed a movie that was not a real movie. Movies in production do not count, and they do make it clear on imdb PRO that a movie in development or in production will be deleted if it falls through. They also very rarely let just anybody put up something in development or in production unless it is a big name star or studio, as was the case with UNDER SEIGE 3.

Again, I won't deny that imdb makes mistakes, and does list annacuracies at times, however, they do have an option where people can change mistakes, or names,etc, by contacting them. I don't think they claim to be perfect, and I'm sure nobody that compiles tonnes of information can claim to be perfect, but they do try alot harder then some of you here give them credit for. That's basically what I am saying.

If someone can prove me wrong and find me a movie on imdb that is a fake movie, I WILL STAND TO BE CORRECTED...

In that regard, the imdb is a great resource for Wikipedians, for pure 100% facts, I'm not so sure about that, and I would agree that there are innacuracies, but then again, I am sure there are inacuracies on Wikipedia, as much as everyone tries there best to make everything as accurate as possible.

Is Wikipedia more accurate then imbd when it comes to getting the facts right and checking references,etc,etc, of course Wikipedia is better at this and has a far better track record than imdb, but we are all only human, and mistakes, and inaccuracies do occur...

Americanmoviecritic--Americanmoviecritic (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been monitoring this debate and at first I thought that this entry should be deleted myself, however, I have noticed that Micheal has rescued the page, and has done a fine job, and I am all for having this page included in Wiki... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortexxxx (talk • contribs) 01:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With respects, single purpose accounts that come on simply to make an opinion and then are heard from no more can do more harm to a discussion than good. I am happy to have improved the article, but this discussion is not a "vote" and a closing administrator will decide if the concerns of the nominator have been addressed or if they have not, and base his/her decision upon policy, giudeline, and whether the article now merits inclusion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for your help in fixing an article I started but in all honesty, as great as this site is, and as much as I like it, I'm going to close up my account here. The nominator can do what ever they want with the entry, I honestly don't care if it is deleted. I have nothing to lose or gain other than the time I spent putting in on the article. But from wanting to learn to be a Wikipedian and contribute to more articles,etc,etc, and create more articles especially about movies that are not included on Wikipedia at the present time..., and help out and volunteer my time,etc, in the end it sounds like I wasted my time. This movie along with many others that are not listed here meets, and exceeds all of the requirements, but I'm begining to think the site is run by Communists as oppossed to Democratics,lol,lol.

Who knows I may have a change of heart in the near future, but now I'm being accussed of SOCK PUPPETRY, hahhahaha.

Like I said, the article can be deleted for all I care even though it should be included, and is a history of filmmaking and wouldn't be included in various books and reviewed everywhere if it wasn't important. But, I guess the nominator will make that decision. As I said in my other comment. I'm outta here for good. I may have a change of heart, but the experience can leave someone bitter, as well as it can make them feel good, and I don't like to have bitter feelings.

P.S, there's about 9 feature films that I came up with on a short list that are not included on Wikipedia, but maybe someone else will MAGICALLY write an article about those films. I know I won't be trying to contribute any time soon.

Take Care ALL,

Americanmoviecritic--68.148.2.120 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Obviously this article has been significantly expanded since the deletion discussion began, and there are a number of sources provided to establish notability. However, I am not convinced that the sources are reliable or notable enough themselves, and I have to admit that as I was on the fence about whether to endorse keeping or deleting the article the arguments made by Americanmoviecritic and Barryjedmonton convinced me to go with deletion, because their arguments seem to trivialize whatever limited merits the article might have. -- Atama ^chat 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To be more specific, the requirements at WP:NF have already been discussed and Barryjedmonton has provided a very weak argument that the film passes. If anything the sources provided and arguments given confirm just how limited the notability for this film is, that only a small subset of people have paid attention to it. -- Atama ^chat 17:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak arguments? Its a pity that he became foucused on defending the wrong portions of his many refutations, but it is clear that inclusion requirements have been met, as a closer will note.

And with respects, I looked all over Wikipedia and I could not any parts of WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF that state that horror genre films are not notable because they only appeal to a niche group of people. Nor did I find any portion of guideline that states that notability for a few hundred thousand or a few million does not count as much as notability for a few hundred million.

However, I did find that WP:RS instructs reliable sources are from authors "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", and "How reliable a source is depends on context". Guideline does not mandate that Wall Street Journal or Forbes review independent horror films, nor does it mandate that Film Threat, Fangoria, or Rue Morgue report on Barrack Obama. Horror genre experts reporting on a horror-genre subject quite specifically follow guideline. And in case it was lost above...

In WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"... which the subject of the article has, in multiple in-depth articles and reviews in genre specific sources.
WP:NF "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:"

"...at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release"... which the article has, multiple times, and in depth. Definitely not trivial.
"...deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics... or movie professionals... at least five years after the film's release" Almost 20 yeqars after its release, genre-specific experts note it leads or should lead the list of films "so bad its good". Wow. Notable for being a total stinkard. Still, it is according to guideline.
"The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." This one is blatantly obvious. The film has been re-released 19 years after initial release AND screened at a major genre-specific festival 19 years after release. A double-header

Guideline instructs only one of these "historical" attributes" need apply to show notability. Again, it seems quite clear that the film meets the required inclusion criteria of WP:N, WP:GNG, and WP:NF. As for Barry, I am still on the fence. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the first criteria... The quality of sources are what matter, not the quantity. A couple of dozen articles from non-notable sources don't matter, but a few articles from a major publication do matter. For the second criteria, I don't see a "broad survey" of film critics. That's the sticking point for that requirement, the criticism isn't from a broad spectrum, only a particular subset. And for the last point, the "release" was very limited, and I'm not at all impressed with the "Festival of Fear". Others have made all of these points already, and I am sure a closer will note that as well. -- Atama ^chat 17:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep THINGS (1989) and Delete Barry J. Gillis Based on the work on the articles since my earlier vote, the movie appears to pass, but the person doesn't. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THINGS (1989), meets WP:GNG, delete Barry J. Gillis, doesn't. HiDrNick! 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep THINGS (1989) per preceding, need to investigate Barry J. Gillis still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Flowerparty^☀ 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramuan[edit]

I came to the page on NPP. Initially though it just needed help, but the links were to a commerical website and the book source is published by the same company. I've done a quick Google and News search and can't find any sources to establish notability. Ramuan has the veil of being an actual idea but is just an advert Bigger digger (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ It's never clear to me whether the nominator should vote, but I'll get the ball rolling. I have notified the creator and the single contributor. The article can't even be made into one about the firm as there's nothing notable there. It could possible be a dicdef and is part of the name of a place but is not suitable for wp. Bigger digger (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, as the nominator, your nomination rationale is your !vote. After that you may comment all you want and reply to other comments but you shouldn't bold "delete" again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'accord, merci beaucoup. Bigger digger (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google book search indicates that this is more than mere spam though poorly sourced. I can't vouch for the details but the essential concept seems to be notable. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Herbalism but this seems to be a broader concept than that, incorporating beauty and food as well as medicinal values. I am glad to see more articles on ethnobotany but wish they were better sourced. Drawn Some (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough Gbooks hits to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per my !vote above, the dicdef shows that ramuan is Malay/Indonesian for "ingredient". It's therefore inevitable that it throws up a lot of hits. On the second page of the Gbooks search it has a mention in a Harry Potter book. There is still nothing to show notability. Bigger digger (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs work, but with the work it could be good enough. --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What work is there? What sources are there? I would love to be proved wrong, and that this article is actually worthwile because there are sources out there. I spent 30 minutes on tagging and copyediting it before realising it was worthless, but you have just come along and not even !voted, you've just voted. Please provide some evidence for your position. Bigger digger (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the first documented form of Ramuan. It is an ancient traditional practice of the Malaysian people although unknown to anyone beyond the Malaysian culture. The book is the very first literary introduction of this practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.208.209 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Lives in Hot Springs[edit]

Contested prod. Movie with no assertion of notability. No third-party reference other than IMDB. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm all for independent films but this one is simply not notable, not just failing WP:NF but failing it absolutely and completely by any stretch of the imagination. Drawn Some (talk) 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film that does not appear to be in theatrical, DVD or film festival release. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Pacific English[edit]

Unsourced article. I can't find any trace of this concept - apparently the author self-invented it as a paralell to "mid-atalntic english". the only trace of anything connected to "Mid-pacific English" I can find is on Pacific Ocean Creol/Pidgin based languages, however this still doesn't seem to be a widely accepted term. Passportguy (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with Passportguy. The Mid-Pacific accent is distinct. ajhshamley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajhshamley (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reliable sources for the existance of this ? Passportguy (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone goes through the history of this, I closed it, believing it withdrawn by nominator. Actually I now realise Passportguy intended to withdraw the nomination of the AfD below (it was a little confusing). Passportguy's reversion of my closure was correct, and he did it at my invitation. No abuse has taken place, just a misunderstanding.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like original research. Delete unless evidence is presented that this is a concept recognized by academic linguists. Ladyof Shalott 18:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find only one mention of the term, in a 1986 article by Gunther Kress suggesting that there is no international media standard English. Google turns up an alt.english.usage thread from 2007 under that title, but that's hardly a reliable source. It appears to lack notability and the potential for reliable sources. Cnilep (talk) 20:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious example of WP:OR. Orderinchaos 03:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be OR Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Please delete - in error Nom. Passportguy (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neoxica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Prod removed at the last moment - self-invented word Passportguy (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized that this had undergone an AfD earlier. Well that's good news : we can speedy this then. Passportguy (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, I should've noticed that earlier... Hadrian89 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CSDG4 is the correct category, no? Hadrian89 (talk) 10:57, 6 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 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bell Tower (band)[edit]

Newley formed band with two claimed recent EP releases on a nn label. However all the references link to twitter, myspace and one apparent magazine article. I don't see this passing WP:BAND Passportguy (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Twitter and MySpace refferences are confirmed with a Beat Route article refference and a show date listed on The Marquee Room's official webpage. All refernces are valid.

Element014 (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter and MySpace are not reliable sources. The Beat Route source is decent, but the rest are not. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cited MySpace because the music was first released via MySpace. Most legitimate bands use MySpace, and in this case, Bell Tower's MySpace has information relevant to a Wikipedia article. It might not put the article any closer to meeting standards but it still allows the page to contain supported information that someone reading it may want to know. Element014 (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References have been revised to include better sources. An article in regards to Sled Island music festival, and CBC Radio3 have been used to varify the information on the page. Element014 (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. And dear Lord, what was up with all those lines!!!!!! Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 11:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article establishes notability by citing Beat Route magazine. Not to mention CBC radio3 and Sled Island. That is 3 reliables sources. The subject has been published several times.

Element014 (talk) 13:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: The only criteria for notability at WP:MUSIC that Bell Tower come close to meeting is no. 1: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable". Beat Route magazine is the only such source. The Sled Island article is essentially an advertisement for a gig, and therefore does not qualify. The CBC Radio 3 site appears to be one where musicians upload their own music, and is therefore not independent from the band. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Bands have to go through an approval process to get a Radio3 acount with the CBC. From what I can tell all of the music uploaded is licenced to CBC Radio3 for broadcast purposes. That may make this article eligible for more notability criteria Kinty500 (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After a little digging I've gotten confirmation from CBC that the songs on Bell Tower's Radio3 page have been licenced to them for broadcast. I have a copy of the licence agreement if anyone is interested in giving it a read. (I'll post it on my discussion page)Kinty500 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Exclaim Magazine to the references. They confirm that Sled Island will feature Bell Tower Kinty500 (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- A mention in what is essentially an advertisement article does not count towards notability. Also, the CBC Radio3 license agreement does not mean much on its own. It still seems to me that anyone can upload music/add their band to the site. Also, the music has to be uploaded by the band so the source is not independent. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Exclaim article is titled "News" which I don't consider advertising. Exclaim is independent from both the band and the music festival. The License agreement makes me consider CBC Radio3 a reliable sourse, it may not be independent from the band but it is still reliable.

Kinty500 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've repaired the Eplace link, it now works.

Kinty500 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: a) What makes this source reliable? b) Notability cannot be established merely by gig listings (e.g. Exclaim/Off The Dial etc.). Have a read of WP:Band. I like your determination, and I will always support articles for notable bands, but at the moment my vote stands at delete. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a) I consider CBC reliable because it's a government hosted webpage which has gotten the band to accept a legal agreement. b) I'm aware Exclaim and Off the dial are gig listing, I posted them as a confirmation of the comment on the page about the respective shows. I think an alternative to deletion would be much more suitable, there is obviously quite a bit of information on this band available, a few ((verify)) notes on the page possibly... Or we could add a tag asking for more citation. I don't think deletion is necessary.

Kinty500 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Found reliable enough sources for the band to not be deleted, hardly any reliable sources are out there, however. DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Note: CU confirmed sockpuppet of indef blocked user. Mango juice^talk 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 09:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't appear that the band meets WP:BAND and I can't find any sources that would establish general notability. Rnb (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Kinty500 and Element014 have been blocked for sockpuppetry. Bjweeks had removed all their comments and the responses of others but I have restored them, it should not interfere with a proper conclusion of this debate. Note also, if this article is deleted, Bell Tower should be changed back from a disambiguation page; I volunteer to do so. Mango juice^talk 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This band just formed in January, plays locally, has a local, minor label, and a couple of EP's. It's been profiled once in a local magazine. They are not ready for Wikipedia coverage: most of the sources are merely confirmations of specific gigs: you can tell this is more of a band resume than an article when gigs at which the group is one of dozens of groups performing are given the level of emphasis they are. Mango juice^talk 17:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reluctantly, because I've worked on the article and tried to improve it, but, despite best efforts, I don't see sufficient coverage to establish notability per WP:BAND. Hopefully this can be userfied somewhere and re-created if they get a mag write-up or something. Chzz ► 12:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In spite of effort, notability has not been established. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castlevania Next-Gen[edit]

No title, no logo, no screenshot, no sources. Surely not worthy of an article yet? Oscarthecat (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fuzzy camera images and bad fanart are not "sources", and it's incredibly likely there will be a better title for this game when it does come out. Nate • (chatter) 09:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SOURCES, SCREEN SHOTS, LOGO, REFERENCES, TRAILER...ALL ON ARTICLE NOW! PLEASE LOOK AT ARTICLE BEFORE DELETING. --(User talk:Grantsaylor1995) 12:55, 6 June 2009
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable information about the game. It was briefly announced on TGS '08^[43] ... and that's about it. The publisher didn't even mention it on this year's E3 when they made another announcement about another Castlevania game being developed by an entirely different developing team.^[44] — Rankiri (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – unlike the other games that have been announced at E3 and have already had significant press coverage and coverage everywhere on the globe, what is currently presented about this new game is pure speculation by the given sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, Grantsaylor1995, please do not top-post or shout. MuZemike 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge A mention + link in the/a Castlevania article is all this seems to be worth, if anything. There simply isn't enough available to merit an article.--Koji† 23:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and above. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, maybe if people helped edit the article or merge it.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.33.76 (talk) 02:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more appropriate to userfy the page, work on it there until deemed suitable as a wikipedia article, and then canvas some editors for opinion on whether it's now ready. Doubtless once more information is released an article for this game will be needed, but just seems a little early right now. --Oscarthecat (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, from the article: "very little is known about this game...". Need I say more? --Taelus (talk) 08:41, 8 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard E. Webber[edit]

Keep. I dispute that this meets the criteria for speedy deletion "does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." The question of what part of the US government or military will have primary responsibility for cyber defense and attack is a controversial one. Some have accused the AF of a cyber mission "land grab" when they planned to stand up a Cyber Command. Google News search: cyber command. It was downsized to the level below the proposed Major Command level to a Numbered Air Force: the 24th Air Force. This article is on the just announced commander for when the 24th Air Force stands up very shortly. As future commander of 24 AF, he is notable for the same reasons as Major General William T. Lord the provisional commander of Air Force Cyber Command (Provisional) who it has just been announced will be promoted and be appointed AF CIO. --Pmsyyz (talk) 04:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a bad A7 nomination, given his rank, occupation, and the media coverage of his promotion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Question What's the reason for nomination? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The admin E Wing originally nominated it for speedy deletion and I disputed. --Pmsyyz (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Therefore I transferred it from speedy-delete-request to AfD as a "queried speedy delete". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Should have just declined the speedy rather than drag it through process. Speedy Keep plz riffic (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject is a major general in the US Air Force, which would seem to be notable to me. The photo indicates that he has six full rows of medal ribbons, including a Defense Superior Service Medal and a Legion of Merit, which seems to me to fulfill the consistenty receives awards criteria too. Also there are a number of sources listed in the article, indicating notability to me. Article needs a lot of work, though, but I don't feel that it should be deleted because of that. — AustralianRupert (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abce2|AccessDenied 20:03, 6 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. I am very tired of closing these - however, there is no consensus here for anything Fritzpoll (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Estonia relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I read through the first AfD and noted the keep votes really didn't come up with significant reliable sources to establish notability. non resident embassies. a google news search shows only multilateral not bilateral relations [45], which I suspect happens a lot in the Chile-EU context. the point of trade was raised in the first AfD, but someone importantly said "in 2007 Estonia imported $US 16.23 billion worth of goods and services and exported $US 13.16 billion. As such, EUR 6 million is a tiny proportion of the country's trade and, not surprisingly, Chile isn't listed as being one of Estonia's main trading partners". that Chile is one of Estonia's main trading partners in South America is not surprising, given that the top 3 for almost all European and Asian countries is Brazil, Argentina and Chile (in differing orders). I also note that only 1 actual agreement on visas (+ memo of understanding) has been signed between the countries. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Specific dollar amounts aren't important or not important. Steve Jobs makes $1 a year at Apple. The amount is important if it is reported in reliable media, the media thought is was important enough to record. That is the definition of notability, not some arbitrary cut off point. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hasn't been reported in reliable media either. given that other bilateral articles have been deleted where countries traded, you'll need a stronger argument than that. a significant trade relationship would be an automatic qualification for notable relations in my opinion. there's still a real lack of third party coverage of these 2 countries. and Steve Jobs gets significant coverage for his role at Apple unlike this bilateral pairing. LibStar (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norton, comparing trade amounts to a token salary received by Steve Jobs is inappropriate. Steve Jobs owns hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of stock in Apple so as an owner he is in essence working for himself. Why don't you compare Chile/Estonia trade to the amount of Steve Job's stake in Disney or Apple instead of his salary at those corporations? It's just as silly. These smokescreens being thrown up shouldn't distract from the real point that you inadvertently emphasize while trying to discredit it: trade between the two countries is essentially non-existent. Good try though, very creative if a little insulting to your fellow editors' intelligence if you really thought anyone would fall for it. I am trying to assume good faith on your part in making such a specious comparison. Seriously, I am trying. Drawn Some (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These articles that randomly pair nations are getting out of hand. There is no real notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't think it's really productive to have an AFD every 2 months just to see if the article gets deleted. "I read through the first AfD and noted the keep votes really didn't come up with significant reliable sources to establish notability." - I also think it isn't the responsibility of !voters to come up with sources -- they evaluate the article in present state. feydey (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect of expansion. No sources indicate these relations are notable. Here is what the article says: They have diplomatic relations, and a visa-free travel agreement, and plans for more; trade occurs; Chile is one of a number of countries to have jointly issued a stamp with Estonia, three Chilean books have been translated into Estonian. These arbitrary facts are fine, but Chile has 15 million people so it's not surprising that some of those people end up doing business in each country of the world. We have to decide: are there to be 18,000 X–Y relations articles with non-notable lists of Google search results? This article fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete significance / notability Stuartyeates (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As much as I would like to believe that all 200 or so countries on Earth have notable bilateral relations with each of the other countries, it just isn't so. This is one instance where the bilateral relations are not notable as they have not received significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Unfortunately the way Wikipedia works is that if purple humanoids lived on the moon and they received only trivial mention and no-in depth coverage in reliable sources they wouldn't be in Wikipedia. If someone has a fundamental disagreement with the principles of this encyclopedia and thinks everything verifiable should be in here then they should start their own encyclopedia and stop trying to subvert the consensus here. After a point it becomes tedious. Drawn Some (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have notified User:Martintg and User:Digwuren of this discussion per WP:CIVIL since they contributed significantly to the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator is wrong that only multilateral relations exist. Chile and Estonia have a bilateral agreement in place regarding the visa free travel. The creation of the agreement was notable and was covered by independent media (here's the BBC). The two countries also have in force a Memorandum on co-operation between the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and are preparing the following draft agreements:

Agreement on culture, education and science related co-operation;
Agreement on tourism related co-operation;
Agreement on information technology related co-operation.[46]

This is a notable relationship under wikipedia's Afd standards at WP:N.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cdogsimmons is wrong in saying "Nominator is wrong that only multilateral relations exist". I only said google news search shows mulitlateral relations. I acknowledged the low level of trade and the 1 agreement in my nomination, thus there is a relationship but not a notable one in my opinion. Listing of draft agreements are all good and well but they may or may not become real agreements until ministers sign them, so they add little to establish notability of relations (that's unless you can find wide coverage of them). LibStar (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic fails WP:N--no independent, secondary sources that discuss in a non-trivial could be located for this "topic" could be located.[47] Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example WP:Articles for deletion/Laos-Romania relations, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canada–Moldova_relations, or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bilateral_relations_of_Ireland. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the BBC article I mention above shows the existence of relations? As for the previous Afds you mention, could you clarify which ones (so we can restore the articles that apparently were deleted despite being adequately sourced).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see all 204 words of that article, but if the 73 that are freely available are any indication, the article simply notes that agreement for via free travel came into effect that day, and then lists the other 45 countries that Estonia had visa-free agreements with at the time. I would not call this "significant coverage" of Chile-Estonia relations. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cdogsimmons: We know the relations exist (Chile has over 15 million people so it's likely there will be some kind of relation between Chile and every other country). I have not seen you address the issue of WP:N which requires articles to cover notable topics. A Google search for chile "polar bear" gives 178,000 hits – does that mean we need Chile – Polar bear relations? Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a disagreement on the term "significant coverage" as used in the notability guidelines. To me, coverage of these relations (that we both agree exist) by the BBC equals significant coverage. The fact that there are many precedents for international relations articles on Wikipedia also tells me that this article isn't an anomaly (like a certain country's policy toward a certain species might be, separate from the article about that species). This article has independent sources that refer to the relationship, which I think are significant. Some people think the relations between these nation states are "trivial" and we can disagree.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.' The little article in question does not do that. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the absence of reliable independent sources that discuss the topic of this article in any depth (the topic being Chile-Estonia relations) is dispositive for inclusion (i.e. fails GNG).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the BBC article cited above? That discusses a bilateral treaty in depth. You don't think that qualifies as covering "Chile-Estonia relations"?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this was nominated for deletion just two months ago and the result was "Keep". It is a bit to disruptive to renominate an article for deletion every second month. The article was judged sufficiently notable then, what has changed since then. The joint stamp issue, the high level meetings and the fact Chile is Estonia's biggest trading partner makes this relationship notable. --Martintg (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

joint stamp issue is a measure of notable relations? the fact Chile is Estonia's biggest trading partner is clearly incorrect and original research on your part. According to the CIA World Factbook, Estonia's biggest traders in terms of exports is Finland 17.9%, Sweden 13.2%, Latvia 11.4%, Russia 8.9%, Lithuania 5.8%, Germany 5.2%, US 4.1% (2007) and for imports Finland 15.9%, Germany 12.8%, Sweden 10.1%, Russia 10%, Latvia 7.6%, Lithuania 6.9%, Poland 4.5% (2007). Please don't make up info to back an argument. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to say Chile is Estonia's largest trading partner on the South American continent. It is a fact that Chilean wines dominate the Estonian market, which is notable given the fact of Estonia's EU membership and EU wine lake. The joint stamp issue was certainly notable enough to be covered in the Estonian media. Both of these were discussed in the previous AfD. --Martintg (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see my original comment Chile isn't listed as being one of Estonia's main trading partners". that Chile is one of Estonia's main trading partners in South America is not surprising, given that the top 3 for almost all European and Asian countries is Brazil, Argentina and Chile (in differing orders).LibStar (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Weak and non-notable relationship without direct diplomatic representation through resident ambassadors. Fails notability due to lack of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant discussion of the bilateral relationship as such, rather there are just websites of the countries (nonindependent sources), and a few random news items showing that the two countries are not totally isolated. Edison (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable relationship with no third-party coverage of the topic of the article to back up any claim of notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is something I cut and pasted from the previous AfD discussion: There is coverage in the media of the Chile-Estonian relations, both print and TV. For example, the joint stamp issue event attended by the Chilean ambassador in the press and TV, significant trade in chilen wine dominating the Estonian market, the meeting between the Estonian PM and the Chilean President, Estonian opposition leader and major of Tallinn Edgar Savisaar meeting with the Chilean ambassador as well as various bi-lateral agreements in preparation or in force, such as a visa free travel agreement. Martintg (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Martintg (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing that such topics aren't notable, for instance, there is an article on Chilean wine. But the topic of Chile-Estonia relations isn't notable and can't be inherited from such topics. We need significant in-depth coverage of the actual subject, the relation itself, in independent reliable sources, to write an article about it without pure WP:SYNTHESIS. Drawn Some (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources documenting "Chile–Estonia relations" as such, and for trivia abusively substituting for actual coverage in independent sources. This fails WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel the deletion as a random pairing of articles with AFDs -- especially after we held an AFD over it already. And keep the article, of course -- as per arguments I raised in the previous AFD discussion. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, expanded (and poorly formatted) using trivia that we simply wouldn't feature anywhere. The text's only purpose is to make the article look important. Dahn (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom, Drawn Some and Dahn. Ironholds (talk) 18:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has been greatly improved. Keep because of the treaties and trade agreements. Visa-free travel is notable. How many nations don't require a passport to cross from one to the other, especially at that distance? Dream Focus 00:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no trade agreements between these 2 countries. simply having treaties and visa free travel is not necessarily an indicator of notability, Australians and NZers can travel to the whole of the EU visa free, does that mean NZ-Luxembourg and Australia-Luxembourg is notable? LibStar (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations exist; verifiable sources are given; as for notability, that, as has been established by the outcomes of the most recent hundred or so bilateral relations AfDs, is in the eye of the beholder. Keep.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:23, June 11, 2009 (UTC)
- "notability is in the eye of the beholder" is not a valid keep argument. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We should not be deleting articles left and right if we can't agree on whether the subject they cover is notable or not. Based on numerous previous outcomes of similar AfDs, there is no consensus whether this type of information is notable, hence notability issues cannot be used as an AfD rationale, hence the statement that "notability is in the eye of the beholder" is, in this context, a perfectly valid 'keep' argument.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:44, June 11, 2009 (UTC)
    - 1. As point of fact, most of the articles that have gone thru AfD have been deleted, and many have ended as no consensus. Only a minority have AfDs have been closed as Keep. 2. You could just as easily argue that if we can't agree on whether the subject they cover is notable or not we then we shouldn't be (or shouldn't have been) creating these articles left and right. 3. You're statement that "...notability issues cannot be used as an AfD rationale..." is non-sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be arguing that since there's no consensus on what constitutes a notable X-Y relation, then you are just always going to vote keep. Sorry, but I don't see how that approach is going to help us find consensus. What we all should be doing is looking at each AfD individually, and deciding whether we think the topic is notable, and !voting accordingly. There's bound to still be a ton of disagreement, and plenty of these discussion will be still be closed as "no consensus", but there's at least chance that some sort or rough consensus on what constitutes a notable relation will emerge. But only if people stop !voting keep or delete reflexively. FWIW, while I have generally !voted delete, I have on occasion voted to keep some these. I when I was PRODing articles, there were dozens that I considered PRODing or AfDing and didn't, and if any of these came up of AfD I'd say keep. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Yiloslime, as someone who has nominated a lot of bilateral AfDs, I can tell Ezhiki that most end up deleted. In fact at least 200 have been deleted in the last 2 months, if Ezhiki disagrees request a deletion review. I don't doubt that these 2 countries have a relationship but they don't have a notable relationship and the fact that you can't provide evidence of significant coverage just proves it to me. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me address the issues at hand one by one:

1. I don't have such a vast experience with these AfDs, so I'll take your folks' word that many such articles got deleted. However, my "keep" rationale is based not only on previously kept articles (which, according to you, are "a minority"), but also on those kept due to no consensus (which, according to you, are "many"). The no-consensus outcomes illustrate my point exactly—if there are "many" of them, then the issue of notability is far, far from being clear-cut. We should not continue to delete these articles left and right until the notability issue is resolved (previous AfDs clearly did not resolve it).

2. I, as a matter of fact, agree with this item. Note that I have not created a single one of these articles. Even if they were mass-created in the past, the creator(s) surely considered the subject to be notable, and on the notability factor, I refer you back to item #1.

3. [Y]ou seem to be arguing that since there's no consensus on what constitutes a notable X-Y relation, then you are just always going to vote keep. I am going to always vote keep if, and only if, I consider the subject to be notable or at least worth discussing first. An AfD is not a bad place for a discussion, but in these particular cases we have a great number of similar articles, with 99% of their AfD being hotly discussed. Back to item #1.

[W]hile I have generally !voted delete, I have on occasion voted to keep some these. Same here, only in reverse. I do not vote "keep" for articles which obviously have no potential. Most of them, in my opinion, do have it. The difference between you and me on this point is that you seem to AfD the articles for which you cannot find any sources, while I tend to !keep the articles on which, based on summary background research, I believe the sources can be found (but not necessarily by you or me).

In response to LibStar, it's not that these two countries don't have a notable relation; they have a relation which is notable but not very high-profile. Once again, you seem to be mixing the issues of notability and relative importance. Not the same.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:13, June 12, 2009 (UTC)

Keep I believe this article is encyclopedic and informational. When a tourist or person interested in foreign relationships of the two countries, he/she expects to find quick and valuable information about the two countries. And, with the principle I always follow: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, this article should still be kept. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but it lacks significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 00:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And look to noms pattern of AfD these bilateral relations article. They stopped themself from nomming this one on May 2 but y'know two months is OK although all these articles are a turf battle and nothing has degraded this article and in fact it has improved since the last AfD. I'm sorry but that certainly seems disruptive to me. -- Banjeboi 20:42, 13 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 Was Deleted by User:Jimfbleak, presumably as a snow close.. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DAVIDsTEA[edit]

Fails WP:NOTE, as per ghits] available. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is the subject not noteworthy, it's also an advertisement. Kpstewart (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One news hit in a Montreal paper in Aug '08. No claims of notability either, the A-7 tag should have been reinstated, it was removed by the creator. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to move it back into the sandbox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeaLover247 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Find out how to userfy the page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real notability that I can see. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Brand new Starbucks-esque tea shop with two outlets. Not yet notable. Hairhorn (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable retail outlet. I'll be happy to userify this article for the creator if the consensus is to delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam Stuartyeates (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 6 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 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Payday (album)[edit]

Nominated per this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Payday_II&action=edit&section=T-1

In essence, neither his second album nor this one are felt to meet WP:NALBUMS. Tyrenon (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite the passive construction in the nomination. A Google News search reveals minimal, minimal coverage for the album, not enough to pass WP:N. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet notability requirement. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As I'd stated in the other AfD, while Lil' Fizz is notable enough as a former member of B2K, his solo work has gathered little attention and his solo albums aren't notable enough to merit articles. -- Atama ^chat 23:34, 8 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Tivoli Application Dependency Discovery Manager[edit]

Technical nomination: No admin seems to have been willing to delete this all day long after a speedy nomination, so I am bringing it to the community for a decision on whether this is hopelessly promotional and/or non-notable. Not my subject, and I have no particular opinion on the article. DGG (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. Some of the comments below indicate the content should be merged with the Tivoli Framework - The Tivoli Framework is over 15 years old and this TADDM entry is not based on the Tivoli Framework. This TADDM entry is for a product much like IBM DB2 - it has its own merits, product pages, and community of users - which we included links to. Is there other information you are looking for?mmallo (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. Hi - I cleaned up the market jargon. Please re-review. Beanolar (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First of all, it's unreadable, at least for a general audience. There's no claim to notability and it's borderline spam (borderline because there's no actual spammy sales pitch). Hairhorn (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any relevant content can be added to IBM Tivoli Framework. Doesn't look like the module is notable on its own, so it can continue to be covered in the main product page. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IBM Tivoli Framework. The article itself is very promotional, and the product itself doesn't appear to be all that notable on its own, but it can't hurt to cover the whole framework as a whole more deeply. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Should have been G11'd as it was twice before. ukexpat (talk) 02:54, 7 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 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine 'The Huguenot' Sevier[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Valentine 'The Huguenot' Sevier

Implicitly contested prod. The subject's only claim to notability is that he is the grandfather of John Sevier. The creator does not appear receptive to the suggestion that a simple mention could be made in the article about his grandson. Delete or Redirect. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability isn't transferable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable topic - only claim to fame is fathering the father of John Sevier. Although at one point I did redirect to John Sevier (reverted by article creator) I do not now think that this is appropriate--Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, the author has had difficulty reading the pedigree display in Rootsweb, which was his original source (it's not the easiest of displays, but I spend quite a bit of time hanging around ancestry sites). Valentin 'the Huguenot' from France, fled to London, is the father of Valentin 'The Immigrant', from London, emigrated to the New World, who was the father of John - the famous guy. He has persistently mixed up the two Valentin's on both this article and John Sevier - in this article, half the information is about 'The Huguenot' and half about 'The Immigrant'.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:03, 6 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christobelle Grierson-Ryrie[edit]

Non-notable person who won the competition, fails to find third-party reliable sources. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

disagreed, third party here-http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv/2479361/Top-Model-winner-dishes-the-dirt Hey Boys and Girls (Welcome to the Show…) ° 04:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Stuartyeates (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:ENT which covers models. Johnuniq (talk) 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that she satisfies WP:ENT as she "Has a large fan base". I can only find one reference to ratings, TV3 Launch Ratings, but the show had consistently high ratings. There has been significant public interest as shown by articles such as Top Model Winner sitting pretty. Certainly not as large a fan base as the winners of the original America's next top model (who, I note, have wikipedia articles, as do the runners-up in that competition), but large enough within New Zealand to warrant an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.107.200 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this article/page should stay on Wikipedia as her fan base is large and is still growing. She will be a success and has yet proven to be successful internationally as a model. I also agree that her fan base may not be as large as ANTM Winners but she will definitely grow more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Missbalenciaga (talk • contribs) 02:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agreethat this is an early stage of her notability, but she is notable and that will only go up. Debresser (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the news coverage by stuff.co.nz and the New Zealand Herald satisfies WP:N, independent and more than trivial. XLerate (talk) 05:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, sufficient sources to establish notability. Time will tell whether this is just WP:ONEEVENT or she will be able to make a name for herself.-gadfium 05:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Wits (article now at Five wits)[edit]

Prod was contested at the last minute by someone who wanted this article transwikied to Wiktionary. However, the transwiki has been declined, and the article suffers from a lack of context. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as has been pointed out by two other editors on the article's talk page, the concept is a notable one that appears in Shakespeare and other literary sources. I quick Google search reveals that there is plenty of material to expand the article with. The fact that the current version is in poor shape is not a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, as an FYI the person who flagged it for copy to wiktionary & the person who de-prodded weren't the same person. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs do not indicate this is a notable topic. Conceivably it could be a definition on Wiktionary, but it is not suitable for an encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Uncle G has just expanded the article considerably, which should make it a lot more clear why the topic is notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but clean-up and add sources. In addition to literary-studies scholarship, such as that added by ThaddeusB and Uncle G, the notion seems to be discussed in some older philology literature. It should be possible to rescue the article. Cnilep (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is pretty bad, but the concept is notable. The focus on "the time of William Shakespeare" is unfortunate, since the notion of the ten wits goes back at least to Aristotle and was fundamental in medieval psychology (see, for instance, C. S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, pp. 161–65). I don't think the current title is the best that could be devised, but a good article on the topic of the inward and outward senses is certainly writable; I'm rather surprised that we don't have one already (at least, I haven't found one by searching for likely terms). Deor (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, both C.S. Lewis and Aristotle were already mentioned in the article at the time that you wrote that, and I was busy making this edit. Way ahead of you, kiddo. ☺ Yes, our only discussion of this up until now appears to be one sentence in sense. Uncle G (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G's improvements. I requested the transwiki to Wiktionary, but I personally don't see why there cannot be an entry over there. I was more reluctant to endorse or contest the prod as I thought this information could easily be at the least a Wiktionary entry. MuZemike 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly can be an entry if it is in dictionary form, which (IMO) the article wasn't (which is why I removed the tag). Or more precisely, it could have probably been transferred and used but it would have required significant re-working there (their standards are different than ours). Additionally, I was confident a real article could be written here so I didn't want it transferred and deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Removal of a prod is an indication that an article should be kept, not that it should be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources confirming the information. Any for what significant periods of human history was this information believed, and by what notable civilizations? This is clearly a notable subject. Dream Focus 18:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I contested the prod because it was ridiculous to suggest that a centuries-old term was a "neologism". Maybe I'm shaky on what qualifies as a neologism, but a concept that was popular as far back as Aristotle doesn't seem to me to be "recently coined". There's a lot of potential in this article and no lack of scholarly resources for it, and it would be very unfortunate if it was deleted. -- Atama ^chat 15:32, 8 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. However, I must note that there's no "policy" that says all high schools are automatically notable. It's longstanding precedent though. See WP:OUTCOMES. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sta. Cruz Academy[edit]

Non-notable school; author didn't state any reasons as to why it deserves to be included in an encyclopedia. So far I haven't heard of anything big or significant that occurred there. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep The policy is that a high school article is allowed to stay in Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable organisation; no secondary sources showing it's particularly important or notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, not notable school. Creator needs guidance on writing an article. shows lack of RS. --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I absolutely agree with your last point; far better to provide the creator with advice and encouragement rather than trying to delete his page minutes after creation, as happened. TerriersFan (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. non-notable school.--The Wandering Traveler^{WIKIPROJECT UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!} 07:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per previously established concensus, high schools are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edward321 and Graeme Bartlett - previous consensus is that high schools are automatically notable. Would like to see more information in this article (number of pupils, for example), but this is not a reason for deletion. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 15:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a significant institution in its town. Philippines schools always have a poor internet presence, particularly in English, and to avoid systemic bias we should await local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 18:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have precedence that schools are inherently notable. Besides, didn't Jimbo tell us to write about "our highschool"? :P Shrumster (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So does that mean I could write an article about my alma mater, even if practically no one knows much about it? If so, then it would cause a lot of cruft here. Blake Gripling (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if your alma mater is a high school then please feel free to write a page on it and I'll help you source it. TerriersFan (talk) 12:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per established precedent that high schools are de facto notable ukexpat (talk) 03:08, 8 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. Jamie^☆S93 00:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Gielda[edit]

Non-notable, self-promoted individual -- actually a proper candidate for speedy delete mhking (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no gnews hits, no evidence of WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. The article doesn't even claim much notability, other than her heading different companies and organizations. Hairhorn (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails wp:n Niteshift36 (talk) 05:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If we she was single, it would likely read like a personal ad

( please note my alias LOL). This bio could have been filled in from a template. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I stand by my PROD nom: "doesn't sound notable per WP:BIO, no third-party cites". Is important in several non-notable groups/companies: notability (if there were any) isn't inherited and I can't find any evidence she's done anything notable herself (in relation to these groups/companies, or in other realms). DMacks (talk) 14:42, 6 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. Jamie^☆S93 15:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker (folklore)[edit]

Folklore term with disputed factual accuracy. Noone can be bothered to get to a library and actually check the listed reference, so we remain in doubt. However, I question the article on grounds of notability: only one, relatively unimportant, book has been found that mentions the subject even though it is supposed to be a part of Swedish folklore. Clearly not of encyclopedic value, unless a few more sources can be dug up. (That there is no corresponding article on the Swedish wikipedia is a hint of it's non-notability too.) Plrk (talk) 11:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's probably of limited notability. I'm only familiar with one source and the writer was a radio journalist writing on local folklore. I'll nominate it for undeletion when and if I can find a better source on it.--Berig (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per nominator. And somewhat surprising to see the editor who removes quality templates then vote for the stricter treatment of deletion. Tomas e (talk) 12:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our disagreement is unrelated to why I support its deletion. The topic is not of sufficient notability, I'm afraid, since I haven't found a professional folklorist writing on the issue (only a journalist specializing on folklore).--Berig (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as long as I can re-create it afterwards whenever I rewrite it with proper sources. Right now it spreads unsourced stuff around the globe (like here..). –Holt (T•C) 13:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The standard way of !voting in deletion discussions is "keep your reason" and "Delete your reason". Ideally, the "reason" should be based on WP guidelines and policies for article inclusion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the relevant guideline for inclusion (WP:GNG), in addition to verifiability problems. decltype (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense article, there are no such hackers in Swedish folklore. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:18, 8 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surge Radio[edit]

Google and Factiva searches turn up no reliable sources for this defunct pirate/internet radio station. Zeagler (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GROUP says independent sources are required to establish notability: a Google search is turning up one relevant but not independent source and the rest about a UK station. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it back to what it was before I started the article for Surge Radio in Lancaster. Now it's a redirect to Surge in Southampton, like it was before I made it what it was. I hereby retract my edits to the Surge Radio article, because I know there are no longer any third party references out there and the deletionist known as Zeagler is well known for assuming bad faith when dealing with people. I do not have the time, nor the patience to deal with this. No need to worry about this anymore. Whammy (talk) 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of indep. sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, seems to be some local sources that discuss this station. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Madness[edit]

Non-notable Power Rangers story arc. Seems to be a two-part episode that lacks significance, as it appears that the characters end up exactly the same in the end. Certainly not on the level of, for instance, "Day of the Dumpster" or "Countdown to Destruction", amongst the very few episodes that do have articles. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This doesn't need more than a mention at List of Power Rangers episodes. -[[Ryan]] ^{(Main Menu)}_{(Language Selection)} 12:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 6 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 Texas Collegiate League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

East Texas Pump Jacks[edit]

non-notable collegiate Baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid(talk) 04:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially minor league baseball. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 6 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 Texas Collegiate League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McKinney Marshals[edit]

non-notable collegiate Baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) ~~:*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially minor league baseball. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 6 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 Texas Collegiate League. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coppell Copperheads[edit]

non-notable collegiate ~~basketball~~ baseball team. Hardly "professional" - their league is set up to be a professional one, certainly, but in the traditional sense "professional" means "players do this as a job". Ironholds (talk) 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC) *Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some collegiate summer ball team isn't even close to being notable.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 14:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Texas Collegiate League. BRMo (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially minor league baseball. Fails WP:ATHLETE Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:07, 6 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. The subject does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felino Soriano[edit]

The article is about a non-notable contemporary poet. A prod tag was removed, hence its presence here. Does not meet WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't seem to be any third-party sources about this person, other than a few blog mentions. No indication of notability anywhere. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. wp:N Niteshift36 (talk) 05:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:22, 6 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basis of unity[edit]

Non-notable, no refs, page has been orphaned for years without any work done. Doesn't seem like any meaningful references can be found that anyone uses this term in this way. Conical Johnson (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a confused synonym for "mandate", at least as it applies to organizations... although I can't find that particluar definition of mandate on wikipedia. Maybe I need to spend time with a thesaurus. Hairhorn (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is used as jargon in business management - or merge with Mandate (politics), "the power granted by an electorate." Bearian (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the basis of unity page, it's the principles that unite people who agree with each other. This is not at all the same as "the power granted by an electorate". The definition of one of these things must be wrong if they are the same, right? Conical Johnson (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much management jargon is almost or completely devoid of meaning; for me that's another reason to delete rather than a defense of the article... Hairhorn (talk) 11:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't imagine content for this page that isn't original research. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not potentially verifiable in reliable sources. Borders on WP:NEO. I think it is ordinarily called "founding principles". Drawn Some (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the term itself has been described enough to meet WP:N than any way of describing it will lead to original research. Them From Space 06:25, 10 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. I would personally vote for keep but I believe this afd has been opened for enough time so I'll close it as a no consensus. The article can be improved a lot. Tone 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambasada Gavioli[edit]

The article does not cite any reliable independent sources, nor is there any indication that significant coverage in such sources exists. Unless the notability of the establishment can be verified, the article should be deleted. Skomorokh 01:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs a serious trimming of non-notable and/or not-referenced (such as the ideological and "Cult following") sections, but it is the most well-known place for electronic culture in the country. I added two references from major Slovene newspapers and trimmed the most over-enthusiastic sentences a bit, the rest will have to be done by people who actually know the scene. --Yerpo (talk) 06:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but I think this nightclub isn't notable enough to include it into Wikipedia, anyway I don't get the point about articles on nightclubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janisterzaj (talk • contribs) 12:59, 1 June 2009

Comment: I don't really care either way, but the club is quite notable at least on the national level (see the references) and you shouldn't let your personal feelings decide about article appropriateness. We have rules and guidelines for that. --Yerpo (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was one of the most important important centers of electronic music in the 1990s and early 2000s, not only in Slovenia, but also in north-east Italy and north-west Croatia. Viator slovenicus (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs some cleanup. But per AGF of the comments by other editors and the indications of notability in the article I think its best to keep it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability, sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartyeates (talk • contribs) 11:13, June 6, 2009
Delete What's notable about it? --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a quick Google search definitely shows some potential notability and I'm sure that everything can be sourced. Tavix | Talk 16:46, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's Institution (Panihati)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/St. Xavier's Institution (Panihati)

Article does not hint or note at why subject may or may not be notable, out of the thousands of schools in existence out there. Besides that, there are no sources to establish notability. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not only a high school but a large one at that. Decent coverage here. All Indian schools have a poor web presence so we need to take care to avoid systemic bias. TerriersFan (talk) 00:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A single source, hardly grounds for notability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 00:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-this school hosts more than 4000 students.If that does not make it notable then what will.And yes,indian schools have a poor presence in the internet.I myself am a student of the school and i can assure you that it is one of the largest private schools in north-east india.I will post links if i can find them59.93.212.20 (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This account has very few edits outside this one.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a series of edits from the 59.93.x.x range. It's just ISP IP switching. --Step hen 08:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - WP:BIGNUMBER is not a reason for notability.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article seems notable and it is about an institution in a large country. DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 10 sports team news pieces and two about the school, they do appear to have an ok football team, losing badly in the semi-finals pretty often! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Secondary schools are generally accorded notability and there is definitely a bias on Wikipedia against schools in non-Western nations. Dig hard enough and the sources are there for a school this large. I would suggest adding newspaper references as well as information about awards or offering A-levels, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 12:29, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Dolly Rockers[edit]

Non-notable band which failed to make it into the X Factor finals. One single, no albums and "tours" of shopping centres and schools don't make them notable per WP:BAND Astronaut (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem to be here to stay, whatever one might think of their talent. Might the interview with The Times the day before you nominated the article change anything?[48]. Or the Yorkshire Post article the same day,[49] Or Digital Spy last week,[50] the Torbay Herald Express two weeks ago,[51] or the Guardian last month?[52] You did look for sources, right? hmm, their songs seem quite catchy actually... Fences and windows (talk) 00:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They're quite clearly a tangible group - they're all over youtube, have their own website and are getting lots of airplay. They're a pop group. They're real. They exists - so why shouldn't they have a Wikipedia entry like 1000's of other bands that exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.220.220 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2009

Well of course they exist. That is not in doubt. What is in doubt is that they are notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Simply saying other bands have articles is not a reason to keep this article. References from reliable sources (like those mentioned above) may show that they are notable enough to stay, but any references need to be added to the article and not just mentioned here. Astronaut (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add them then. Fences and windows (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel they are more notable than so many bands who have pages that arent considered for deletion, though the page desperatly needs to be rescued for vandalism. (Kyleofark (talk) 19:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Can you add references (from reliable sources) to show that they are notable? Simply saying less notable bands have articles is not a good reason alone to keep this article. Astronaut (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astronaut, you could add the reliable sources I found rather than asking others to. Notability has been clearly established, so the article is not going to be deleted. There is no rule against nominators improving articles. Fences and windows (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--thanks to Fences and Windows. Nominator, you would do well to respond to Fences, who has a point: you, as a nominator, have an extra responsibility to look for sources (which are SO obviously there, see this, for instance) and to add them to the article. I think you should have another look at WP:BEFORE. In the meantime, I have added those sources to the article and cleaned it up some--work you could have done also. Given those references, some of which (I haven't checked, sorry Fences) already referred to above, it is probably a good time to withdraw the nomination, so we can have a speedy keep and get back to editing. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:49, 6 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelio Nuño Morales[edit]

I originally speedy deleted this as I didn't feel that it asserted notability. Quite whether he won awards or a company he worked for (or founded) did is somewhat unclear. Consequently I've restored it and brought it to AfD for consensus Ged UK 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not really sure why this was nominated for deletion riffic (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No lack of notability that might justify deletion, awards for his company are being mentioned in the article, keep --Goodgirl - talk to me 21:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well sourced to establish notability. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 10:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In this case the creative person doesn't have works in museums and libraries, he actually designs the museums and libraries, which is something most architects do not have the honor of doing. I don't see why this was nominated either. Drawn Some (talk) 12:03, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Art movies[edit]

Notability not established. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dictdefy neologism with no assertion of notability. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism, dicdef, no claim of notability. JJL (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per neoglism. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 03:11, 6 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. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Ransack[edit]

No indication of notability. Postoak (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I previously deproded this based on its coverage in multiple RS, however on further review it appears that most of the coverage is trivial in nature and thus the software probably doesn't meet the GNG. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability and per search by Thadd. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete No notability. --Abce2|AccessDenied 19:55, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eekkoo[edit]

Non-notable individual. A number of GHits, buts lacks GNews coverage. Fails WP:NOTE. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - passing mentions such as [53], and [54] can be found but no substantial coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google shows no signs of notability whatsoever^[55][56][57]. — Rankiri (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 6 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. The subject does not meet the guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Bets[edit]

Entirely unnotable online gambling website. No independant coverage that is not either press release or affiliate oriented. It apears to have payed to sponsor a horse race but even that does not get the company covered, though the race itself shows up on sites listing results of all horse races. Additionally WP:SPA and WP:COI seem pretty clearly involved here. (And finally "free bets" is is an attempt by a minor entity to co-opt the common phrase, it should at least be renamed Freebets.co.uk. 2005 (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral though I totally disagree with the moving, if this article remains. The name of the company is "Free Bets", so that's what the article should be called. The only other appearance of the phrase "free bets" is a redirect to the Online casino article, which mentions the phrase once in non-descriptive passing. Hence, there's no name conflict. Your reason for moving — that they're shoe-horning a "common phrase" — just seems a fickle explanation.

The reason I went neutral is that, although the article has little independent coverage (some results in Google News and such show that it's "around"), it has little independent coverage. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the Google news coverage is about the company. Those are just mentions of a horse race they sponsor. 2005 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see a clause under WP:CORP that would support keeping this article. Gambling businesses are not inherently notable, and this case seems to have no notable features. Johnuniq (talk) 10:25, 6 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 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haymaker (country rock band)[edit]

Reads like a PR piece. Vaguely asserts notability in that a Canadian Idol judge is one of the band's members, and they have an album released through a questionably notable subsidiary of EMI. A search for sources given "Haymaker" and various other keywords turned up no reliable third party sources beyond this. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Do not appear to meet notability. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Might be some day, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – They have received non-trivial coverage in multiple sources, including having their album reviewed by the Winnipeg Free Press. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/merge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Springdale, Brampton[edit]

Declining speedy for the moment; I might vote for speedy as db-spam if it turns out this is a real estate development tied to one developer. If it's a growing community representing a number of business and a large number of residences, then that's okay. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Brampton—Springdale and Brampton—Springdale (provincial electoral district) seem to point in the direction that this is a valid article. I won't "vote" yet. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has been tagged for several weeks as an ad and needing refs, still not got any. Very spam like writing.--Dmol (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not very hard to "neutralise" this article really, just remove a few words. Have removed advert tag. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Have made up my mind. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added a couple of references to the article that show that this is a sizeable community. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how big does it have to be? If it had some defining features that make it notable fine but having schools? I grew up in a subdivision near some schools and there are malls near where I live now. When I was a kid, we built some tree forts too. Is inclusion argument motivated by being a municipality or is it just a development? Anything on a map I guess could be notable and maps are sources. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly needs improvement, but we're not talking about a small real estate development here — it's a neighbourhood large and significant and well-established enough that the city has been served by electoral districts called Brampton—Springdale and Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale. Canadian electoral districts, for what it's worth, are named for the main geographic features of the area they comprise, not for individual housing starts. That said, not every individual neighbourhood in every city necessarily needs its own separate article, especially if that separate article is just an unreferenced or minimally referenced stub, so a merge into Brampton would be valid here — but as a large and prominent neighbourhood rather than an individual subdivision, it's not really a delete. Merge to Brampton, or keep if improved. Bearcat (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Brampton. Springdale isn't notable by itself - in fact the Brampton article already says about as much as can be said about Springdale. PK T(alk) 14:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is sourced with reliable sourced. Article does not expansion. Sebwite (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only things sourced here are the name of a particular school in the neighbourhood, which is sourced to an article in the local community weekly that reads much more like a thinly-veiled reprint of the school board's press release than a real news article, and the raw statistic of how much land area the neighbourhood covers — and if that statistic is really the only thing about Springdale that can be sourced to Sewell's book, then the criterion of substantial coverage hasn't been met. And since Sewell's book is primarily about Toronto rather than Brampton, it's highly unlikely that he actually says enough about Springdale in it to meet that standard. Bearcat (talk) 19:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Does not meet the inclusion guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rug manager pro[edit]

Non-notable software product. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The soccer manager video game makers must want to stretch their wings (and bottom line), but Rug Manager...

I kid. But like many projects confined to be sold to certain business lines, this product's notability is limited and sources outside the Oriental rug industry would probably be few and far between. Nate • (chatter) 18:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google shows 10 search results and no signs of notability whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, commercial software with no 3rd party sources to support notability. Dialectric (talk) 14:01, 6 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haymaker (punk band)[edit]

Only notability asserted is that it has members of other bands and recorded occasionally. All of the albums are on non-notable labels, and a good faith search for sources turned up bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not appear to meet notability. They do have an allmusic page [58] but that can hardly be used as much of a source since even that is pretty much empty. Rlendog (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching brings nothing, like previously said.--Abce2|AccessDenied 19:46, 6 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sreeram Chaulia[edit]

Completing nomination for IP editor - rationale: Non-notable; fails WP:N as there are no sources about him, merely by him or mentioning him in passing. Almost certainly vanity. Please complete deletion nomination. ascidian | talk-to-me 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found several articles written by him, but no coverage of him. He also does not seem to have done anything noteworthy in his career. He fails the notability guideline for people. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 23:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Asserts 270 articles written, but no statement of how that would be notable (there are probably thousands of people who have written a few hundred articles). No sources to establish notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Discuss OK, I'm a bit biased here as I have over 270 blog posts and some patents and papers that I think changed the world ( your mileage may vary ). However, writing a large number of articles for reliable sources suggests some credibility. I guess it would depend on

what happens when you check his claims- does he have his own column or some attributes that define his notability? Now, if these were refereed scientific articles, that may reflect more notability. I'm not sure however that even working in a lab with a noble prize winner is different than, say, being related to a notable person. Indifferent I guess but would investigate before deleting.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 6 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.