< 30 March 1 April >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Xclamation point 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CLAWS[edit]

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

No third-party sources; in fact, no assertion of notability except in edit summaries. Ipatrol (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I don't monitor Wikipedia 24x7 for changes. I have this thing called a job...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.232.154 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State of the Union (band)[edit]

State of the Union (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This band fails the notability guidelines for music. The article, which has no references, makes no attempt to establish notability. (The band's article also seems to now be used primarily as an advertisement rather than an encyclopedic article.) - Jrissman (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TigerWiki[edit]

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

Discontinued Non-notable software; references consist of non-reliable sources Dandv (talk) 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Active and much larger FOSS wiki software projects, like Foswiki and MojoMojo, were not deemed notable, and many editors voted for their deletion (where are these editors now, one wonders). In order to avoid a double-standard, I joined the effort of deleting Wikipedia articles of free open-source software. However, I actually am of the opinion that existing FOSS with a significant user base deserves a page on Wikipedia and started a mailing list thread on that (which unfortunately generated almost no interest). As such, I marked for deletion only abandoned wiki software.
thanks for your reply. I see Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge, with the five pillars, and the two fundamental policies WP:V and WP:SOURCES. I understand that some people use Wikipedia as a software knowledge references works (factual, concise, no spam, etc). I would say it's an absolute legit purpose, and so it pains me to see articles deleted on notability issues, that I consider inherently subjective. This personal opinion aside, the notability discussion is "stuck", as was pointed out at the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. best Power.corrupts (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Carbonne[edit]

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

The subject of this article is a musician whose notability is not established (I'm not familiar in detail with the current requirements of WP:MUSIC, but I doubt it passes that standard). There are no references, and a Google News search (here) doesn't return much in the way of useful information. Given the general inability of Wikipedia to maintain BLPs on marginally notable subjects at an adequate level of accuracy and professionalism, this article ought to be deleted until the subject becomes more prominent and a better article can be written. Avruch T 22:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a vague idea, I don't think. Perhaps it doesn't have clearly defined criteria, but it has been a somewhat common deletion rationale since it was proposed some time ago in a high profile poll. Avruch T 00:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a vague idea. You can't say something isn't vague and then say that it doesn't have a clearly defined criteria. Moreover, when it was proposed it was shown to clearly not have any consensus behind it. The times it has been used as a deletion rationale it has primarily been a substitute for some notion that if there is disagreement about whether a subject meets WP:BIO then the assumption towards deletion is stronger than it might be otherwise. That's a different claim. There remains no consensus, no policy, no guideline and no compelling case to delete articles whose subjects meet BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I could easily argue the semantics of the idea that something without specific defining criteria is automatically vague... Not the place for it, though. If you like, think of it this way: The nom statement is essentially a recap of the rationale for deleting articles that don't meet WP:BIO. There are other reasons to delete articles about non-notable living people, but the fact that we can't verify or maintain them in a reasonable fashion is certainly a major one. Avruch T 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not specific biographies. That's why we don't have non-notable articles in general. Bringing in living people just complicates the matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first is a schedule mention (i.e. here are the groups performing, among them is Yves Carbonne) and the second is a staff profile - hardly the sort of reliable source necessary to satisfy notability concerns. Avruch T 22:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some unfavorable comments relative to deleting Yves Carbonne's page. Le Monde, Bass Musician Magazine, The International Institute of Bassists, 2 cd releases with two prestigious indie record labels, performing around the world with other high profile artists as well as being a soloist, and most importantly: He is the person who is responsible for CREATING the term "Sub-Bass" AND he conceived and is the ONLY bassist in the world to play 10-12 string fretless sub-basses (for those of you who are not familiar with the significance of that: That could be compared to playing a 97 key Bosendorfer Imperial Concert Grand Piano - WITHOUT KEYS. To dismiss him as unimportant is a very short sighted and closed point of view for those arguing for deletion. He was already ON here for at least two years (as are many other musicians not meeting the "American" Wikipedia definition of what a relevant musician is, although he DOES, in fact, with 2 CDs to his credit by prestigious indie record labels). I am not here to make enemies, but, someone who actually CONCEIVED new musical instruments which will take the entire bass community to the next level, could HARDLY be considered an irrelevant musician. He has more song plays on myspace than ANY other French instrumentalist. You can easily verify that. And, although I will guess that you consider that irrelevant, myspace is being used as the primary website for most musicians these days. Record companies look at myspace when determining an artist's potential. Furthermore, he made a bass trio cd with Dominique Di Piazza and Michael Manring, both of whom are notable musicians, and they are both on your site. I will also bring to your attention that he has TOP billing on that CD, i.e. the name of the cd is: Carbonne / Di Piazza / Manring. As I said yesterday, what holds significant importance here and seems to be taking a back seat in the discussions above, is the fact that he is a well recognized, highly respected bassist who is also a PIONEER. He has toured around the world, and I will see what information I can find from European sources. In the meantime, the sources I have listed relative to information about him, i.e. Bass Musician Magazine - where he is a WRITER (he wouldn't be on their STAFF if he was unimportant), Le Monde (as someone else mentioned), reviews in Bass Player Magazine (not online: that is a hard copy magazine, and I would have to research their archives), The International Institute of Bassists, Series of guitars named after him on both the Jerzy Drozd and Noguera websites (below), etc. should be more than enough. It is more than many other bassists on your site have to their credit. And I will repeat: he was already ON HERE for more than two years! If there is an objection to my writing style, then please feel free to change it. But, don't punish a serious, recognized musician because you don't like or approve of my style of writing. That would would be unconscionable and plain wrong.TLCbass (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, he has two lines of basses (from 2 of the most important luthiers in the world: Jerzy Drozd and Christian Noguera) named AFTER him:

http://www.noguera-basses.com/basses_serie.php?serie_b=YC

http://www.jerzydrozdbasses.com/yvescarbonne.htm

Hardly an honor that would be received by an "unimportant" musician.

Here are links to concerts in various online news sources in France. That is the reason chzz did not find him under google news usa, because he is French. I found these in 1 minute on French google. I can probably find a hundred more if necessary:

basses.guitarplug.com/news/index,idproduit,86251,guitare,legend_10_yves_carbonne.html http://www.bordeaux.sortir.eu/concerts/yves-carbonne-detonne-2008-02-19-17-51-30 http://www.casafree.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=27212 http://www.forumfr.com/sujet158161-yves-carbonne-en-concert.html

And, when you google his name on the US google site, 293,000 results come up. That number does not reflect an insignificant musician.TLCbass (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also add, when searching him on Google news, the results are inaccurate if you put " " around the name. Many articles refer to him by his LAST name, and unfortunately, his name is often mis-spelled in favor of the more common "Carbone". One news article below re: concert in California. I will continue to look for more.

WIKIPEDIA.COM: He is listed and recognized in the history of the bass guitar ON WIKIPEDIA, as the person who CONCEIVED the 10 string bass: Being that YOUR OWN SITE RECOGNIZES HIM AS THE PERSON WHO CONCEIVED THE 10 STRING BASS, IN THE HISTORY OF THE BASS, I think that outweighs everything else that has been said: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_guitar REFERENCE #30. And that is YOUR OWN PAGE.

Jazz News Article: Yves Carbonne http://home.nestor.minsk.by/jazz/news/2008/01/0703.htmlTLCbass (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Bass Interview 2004: http://www.planetbass.fsnet.co.uk/yvescarbonne.html

Concertlive.fr site: http://www.concertlive.fr/tous-les-concerts/11495/yves-carbonne

Article, Total Bass.com, France: http://www.totalbass.com/fr/forum/t1689-1-PourquoiPas8Cordes.html

French interview: Multiple Interview page, in the company of: Hadrien Feraud, Victor Wooten, Dominique DiPiazza, etc.(all considered to be top bassists): http://www.bassebruno.com/interview/interview.php

French interview: http://www.slappyto.net/Utilisateurs/Voir-Profil.aspx?id=1132

Short pictorial: Bass Magazine, France: http://batteurmag.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=9183

Radio reviews: http://www.francodiff.org/fr/2-les-radios-en-parlent/5-les-intentions-de-programmation/4075-yves-carbonne/?s_alpha=C

International Institute of Bassists article: http://www.instituteofbass.com/archive/bass_abroad/carbonne_yves/

Academy of Contemporary Music: Master Class Instructor: http://www.acm.ac.uk/BassMasterclasses/


I am done with this for today. I think I have made a very strong case, with solid support that it would be unjustified to delete Yves Carbonne's page. TLCbass (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean who is at Alternity Records I could get his name, if that's what you are asking. However, I don't know who wrote the info I rearranged, modified AND verified, because very similar text is on several pages on the web, and there is no author named anywhere. Therefore, I don't know who wrote it initially. And at this point it is obvious that the people in this discussion are looking for a reason to delete the page. The only feedback is negative, and all for different reasons. Therefore, I question the motives that have been set into place here. TLCbass (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the entire article then. Your behavior in "reviewing the article" - objectively - for deletion is a joke: don't think for one second that you have presented yourselves as "objective". I have just wasted hours and hours, trying to get supporting documents to correct the original reason for deletion, and then when I did that, you came up with yet ANOTHER reason to delete the article. Forget about anyone of you offering to help rearrange it, reword it, etc. It is clear since yesterday that you were looking for any reason whatsoever to delete the article. The reference to the copyright violation was mentioned last, which proves that no one checked the links I put up from the BEGINNING, yet you said I had no supporting documents. So, it is apparent that no one even opened or thoroughly read the link until today. If that was a valid concern, it could have been brought up 2 days ago. But, it is clear, you just wanted to mess with me because I took a stand. So delete EVERYTHING... DON'T JUST LEAVE UP YOUR CHOICE, INCORRECT, OUTDATED INFORMATION. I will investigate further what can be done about this situation, and the fact that you clearly show preferential treatment to some artists, and clearly showed a negative bias to me. It is more than obvious, that I was singled out and persecuted here, because other artists have MANY more deviations to your "policy" and it is more than clear to anyone who reads this, that your contributors to this discussion cite different reasons for deleting the article, and turned it around into copyright violation after I wasted valuable time trying to satisfy your impossible demands, which NEVER MENTIONED COPYRIGHT VIOLATION UNTIL LATE TODAY. I spent two days rearranging the article, and obtaining supporting references in an attempt to satifsy your ever increasing demands. I am letting it be known, for the record, that there are other musicians on your site who have not been held to NEARLY the same impossible standards that you have attempted to force on me, i.e. incorrect page format, references to personal websites, unsubstantiated data, references to cd sales sites, etc. All the things I was told to remove. So, delete the entire artist page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you really trying to claim that because nobody has noticed that this was a copyright violation before, it can't be brought up now? I just came to the nominated article for the first time, and to me, it looked like it was copied from someplace else, and lo and behold. Copyvios are copyvios, it doesn't matter how long they've been here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read up people. http://wapedia.mobi/en/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers#1. Oh and I am done discussing this. Have you p---ing match all by yourselves, children. And where is the speedy delete? Do it already! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TLCbass (talk • contribs) 01:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. Mgm|(talk) 11:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo lee cornith[edit]

Yo lee cornith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am proposing this article for deletion as the prod protocol was used, the original editor did expand the article, but still included no references. Further edits were made from an IP adding further content with no refs. A google search turned up no hits other than possible facebook/myspace pages. Both editors have only made edits either to this article or vandalism edits to Staten Island. The article style seems to suggest this a bit of a hoax really. Anyway. Deletion? Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WestView - The New Voice of the West Village[edit]

WestView - The New Voice of the West Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Could not find reliable sources to show notability of a publication. tedder (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jób[edit]

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

This article caught my eye whilst categorising. Almost all of the edits (by 2 SPAs, and an anon user, appear to be inflating this young man's career further with each version, but I can find no record of him in the IMDB listings for any of the productions mentioned (not conclusive, I know), no significant, relevant presence on Google, and nothing in connection with Sony BMG, where he is supposed to have a record deal, or on the Daily Mail website, where this was apparently reported. Note that two of the SPAs mentioned above have inserted references to this individual into Million Dollar Baby, Adulthood (film) and Hustle (TV series). Kateshortforbob 21:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

I just read your comments about Yves Carbonne. NO WHERE in the deletion review does it say that he has a record deal with Sony BMG. You made that up & you need to correct it. TruthBeTold (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. It's also clear that there was meatpuppettry at foot here, and I have weighted those accordingly. Xclamation point 05:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Settleball[edit]

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

Sport invented a few months ago at one school, no sources to support article's claims of popularity/notability. Author removed prod tag without adding sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes it does, WP:Notability requires that an article be referenced to reliable sources. The criterion for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. It does not matter that the game really exists, what matters is that it is notable enough to have received some coverage in independant sources. Delete. SpinningSpark 21:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • School yearbooks do not qualify as significant coverage. The general notability guidelines provide an explanation of what "significant coverage" means. You can also can read WP:SOURCES to find the kind of sourcing that is needed. In general, an article like this would require a book about the subject or, at least, significant articles in national newspapers like the Irish Independent. As currently written, the article has no sources and thus constitutes unverifiable original research which disqualifies it for inclusion on WP. — CactusWriter | needles 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed the previous entry from don't delete to comment because this IP address has already registered a !vote above. — CactusWriter | needles 07:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Aiello[edit]

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

Only one non-trivial article found--at EE Times. Unfortunately, this doesn't confer enough notability to overcome the high COI (author is Robertoaiello (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under criteria A3 (article was simply devoid of information.) Marasmusine (talk) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup (video game)[edit]

2010 FIFA World Cup (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD, WP:CRYSTALBALL. ViperSnake151 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nariman Teymourian[edit]

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

Prod disputed by sole author, who appears to have a significant conflict of interest (judging from username, it's an autobio). Original proposal was to delete as a hoax. Certain claims of the article are unsourced and dubious, and author has removed tag without offering sourcing: Teymourian is not listed on the US Olympic team from 1984 (see official archive), and in addition, given the claimed birth year, there are serious inconsistencies. ROTC cadets are usually commissioned into the Army, not the Marines, and furthermore it is unusual (to say the least) to graduate from college and receive a commission into the armed forces at age 18 (owing to legal problems, as a commmitment would have had to be made by the age of 16 or so). Furthermore, I note that the 5th Marine Division was deactivated in 1969, and so far as Google has been able to determine, the 28th Recon Battalion does not exist. As for the subject itself, Google News confirms existence, but does not provide nontrivial coverage in sources independent of the subject, and hence subject would fail WP:BIO. RayTalk 20:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you send out your resume for a job interview, you generally leave out the material that is not relevant to the job at hand. This resume is no different since the army and his soccer career would be totally irrelevant for his CEO position. - Mgm|(talk) 10:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 20:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big sombrero economy[edit]

Big sombrero economy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A neologism from John Blossomin's book "Content Nation: Surviving and Thriving as Social Media Changes Our Work, Our Lives and Our Future". And the article creator? John Blossomin himself. If this wasn't a big enough problem, the term is only used by him, and is therefore not notable. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or transwiki to Wiktionary. An interestingly-named concept, but all six references I could find were seemingly generated by the author himself. Hence, there are no reliable sources that I could find. I'm not sure if Wiktionary allows self-generated neologisms or if it requires something more in the way of provenance. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jblossom (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Whatever, the world's a funny place some times. You publish a book by a reputable press and it's considered self-generated. Perhaps if I had my PR guy do it you would have considered it. Thanks anyway.[reply]

Well, no, actually if your PR guy had done it we probably would have deleted it more quickly, rather than giving it this thorough public hearing. If you have any constructive citations to offer to demonstrate that anyone except you uses this phrase, we're all eager to hear them. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Zips[edit]

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

Non-notable band, no hits (single or album), no press coverage, nowt. (or "zip" if you prefer). pablohablo. 19:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JavaBeats.FM[edit]

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

Non-notable internet radio station. No reliable sources are provided in the article, and none of the first 100 hits from google are reliable either [4] Someguy1221 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The station is still very new as I am seeking attention from news sources. It is a valid station and is worthy of a wiki entry. Please tune into the station, and try out the website if you are skeptical.

Again I feel this deletion is in the wrong. As the station receives more attention I will accurately update the wiki. As you can see this station is in the top-10 for the Techno genre on SHOUTcast: http://www.shoutcast.com/genre/Techno

Please provide a response and allow adequate time for it to be read if you choose to delete. Thank you.


Also, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_ZET This entry exists for an internet radio station and provides nothing! Why does it exist?


Unfortunately, having read that, this appears to still be a clear-cut delete. How good the radio station is doesn't matter - it's whether it meets notability. Sure, it's new radio station so it hasn't really had a chance to get media coverage yet, but WP:CRYSTAL is pretty clear that Wikipedia articles are for things that are notable now, not things that may be notable in the future. And as for radio ZET, maybe that needs deleting too. WP:WAX isn't too keen on that argument. There is the entry on shoutcast, but it's still the most trivial of media coverage, and, to be brutally honest, audiences ratings in four figures isn't really anything the write home about. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to Wife Swap#Other Special Editions. My reading of the sources here is that almost any notability that Silver might possess is related to Wife Swap, and thus any information on her should be in that article. Turning it around, we could ask the question "would there be any notability whatsoever if this person had not appeared on that program", and the answer, despite a few minor media appearances and the ordinance issue, is clearly "no". Not to mention that there's a clear consensus to delete here. However, since Silver is already mentioned briefly in the WS article, any other encyclopedic information can be mentioned there, as long it does not amount to an attempt to recreate this article via the back door. Black Kite 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheree Silver[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:N, the bulk of references fails WP:RS. Inclusion of this person in WP is just ridiculous. WP is an encyclopedia, and the most popular one at that, would you include someone like this person in an encylopedia? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A mockery of Wikipedia. How about other people who appeared at Wipe Swap, do they have WP articles? Mention of this clown's name on so-called references are merely collateral, the article's creator seeks to idiotize us by using them. The only direct reference is subject's website, but obviously fails WP:RS. Portrayal as a "philosopher" is inaccurate as subject holds a philosophy "degree" from an unaccredited diploma mill. The other Wipe Swap folks were also seen by the same number of people, if that is our basis then let us create WP articles for each one of them! A previous unanymous AfD already decided delete, what is this garbage doing here still? – Shannon Rose (talk) 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Just one note: please don't call the subject of an article a "clown", specially when we are talking about living persons. It just makes wikipedia look bad when outside people read these discussions.) The article was restored because of the DRV here (click on the "show" word to see the archived discussion there). I don't agree with the DRV closure, but it's too late to change it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon, you have been repeatedly warned to tone down your personal attacks. I think calling the subject of articles "clowns" is a WP:BLP violation. Ikip (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked DGG to join as well, because you guys participated in the deletion review, sorry if I bothered you... Spring12 (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete A tough call, but I finally decided that the person doesn't meet notability standards. Owning a private school and appearing on a reality television show doesn't make a person notable enough for inclusion here. 3-rd party sources exist, but there are relatively few. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)Changed to weak keep Thought it over, and decided that there are enough reliable 3-rd party sources for this to qualify as sufficiently notable. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that example is what i'm referring to as trivial coverage being overemphasized to make her appear notable. My point with those quotes was to show you that even the LA Times found the other contestants more deserving of in-depth description than Silver. untwirl(talk) 20:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if examples are being overemphasized, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Overemphasis is not a reason for deletion according to Wikipedia:Deletion#Reasons for deletion. Spring12 (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Note: Wife Swap is not a "game show" with contestants, families swap lives for two weeks. Spring12 (talk) 21:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that was just one out of many examples. editors who read the article and peruse the sources will have no trouble determining that most, if not all, of the rest are trivial as well. untwirl(talk) 03:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC) note: it is, as i said, a reality show, and being on a reality show (even twice - for two weeks!) does not make her notable. untwirl(talk) 03:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reference Proof_by_assertion, users have already pointed out how Silver meets notability guidelines. Spring12 (talk) 04:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and i respectfully disagree; i think the coverage she has received is trivial, therefore not fulfilling the notability requirement. don't accuse me of fallacious argument when i am simply clarifying my position in response to your (repeated) misinterpretation. untwirl(talk) 12:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with untwirl: all this trivial stuff together does not add up to the required "substantial coverage"; it's a thin pile of fluff, not adding up to any meaningful substance. What's the line? "Like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me apologize if my observation came off as an accusation. Second, see this: (local paper reporter gets a past life regression) [7] and this (she writes an article for her local paper) [8]. She has received non-trivial coverage for years.Spring12 (talk) 16:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those look very trivial to me. (And her article is a dismaying series of unargued assertions, unadulterated by any evidence, though this objection is by the way here.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) No, other editors have used proof by assertion to show these mentions meet notability standards. When we get to the bottom line, the only reason to include her in Wikipedia is that she appeared in two episodes of a reality show -- which is what was discussed in US mainstream media. Now if she used this 15 minutes of fame to further her visibility in some way -- for example, she became an activist for numerology -- then she would be notable. This is where Silver is similar to, say, someone who appears twice on Jeopardy! (Ken Jenkins being almost the only notable contestant on that show), but different from someone on "Survivor" -- where the contestants are seen by the viewers sufficient times for them to actually become familiar. -- llywrch (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Llywrch, you make some good points. The original reason for "US mainstream media" notability is probably Wife Swap, for the reasons you mentioned. However, the GMA interview and six times on satellite radio (interviews on metaphysical topics), came after the first episode (although the interviews didn't mention Wife Swap), and would fill the "continuation" category. The second Wife Swap episode would follow a few months later, with her family being voted for in a style similar to Dancing with the Stars. There's a lot of trivial coverage in addition to these, yes, but I should think they would count for something a lot more than "fluff." Just my thoughts, Spring12 (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, she appeared in three ephemeral TV shows, and a little trivial coverage mentioning those shows. There are no reliable sources for creating a biography out of that. If we removed the statements from the article justified by patently bad sources, we'd be left with a paragraph of material, and no possibility of expansion. This should be deleted. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we'd be left with a paragraph of material, and no possibility of expansion" is not a valid Wikipedia:DEL#Reasons_for_deletion. In addition to my earlier thoughts, Silver should be notable under WP:N (people) because she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject, (GMA, the St. Aug Record, Sirius Satellite Radio). (Note: Wife Swap is not ephemeral, because it airs in syndication on Lifetime) Spring12 (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: OK, I don't think she is notable and, as an aside, the article is non-neutral. As a further aside, I don't think commenting on nearly every other editor's !vote is advancing your arguments. – ukexpat (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the fact she had to get the law changed [13] to continue spouting mumbo-jumbo to the gullible practising her noble and honourable arts is sufficient notability, the TV appearance is additional gravy. pablohablo. 11:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVAS Ms. Rose, I am a little confused, you accuse the creator of this article of canvassing, by notifying one editor,[14] with what User:AndrewHowse calls a "personal attack":

I noticed that you're doing inappropriate canvassing/begging here and relentless crying here. Such tricks will not save your hopeless piece of junk from getting what it truly deserves. Stop manipulating and idiotizing people. This kind of preschool psychologizing to win them over your lost cause will never work because Wikipedia is full of really smart folks. Chill and let fate take its course. You are just irritating everybody. What a pathetic nuisance you have proven to be! (emphasis my own)

And yet, you have canvassed 6 editors yourself.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Can you explain this blatant discrepency in your canvassing accusations/personal attacks and your own canvassing? Ikip (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't really know anything about Wikipedia policy, do you? There is absolutely nothing wrong with canvassing, in fact when you nominate an article for deletion it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles (educate yourself with WP:AFD). And I have never accused Spring12 of canvassing. What I said quite explicitly, if you only knew how to read, was inappropriate canvassing and, to be quite specific, campaigning, which is defined as an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. and to justify this let me refer you (again, as a link is already provided above) of what he said here "Hey, Chzz, you helped me with the article Sheree Silver a few days ago' (it was a request for feedback). If you get a chance, you're welcome to participate in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sheree_Silver_(2nd_nomination)." To remind an editor that he once helped you with an article that is now being nominated for deletion is tantamount to saying "Hey, some people want to demolish what we worked for." Now go through my invites and try to find anything that comes even close to swaying an editors decision. You call yourself Ikip (I keep), which implies that you're here to vote keep to every article in an AfD indescriminately, and your edit history proves this. That is why your position should be ignored in every AfD. You're a nonsense person in Wikipedia, and you're one of the reasons why so much garbage don't get thrown out. You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. – Shannon Rose (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to remove your own comments and personal attacks : You are ignorant, impertinent and absolutely useless. but you are not allowed to delete my edits. Please refrain from such behavior or you maybe blocked for another 55 hours. Ikip (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My my! Deleting a non-notable crank's article should be done because they're a non-notable crank. The effect of helping balance is just a side benefit. Personally I think the same should be done to all wiki-lawyers but I can't see that getting past the first hurdle... the wiki-lawyers. My tip of the day to you is to learn to differentiate between reasons and opinion. Your above comment clearly shows that you got a little confused. I blame myself for not emboldening the words non-notable and italicising opinion and comment to delineate the two. Sorry, my bad. --WebHamster 17:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Errrr... I didn't say it was. I merely pointed out a couple of reasons why she didn't warrant a toe-tag categorising her as notable. I didn't realise a fully annotated list of ALL the reasons was required. Well there's me one step further away from getting my own article. I was even going to expand on a couple of ground-breaking theories I'd had whilst in bellybutton-perusing mode this afternoon in the vain hope that I could get them published in Old Moore's Almanac thereby attaining that elusive "notability" lapel badge that I could wear with pride at a local Wikipedia Munch. Ah well I'll just have to go back to my job silver-plating u-bends for David Furnish and his balding mate. --WebHamster 18:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(refactored out, Themfromspace you are welcome to remove your comments too relating too this, and remove this statment too. thank you for being a referee and diplomat in this situation) Ikip (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I'll strike out the comment. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CryEngine 3[edit]

CryEngine 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Game engine not released WP:CRYSTAL (or not according to the sources); not used in any games; does not meet notability requirements; not used by any game titles, does not assert notability  Chzz  ►  19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Black Kite 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Bartocci[edit]

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

The person is not notable, and not published in reputable sources. Ox3nard (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wouldn't his beliefs about E=mc^2 be called a fringe theory? Astronaut (talk) 05:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be cautious about attributing notability based on the kind of "news coverage" that an individual like Bartocci generates for his fringe beliefs. He has been unable to get his beliefs accepted by reputable scholarly journals, so he resorted to issuing "press releases", but the stuff about De Pretto (for example) was not original or "news" with Bartocci. De Pretto has been touted by anti-Einstein kooks for decades. So the "news stories" are just shams, perpetrated by a determined fringe individual. Think Mark McCutcheon and "The Final Theory". If we really want to have Wikipedia biographies on every kook who publicizes his beliefs, I fear Wikipedia will become a repository for kook biographies. Just having a web page or being mentioned in the newspaper (in an article that you yourself have arranged) shouldn't be sufficient to establish notability. There is already an article on De Pretto, which mentions Bartocci as a recent publicizer. That stikes me as the appropriate level of coverage. (Actually I think the De Pretto article should be updated to note the previous individuals who have promoted that idea. It certainly is not a Bartocci innovation. Just re-hashed run of the mill anti-Einsteinism.)6324xxxx (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, Bartocci’s citations in The Guardian article are not minor. He is cited several times, and quite prominently. He has made a decisive point as a historian, writing an entire book on the subject. The book was apparently published by Andromeda, whose specialties are science fiction, fantasy and horror. Still, notability is notability …--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the paragraphs in the Guardian article end with "according to Bartocci" or some equivalent. That's not the same as coverage about Bartocci, and I still say it's trivial. "Made a decisive point as a historian" is an argument for WP:PROF #1, but I'm not convinced the standards of that criterion are met. The Guardian article does supply strong support for the De Pretto article and I suppose one solution would be to redirect Bartocci's article there. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Taguig City#Education. MBisanz talk 10:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne-Claire Montessori School[edit]

Anne-Claire Montessori School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject is of questionable notability. Anne-Claire Montessori(sic) School is a private school in the Philippines. The only results I found with a google search were in phonebook-style listings of schools, and in a few personal pages that listed it as being a school they attend or had previously attended. Riffraffselbow (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 19:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

standards. It's not a public school, so I'd like to verify its notability with better sources. I can always do original research and ask my Filipino boyfriend for his opinion. This may be the first time I'll advocate for deletion of a "high" school article. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumption alone is not enough. Efforts have been made and it was determined that all the coverage there is lacks independence. If you can do better, place show it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Crytek. Merge would be good, but is there anything to merge except that it was cancelled and some original research Black Kite 18:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engalus[edit]

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

Non-notable computer game that was never competed.  Chzz  ►  19:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Second thought Merge as per Marasu. --SkyWalker (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW, because Wikipedia is not a free webspace. There is no chance this will survive an AFD discussion. Contact me if you want a copy of the deleted material. Mgm|(talk) 23:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Times Ancient History[edit]

Dark Times Ancient History (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Its a timeline of a fictional world, of which there is no article, and of which no books are published yet. God Emperor (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 famous flowers of China[edit]

4 famous flowers of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete belatedly contested WP:PROD based on not being referenced and being a synthesis of original research. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Monster Attacks![edit]

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

non-notable short film (if it even exists). Ironholds (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Pakistan relations[edit]

Cyprus–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. No real relations of which to speak. No secondary sources given. Jd027 (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've produced a preview of an archive of a maritime agreement signed in 2005, reported by China's crackpot news agency, Xinhua. And this is not a secondary source. Jd027 (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I presented the Xinhua as it was the easiest to link to, and while I might not trust them on a story on Tibet, calling them a crackpot in this context is ridiculous. If you like other sources better, here's a story from the Financial Times about the same agreement (via another source). [27]. Another from the Daily Times [28] Here are several articles about the significance of Pakistan-Cyprus issues in the context of the northern Cyprus issue: [29] [30] (Subscription required for full text). Given Pakistan's importance as the world's largest Muslim power, and the salience of the Northern Cyprus - Cyprus issue, Cypriot-Pakistani relations are important, and documented in secondary sources. Cool3 (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime TC 19:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personally. When the message is unassailable, all that's left is to attack the messenger. WilyD 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could both of you please review WP:AGF? Hilary, I helped get them deleted because they failed WP:RS, WP:N and any number of other policies. WilyD, pointing out that someone may be an SPA is not an "attack" on someone; it's standard practice in AfD debates. If you don't like the spa template (which I certainly didn't create), nominate it for deletion, but don't impugn my motives. You should know better. - Biruitorul Talk 20:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Standard practice or not, it's an ad hominem. If you don't wish your arguments to be called ad hominems - don't make ad hominem arguments. WilyD 20:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The template was created in July 2006 by User:Netsnipe (who became an administrator a month later). It's been used almost 3,000 times. It was speedily kept twice. You may think it an ad hominem, but it clearly has widespread community support, and serves its purpose well. - Biruitorul Talk 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Doval[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. References cited are mostly primary (controlled by the subject himself). No charted songs or albums. Article appears to promote the subject and little else. Fails WP:BAND. (Declined speedy, and prod removed by original author.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Uzbekistan relations[edit]

Romania–Uzbekistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Only reason given was "rm silliness." No real relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Biruitorul Talk 20:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And those premises would be....?Yilloslime TC 16:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yours, for instance, relies upon the non-existance of independent secondary sources of nontrivial depth, but they exist. As an example. WilyD 16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me one--just one--and I'll change my !vote to keep. Yilloslime TC 16:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we're debating trivial, but the first two references in the article are non-trivial, in my opinion, and give some coverage to the relationship. Unfortunately, you'll need Lexis-Nexis to access them, or a similar database. If you have access to one, I'd encourage you to look at them yourself, otherwise I'd be happy to provide the text via email to interested parties. Cool3 (talk) 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Sugar (Footballer)[edit]

David Sugar (Footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously deleted via WP:PROD, now recreated. The subject is a fifth-choice goalkeeper for AS Roma (not even listed into the first team roster, which includes four goalkeeper but not him [31]) who has never played a single game in a fully professional league. The highest tier he played is Swiss Challenge League, which is not fully professional. So, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Stuart[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any sources for this article. If the content was true I would expect to find some references - particularly about ballooning in Africa or the exhumation of his body. It was created & edited by unregisterered users so I'm unable to inform them. — Rod talk 18:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xclamation point 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Tunisia relations[edit]

Estonia–Tunisia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Only rationale given was "Don't be crazy." Non-notable relations. Countries don't have embassies with each other. No reliable, secondary, independent sources given. No relations apart from just existing. Jd027 (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They signed an agreement of cooperation in the field of culture in 2005. I don't think that really deserves an article in itself. Jd027 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A significant bilateral agreement means that the relations are meaningful. There are a lot of sources out there on the agreement and others, and I've added more material to the article. Unfortunately, most of what's out there is written in Estonian, and I don't speak Estonian. With the rough aid of Google translate, though, I can tell you that the Estonian media covered the Cooperation Agreement and the opening of the consulate pretty heavily. This is at least two separate significant (and covered by independent secondary sources) events in their relations, enough for an article. Cool3 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be an overwhelming consensus to delete and so I did. The sources presented by Cool3 may be good enough to make something out of this article, but I'm not entirely convinced. If he feels he can write something that abides by the guidelines about this, I will gladly userfy this article. —Admiral Norton (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poland–Uruguay relations[edit]

Poland–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We've recently deleted a lot of articles on bilateral relations of countries that don't have embassies with each other; see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations. Now let's try taking things a step further. Poland and Uruguay do have embassies. They do pay rent on an embassy and do pay diplomats to do something, presumably more than sitting in the embassy compound and watching videos. I don't deny that. However:

With this in mind, I think the case for deletion is strong. Biruitorul Talk 15:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) That a Polish diplomat in the US happened to flee to Uruguay is, if anything, more a function of Polish-US relations than of Polish-Uruguayan relations.
2) If the film (which is fictional) is notable (and it may well be, as Zanussi is a pretty well-known director), it makes much more sense to have an article on Persona non Grata (2005 film).
3, 5) I didn't say they had no relations, but a book fair and a wine tasting are not exactly notable in the field of international relations.
4) A forum is, well, a forum, and as the book fair link says, there are "few" Uruguayan citizens of Polish origin. If they're really notable, that's reason to create a Poles in Uruguay article, not to keep this one. By the way, I didn't see mention of the "over 1000" number.
6) Let's provide the full context: "tempers flared" because "more than 10 Polish embassies, including those in Costa Rica, Yemen, Tanzania and Uruguay" were slated to close. Nothing indicates the relationship with Uruguay in particular was the cause of flared-up tempers; the matter is far more an internal dispute between the Polish President and Foreign Minister than an expression of attachment to the relationship with Uruguay. - Biruitorul Talk 03:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poland-Uruguay relations are foreign relations between Poland and Uruguay. Poland has an embassy in Montevideo. Uruguay has an embassy in Warsaw.
See also
Foreign relations of Poland
Foreign relations of Uruguay
External links
Direction of the Polish embassy in Montevideo
Direction of the Uruguayan embassy in Warsaw

You can not be serious about keeping this as an article. I suggest first to have an article Poles of Uruguay, and only if that is deemed worth existance, re-consider re-creating this one, too. Dc76\talk 22:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominating account has been blocked as a sockpuppet. BJTalk 02:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Les Henderson[edit]

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

Not Notable Munchkin77 (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the tone of your edits and the fact that you have only ever edited this article, it would seem that you have a personal interest. Please review WP:COI. Munchkin78 (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross Sale[edit]

Blue Cross Sale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod, I place it here for your consideration. The original concern was lack of notability. Tone 14:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is this a contested prod? I see no challenge to it - it just never got actioned. SpinningSpark 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of this article opposed the deletion on my talkpage after the article had already been deleted. --Tone 15:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cult. Procedural close: the redirect itself has already been done. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cultist[edit]

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

nn term Gloryarea12345 (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indians commemorated in the editorial page of the New York Times[edit]

List of Indians commemorated in the editorial page of the New York Times (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, extremely broad and narrow list. Delete Secret account 14:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing Mine[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Article is blatant advertising for a company that is barely a month old and has not achieved notability. The supposed "sources" are either non-existent, do not mention this company, or are self published. I still think it's a speedy, but others apparently disagree, so here we are. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first source is a legitimate source that I somehow missed when I was going through the references in the article. The second source is and reads like a press release , so in total, this article contains only one reliable source. My delete stands, but if you are able to uncover another reliable reference, I will switch my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel particularly compelled to look for more, especially given the spamming situation.  :-) Cazort (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one from Adotas is the only ref that even comes close, and it is an industry-insider website, I'm not sure they meet the bar of WP:RS either. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --GedUK  13:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted as an article without any content. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tremulousness[edit]

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

With no incoming links from articlespace and no significant amount of visitors [55] There is no need to have this link. Wikipedia is not a dictionary so links like this should not be encouraged for obscure words that aren't being used. Mgm|(talk) 12:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Pasciuta[edit]

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

Non-notable individual, fails WP:V. Ghits: "Andrea Pasciuta". --AbsolutDan (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC) --AbsolutDan (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Tail Magic[edit]

Long Tail Magic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spamtastic software with no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 11:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment: From this image page, it also appears that you may have a conflict of interest. You are strongly cautioned against writing articles to which you have a close personal/financial etc connection. – ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the software is a big giant, it's that the article isn't notable under our standards. The article is written like an advertisement instead of an encyclopedia article (and making it into a software spec sheet is just as bad - we want encyclopedia articles, not software manuals or spec sheets). There's precious little information about this software that is verifiable in reliable sources written by third parties. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete - I'm... melting...!

Tom Clancey's H.A.W.X. Bugs and Errors[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Tom Clancey's H.A.W.X. Bugs and Errors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a place to store information on bugs and how to fix them. There may be errors like this, yes, but 1) they shouldn't have their own page and 2) until there is a better reference than a fan forum they shouldn't be here at all. Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynastree.com[edit]

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

A Google search seems to return only the site itself, ads or blogs. Moreover, the websites the article mention are in the same categories, and sometimes do not even mention Dynastree. It looks like an ad to me. Goochelaar (talk) 11:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was snowball keep - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures[edit]

Baidu 10 Mythical Creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn memes. Zhongyunghe (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are my arguments. Kindest regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
  1. 【贴图】百度十大神兽_水能载舟亦能煮粥 - A description of every single animal in the meme.
  2. Hoax dictionary entries about legendary obscene beasts - Eng source describing the meme.
  3. Wines, Michael (11 March 2009). "A Dirty Pun Tweaks China’s Online Censors". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/asia/12beast.html?em. Retrieved on 12 March 2009. - NY Times report on the meme.
  4. 山寨版“动物世界”介绍草泥马走红网络_资讯_凤凰网 (Phoenix TV official website) - Phoenix TV article regarding the meme.
  5. 网友创造"十大神兽" 百度百科沦为粗口百科 - CNBETA article, explains that the meme is widespread in China.
  6. 网友创造“十大神兽” 百度百科难避低俗质疑 CCTV.com 中国中央电视台 - China Central Television brief details on Cao Ni Ma.
  7. The Song of the Grass Mud Horse - YouTube - Meme video
  8. 国新办等七部委开展整治互联网低俗之风专项行动 - net.china.cn regarding internet filtering
  9. 对传播低俗内容网站的曝光与谴责(第5号) - more on internet filtering
  10. Chinese Bloggers’ Respond to the Internet Crackdown - China Digital Times - ENG source, explains the relation to censorship in China
  11. 世界四大珍稀物种雅蠛蝶，草泥马 ，法克鱿，菊花蚕(有图有真相) - Info on the 4 main animals
  12. 百度贴吧 十大神兽吧 - from Baidu Tieba, meme info
  13. 百度十大神器 = a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Mythical Weapons"
  14. 百度十大神秘美食 - 金枫网络 - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
  15. 卧槽，又来一个！百度十大神秘美食~~ - a meme parody, "Baidu 10 Secret Delicacies"
  16. Example of meme following: CCTV Fire: Funny Photoshops By Chinese Netizens, chinaSMACK (Resulting from manipulated images of the Beijing Television Cultural Center fire)
  17. 草泥马 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  18. 2009科普之--草泥马(原创整理)
  19. 童声合唱《草泥马之歌》 - Youtube - Meme video
  20. 动物世界特别篇 马勒戈壁上的草泥马! - Youtube - Meme video
  21. 什么是草泥马 - Youtube - Meme video
  22. Plush Your Mother: Grass Mud Horse Dolls In China - details of the plush dolls being sold in China.
  23. 法克鱿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  24. 雅蠛蝶 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  25. 菊花蚕 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  26. 鹑鸽 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  27. 吉跋猫 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  28. 尾申鲸 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  29. 吟稻雁 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  30. 鹳狸猿 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  31. 达菲鸡 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.
  32. 潜烈蟹 - Baidu Baike (Past Screenshot) - Screenshot of the original article deleted from Baidu Baike.

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 01:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. per WP:SNOW. This type of article has already been repeatedly discussed on AFD, and it stands no chance of survival. Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia Game[edit]

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

Per WP:MADEUP. decltype (talk) 10:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands–Uruguay relations[edit]

Netherlands–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another one of Groubani's articles, this time concerning "relations" between the Netherlands and Uruguay. The only thing on this page is saying that they have an embassy in the other country, and previous debates (like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland) have shown that merely having relations with another country is not enough to confer relations per Wp:NN. There might be some relations between the two, but the only link that works is in Dutch, a language I have no knowledge of. The other link results in a 404 error. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Russia relations[edit]

Cyprus–Russia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another article about bilateral relations between two countries. While these two share embassies, there's no content actually discussing relations inside the article. It lacks cotent to the point I'd speedy delete it under criterion A3, but I'm bringing it here, because I know such an action would be controversial if done unilaterally. Delete Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Russia–Sweden relations for the sort of content an article actually needs to be viable (ignoring the fact it's unreferenced). - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky to Russians they never dared to wage war with Cyprus :)) seriously, before the Crisis Cyprus was ranked third or fourth "investor" in Russian assets, so they will not. NVO (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the last crisis in Russia? Some 6-7 years ago, many people I know in Russia had their salaries paid in foreign currency, directly into Cypriot bank accounts. Of course, it wasn't just the normal Russians who took advantage of the Cypriot banking system (and of course the resultant avoidance of paying taxes in Russia), but also the Russian Mafia, and Cyprus became (if not) the number one destination for Russian money in the early 2000s. Is it still the case these days that people have their salaries paid into Cypriot bank accounts? Or am I right in remembering that inter-governmental agreements were signed in order to put a stop to this? And who can forget the Russian sale of S-300s to Cyprus in the late 90s, which caused an absolute shit-storm with Turkey and Greece (with others standing by on the sidelines opining left, right and centre). I'm struggling trying to understand the reasons why these have been brought here, even as they were they wouldn't be eligible under A3 of speedy criteria. --Russavia Dialogue 16:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominating (same reason)
Reasoning not clear? I thought I was pretty clear when I said it lacked content and that encyclopedic content could not be provided. I'd be happy to reconsider if you can find something encyclopedic in the hits you found. Just a bunch of big google numbers mean nothing especially when you didn't look at the words as a whole using quotes. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Already have added materials to meet basic notability criteria. --Russavia Dialogue 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sharing embassies is not enough for inclusion. There is previous precedent from similar aricles written by the same user. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a die-hard inclusionist, I very much disagree. Just because "other precedents" weren't lucky to be caught in due time does not mean deletionists can now go on with trigger-happy deletion sprees.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:35, April 1, 2009 (UTC)
Google hits are not the same as sources. - Mgm|(talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime TC 19:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did make other edits but User:Biruitorul got them deleted in order to discredit me. Hilary T (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilary, I looked at the appropriate logs but I did not see any deleted edits for you. Can you point to where these edits were -- or did you misremember what happened? -- llywrch (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He got Kavron deleted which I edited from my first account User:Hilary T In Shoes Hilary T (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and that was patent nonsense, as the deleting administrator ruled. In no way was I attempting to "discredit" you; I was simply seeking to remove nonsense from the encyclopedia. Do review WP:AGF. - Biruitorul Talk 20:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume good faith up to the point where people start lying, then I stop. Hilary T (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikroglottika[edit]

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

I'm unable to locate secondary reliable sources to determine notability. Possibly there are some in German?  Chzz  ►  08:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found the book can be sold in the major internet bookstores, and I don't know if that could be referenced, beceause i thnik this is publicity, but certainly is a notable source.--Auslli (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past, Present & Future(album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Past, Present & Future(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL  Chzz  ►  08:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Fight[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, non-notable download-only game  Chzz  ►  08:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I am Severin Hansen leader of the project of Improving Fight... Don't delete the article! Go to www.devolitioncorp.webs.com to get information or www.devolitioncorp.webs.com/improvingfight.htm ! I can verify this article with any imformation you'dd like! We are currently working on the game... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danskesever (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PANTOKRAATOR[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BAND  Chzz  ►  08:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all, g3, hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Life[edit]

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

Probable hoax. Article is about a supposed future television show that cannot be verified by a third-party source. It seems like the author just tried to add in every single Disney teen star into the cast list. Radiant chains (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they also describe unverifiable future Disney works, written by the same author:

List of Teen Life episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMixer 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMixer 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DisneyMixer 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Radiant chains (talk) Radiant chains (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tianhui Michael Li[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:PROF  Chzz  ►  08:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Rubino[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, no indication that he meets the criteria for creative professionals, no indication he meets general notability guidelines. PROD removed by anon based on being selected for some "young guns" award by the Art Directors Club but the ADC doesn't strike me as being terribly notable itself and its award doesn't IMHO get its recipients over the notability threshold. Otto4711 (talk) 07:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Seven Chakras (Crystal Illumination)[edit]

The Seven Chakras (Crystal Illumination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. No context or content, just a tracklisting. Also nominating related article below. Nouse4aname (talk) 07:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Activating Your Chakras Through the Light Rays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Titanic (1997 film). MBisanz talk 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm King of the World![edit]

AfDs for this article:
I'm King of the World! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A line from a movie; poss could be merged into the movie; no RS / significant secondary sources; unlikely to evolve into an article beyond a few lines. Surely we can't have an article for every 'famous' movie line.  Chzz  ►  07:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Shaun[edit]

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

no indication of real life notability; no sources. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Speedy keep all and nominate one by one, as one can not judge each of the articles on their merits in such a group nomination. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–Chile_relations[edit]

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

Non-notable foreign relations. No wars, exceptional events, common origins, non-notable inmigracy data that has nothing to do with foreign relationships (not refugees from wars, no notable reasons to choose that country, no political refugees from that country) etc. Only embassies, embassors, some diplomatic events and awards, belonging to the same associations in non-notable manners. Info already covered more efficiently by Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile. Part of a series of short articles created by a few users. The article list is taken from Template:Foreign_relations_of_Chile.

Previous deletions and consensus for similar articles, click on the word "show" on the right corner to read them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Americas
    • Australia–Chile relations a good bunch of trade agreements, fishing agreements for the South Pacific and stuff, also both states are big exporters of farm products so they have common lobbying interests in the international market

    Some of the articles were already labelled with PRODs by other users, because they felt that they had no notability. Enric Naval (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I stroke out the Chile-US one.
    I wasn't aware of the Canada-Mongoliaone. The first commenter cited some sources for notability, like Canada being the second largest investor in Mongolia. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These policies should be well discussed and established. E.g. Should an article be up for deletion if there's no High Commission/Embassy etc. Because in that case much of the US-Caribbean relations could be up for deleition too since the U.S. only has a few embassies in the Caribbean region. E.g. Or like if there's a trade deal in place or not. etc. Whether the leaders have visited one another. etc. A global rules base should be established on what forms of _whatever_-_whatever_ relations should be entertained. CaribDigita (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Biggest problem I see is that they fail the general notability guide in the first place, by not having third-party independient sources talking about those relationships, so they wouldn't qualify for an independient article in the very first place, and should have never been splitted out from their mother articles in the first place. (the "mother articles" being Foreign relations of Chile, Chilean diplomatic missions and List of diplomatic missions in Chile) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To my mind government sources have widely been accepted as being credible across Wikipedia. If not, there are many articles on Wikipedia that would need to have sources from Governments removed or complimented if they aren't credible sources. E.g. Almost the entire basis of the North American Union being called just a "theory" is that the governments of the US, Canada and Mexico have put out statements saying there are no movements by them towards a North American Union. Without their statement as a source, then what is to say that the North American Union is just a theory? CaribDigita (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all due respect, I think you are confusing notability with verifiability. Government sources a great (and usually very appropriate) for establishing facts, and for that reason they get cited all the time. But notability is different. The main question is not, "Are these sources creditable," but rather, "Has this topic been discussed to a significant degree outside of wikipedia and by sources other than those close to the topic?" If the answer to the later is "no," then wikipedia should not have a stand alone article on the topic. (The topic could still be covered by wikipedia somerwhere, just not in a stand alone article.) So in a nutshell, yes government sources are widely accepted as credible across wikipedia, but doesn't mean that they can be used to establish the notability of a topic. Yilloslime TC 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep Chile–Italy,Greece and Russia relations too.
    errr, this is because of the inmigrants? Those are already covered by Greeks in Chile, Italian Chilean and Russians in Chile. These are articles in foreign relationships, not in inmigracy. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No way. Most of those articles are simply without merit, many have been already been proded, and several AfDs have already been closed by SNOW. There is precedent for mass AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral relations of Ireland (read the reasoning of the closing admin) and the time can be extended if there are unresolved issues.
    Also, don't use google searches as proof (the ones you are using have a lot of false positives). Make a bit of legwork and point at specific sources, that's what will save a specific article. Do it like this:
    • for Chile-Australia: "[the Minister of Chile, in a 1947 address to the Victoria League (a local bussinessmen association?), referred to] the relations that existed between Australia and Chile during the past century, particularly during the gold rush years"[63] (this source actually says that there was little contact between the two countries even during the gold rush, and not much inmmigracy [64] pages 195-197) and talks about a bilateral trade agreement, a "regional Fisheries Management Organisation for the South Pacific" and some other stuff like "Australia had worked closely with Chile in pushing the case for freeing up agricultural trade." [65]
    For Chile-Russia I can only find the break of diplomatic ties in 1947 in WWII, which should be covered in the history articles, and some meetings, but the sort of meetings that are not notable because they get done with any visiting countrty, and the usual declarations of friendship and goodwill. Point at specific notable stuff. And you don't have to convince me, you have to convince other commenters and also convince the admin who will close this discussion.
    (and sorry if I came out too harsh) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And did you bother to check in Russian or Spanish? Also, one who has only been able to find that diplomatic relations were broken off in 1947 (after WWII btw), obviously has not done a search, and dare I say it lacks a knowledge of general world history (at least when this topic is concerned); given the Allende link. Anyway, I've established basic notability for that article. --Russavia Dialogue 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Barbados–Chile[edit]

    Barbados outlines Chile as one of its principle diplomatic relations in the neighbouring Latin American region.

    It states. "Though Barbados' only diplomatic representation in the Latin America region at the moment is through its embassy in Caracas, expansion of diplomatic and consular representation is being given serious consideration by the Ministry. Currently, however, within the Latin America region, Barbados' principal relationships are with: Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Panama, Uruguay, Venezuela" under your suggestion the only notable tie with Latin America would be Venezuela. I have no problem with just working on that article if all the rest would be regularly up for deletion though. I strongly look forward to hearing what the upcoming consensus is.

    CARICOM and Chile are considering a the creation of a free trade deal. "CARICOM/Chile Relations"


    CaribDigita (talk) 14:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Meh, I see all of that as diplomatic fluff, florid statements in documents that get published only in embassy pages, or in newspaper articles that parrot mindlessly whatever fluff politicians spout out when visiting another country. You can't trust what those documents say because you can't distinguish the real notable stuff from the exaggerations. Those sources are not independient, not third-party, not reliable.
    I would only keep articles with strongly sources, and those sources showing notable stuff like, dunno, bitter border wars, long-standing mutual economical agreements that have important long term effects in their economies, strong cultural ties that influence their foreign relationships, old wars that still influence the current public opinion about the other country. Anything less notable than that is not enough to write a good solid article, will only be a list of trivia and indiscriminate info (WP:IINFO), and can be covered on the main articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chile–Mexico relations[edit]

    (comment moved from nomination) Chile and Mexico has a long history of diplotic relations, migration and trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentren (talk • contribs) 07:53, 31 March 2009

    Please provide sources for these relationships, or simply explain what the relationships are so we can search for sources. The articles Foreign relations of Mexico and Foreign relations of Chile don't mention any of that. (by the way, thanks for striking the Chile-Turkey one, I had missed the reference to the statues)
    P.D.: I found some myself The agreement of economic complementation between Mexico andChile, a 3 year old economic cooperation treaty [66], Treaty of free commerce between Chile and Mexico 1999, Chile-Mexico: two transitions front to front --Enric Naval (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Freddy Hutter[edit]

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

    Created by subject. No notability other than a self-published website. The article for the website (Trendlines) was deleted as non-notable long ago. NJGW (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Earlier the article included unreferenced puffery, including being the first to create some particular kind of display on a website, and it wasn't clear that he had achieved notability for it even if it were true. As for the rest of it, it basically says he has a website, and he does stuff. Also，here's what I wrote to WilyD when he denied my speedy request on the grounds that the article "transparently asserts significance". —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G3. Obvious hoax and blatant disruption; WP:SNOW — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  00:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seksi Pipol[edit]

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

    Hoax. There is no Finnish MP with that name, this search tool is only in Finnish, but I think it should be fairly obvious how it works. Also Seksi means Sex in Finnish... – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't this be in the biographical sorting category rather than the media and music one? JamesBurns (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, fixed. Twinkle only notified the creator and listed the Afd, but didn't create the AfD nomination itself. I copied the headers from another nomination, which happaned to be a music nom. – Sadalmelik ☎ 07:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, it's a legit G3 then. I read the name as if it were Finnish (pronunciation is a bit different). – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't speak Finnish, unfortunately (or any other Fenno-Ugric language) - but the name given looks like plausible phonetics for the English phrase in question. Thanks! AlexTiefling (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anubys Gutierrez[edit]

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

    Either a hoax or just a failure of WP:BIO. He was born in 1991, making it unlikely that he has won "three championships" since he's about seventeen, I can find no evidence that World of Wrestling exists, in Texas or anywhere else, and the wrestlers he claims to have been in relationships with both draw similar blanks through the normal channels (en-wiki, google, etc). In addition if you look at the sites used as references; they look like they were designed in MS paint. At best someone in a tiny, unremarkable wrestling circuit, at worst a complete hoax Ironholds (talk) 05:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Upon looking a little further, I noticed these:
    • Anubys Gutierrez: "Throughout his career, Wind Twister has consistently used the gimmick of being the extreme Cuban, a lifestyle he follows in real life. Depending on alignment as a crowd favorite or villain, different aspects of the culture are emphasized to encourage the desired audience reaction."
    • CM Punk: "Throughout his career, Punk has consistently used the gimmick of being straight edge, a lifestyle he follows in real life. Depending on alignment as a crowd favorite or villain, different aspects of the culture are emphasized to encourage the desired audience reaction."
    • Anubys Gutierrez:"Anubys Gutierrez has made reference to two girlfriends in his early life. During his time with KWA, he was romantically linked to professional wrestlers Stephani Trevino and Carmen Ramirez. After joining WOW, Brooks began dating Maria Ramirez, who was working there as an interviewer."
    • CM Punk: "Brooks has made reference to two girlfriends in his early life. During his time with Ring of Honor, he was romantically linked to professional wrestlers Shannon Spruill and Tracy Brookshaw. After joining Ohio Valley Wrestling, Brooks began dating Maria Kanellis, who was working there as an interviewer."
    • It appears that some or all of Gutierrez's "signature moves" are copy & pasted from Punk's, to the point where the footnote numbers are still in the article.
    I think it should be speedied. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Erik9 (talk) 00:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chew lips[edit]

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

    Non-notable, self-promotional band article. MBisanz talk 05:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Comment allmusic isn't the be-all-and-end-all though - if there's plenty of other good sources it should stay in. Equally, if allmusic was the only source the article probably shouldnt. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings[edit]

    CSI: LV U.K. Weekly Ratings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Indiscriminate list of TV rankings that does not contribute to the topic. MBisanz talk 05:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - The viewing figures are actually veriable (the BARB website), so I've struck out the OR part. The other two still apply. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Libertarian Solution Radio Program[edit]

    Libertarian Solution Radio Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. Original PROD reason was, "No third-party verifiable reliable sources. No sign of notability. The KXAM website doesn't even bother to list this as a featured program on their front page." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sooooo....from the comments below I'm guessing that (1) there are no resources that match our verifiability and notability requirements so the only response is ad hominem attacks, or (2) everyone who thinks this article isn't a proper fit for Wikipedia really is anti-libertarian? I hope that people who come to this page understand that for all you know, I am Ron Paul. Or the reincarnation of Ayn Rand. Or Jesus. Come on, guys, respond to the arguments. If you don't, you're just making our arguments look stronger. This lack of engagement with the meat of the issue would be really bad in a discussion during the radio program... Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are Jesus :) I enjoyed your appeal to reason as I ask people to be reasonable all the time. I suspect you of no malfeasance (finger pointing just never works out for me) AND I am a Libertarian. Being a reasonable man, I must point out that Notability is subjective while Verifiability is not. This article can, for the most part, be verified. Please feel free to ask me questions about the content of the article because, as my friend Nick noted, that which we cannot prove to your satisfaction can be removed. Would Notability be influenced if I told you that many of our listeners are in other states around the country because we stream our shows, podcast them, and offer them as free MP3s at our website? We have gotten calls from as far away as Maine. Thanks for joining in this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardsutton (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that we can't base an article on statements from you as a person involved in the radio program (per Wikipedia:SOURCES). Both our notability and verifiability rules are specific about what's required, and this program just doesn't match them. I'm sorry, really I am. I'm sure that you're fine people, but there are nearly seven billion fine people in the world and Wikipedia has decided by consensus to have rules regarding which of those seven billion people (and hundreds of millions of organizations, radio programs, companies, etc.) get to have articles here. :) One of the biggest requirements on Wikipedia is called "verifiability, not truth," which means that we require that facts be backed up by reliable sources. That doesn't mean that we don't trust you to tell the truth about yourself, it means that we require that the statements about you have to be written by someone in a place that has editorial control and standards. This is actually for your defense - it means that no one can come along and write "Joe Smith is a Nazi," self-publish it on Publish America or Lulu.com, and have it show up on the Joe Smith article. The statements here need to be from reliable newspapers, scholarly books, specialist encyclopedias...something that shows that (1) the subject has been looked at by several people whose jobs it is to separate fact from fiction and/or misinformation, and (2) the subject has been considered notable by several reliable secondary sources. I hope this (very wordy) explanation helps explain what's happening here. It doesn't mean that we think you're bad people or that you don't have a right to speak. It means that the encyclopedia has to decide what to keep and what not to keep, and your radio show doesn't yet have the notability to be kept. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The comments about verifiability have been argued. Most if not all of the content in the article is easily verifiable with little effort. If portions of the article are not verifiable, then feel free to contest the unverifiable portions, not the entire article. Regarding notability, please reference the portions of Wikipedia's notability guidelines not met by the article. Stating simply that there is no notability is not a valid argument. Nickcoons (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, I think you're being needlessly defensive here. We're not attacking you or your radio show. Second, I have laid out my arguments in detail in several comments here. I looked for sources, and couldn't find them, before putting the PROD notice on the page that led to this article being brought here to AfD by SchuminWeb. The replies to our arguments so far have been ad hominem statements that those who think the article doesn't fit our rules are evil anti-libertarians, or have been statements that we're wrong with no proof that we're wrong. Negation of our arguments isn't proof of anything. We've had offers of direct input from the people who make the show, but can't base an article on statements from the people on the program, as stated in WP:SOURCES. Our notability and verifiability rules are laid out in the links I gave above, and this article doesn't meet them. I don't know what to say beyond that and beyond what I've already said. It seems to me that you're saying is that because I'm not explaining the notability rules in more detail, that means I'm wrong. This is a logical fallacy. Honestly, we expect the person who closes this debate (who will be an uninvolved administrator) to weigh our arguments and we expect that person to understand the shorthand of statements like "no notability" or "no third-party sources." I know that Wikipedia's rules can sometimes be complicated and frustrating. I find them that way myself, sometimes. If you like, I can explain in more detail what's up in this discussion, if you tell me what you don't understand. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not intending to be defensive, I just don't believe that your claims about verifiability are true, and I think it's easy enough to demonstrate. Let's look at what the article says and break it down a bit:
    "The Libertarian Solution Radio Program is a political talk show that discusses the libertarian philosophy and its practical implementation in local, national, and world politics."
    Is there a question as to what the show is, and what it discusses?
    - http://www.libertariansolution.com/about/
    - http://www.podcastdir.net/podcast-description-572.php
    - http://www.evliving.com/2008/09/09/1236/the-libertarian-solution-launches/
    "The program airs on Independent 1310 KXAM, based in Scottsdale, Arizona, Wednesdays at 7pm MST. It can also be heard live via internet streaming or in the audio archives at the Libertarian Solution website."
    Is there a question as to where the show is broadcast, or how it can be listened to?
    - http://www.kxam.com/programs/ (the synopsis here was written by the station, not the producers of the show)
    There are also various claims about the hosts. Some of the claims are verified by providing links to the claims. Some of the claims are not substantiated, but can be. Others may not be substantiated by any referencable online source (such as the stated birthplace of Richard Sutton), and it can be argued that these individual claims can be removed. But no argument has been presented that the article as a whole is unverifiable and therefore should be deleted. Given the five minutes I spent Googling to find the above information, any argument claiming that none of the article is verifiable should hereby be dismissed.
    I'm not asking you to explain the rules. I've read the rules. I'm asking you to be specific about your claims. You say there is no notability. Surely you can point to something specific in the notability rules with which the article is not compliant in order to substantiate that claim. Since the initial claim, that the article is unverifiable and not notable, is yours, isn't the burden on you to demonstrate it rather than just stating it? Isn't it only after you attempt to demonstrate your claims that you can expect anyone to attempt to refute them? Please forgive me if I've misinterpreted something. Nickcoons (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Our requirements are 1) Significant, non-trivial coverage (WP:N gives as an example "The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial."), 2) Coverage that is completely independent of the subject of the article (which knocks out the libertariansolution.com source as coming from the source, the www.podcastdir.net link as a mere reflector of the libertariansolution.com RSS feed, and the evliving.com link as a reprinted press release that is sourced directly to you, Nick Coons), and 3) Several other requirements, but since I've now shown that the given three references can't be used here, we don't need to go through those requirements. As to notability, you're asking me to prove a negative, and I'm not going to play that game. The notability requirements are positive requirements - that is, they give goals that must be met. There is no third-party who has taken notice of this radio show. There is no significant coverage. No one, in short, has considered this program worth writing an article or book about in the New York Times or National Review or a scholarly work about libertarian radio shows. I did actually Google your show before putting the original PROD notice on the article, so I know what I'm talking about. Thus, replying to your snide comment about "five minutes I [Nick Coons] spent Googling", I actually did the research before marking the article for deletion. You don't understand our notability and verifiability rules, as shown by the three links you gave, and I'm sorry about that. I've done my best to explain, but I'm done explaining now. You want to know what the worst part of this is going to be? I'm certain that someone on a friendly web forum or even in a call-in or letter/email sent to to the radio program itself is going to say something goofy like "Some guy with a rabbit-based name is trying to squelch our freedom of speech," a prediction I base on comments by other people in this discussion. And at this point, I'm done. I'm tired of trying to explain this. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that this article was tagged and not the other one you referenced is because someone saw this article and not that other one. I'll go look at the one you've complained about and if it doesn't match our needs, I'll delete it. I don't edit Wikipedia out of a political bent, although the number of people who think I'm anti-libertarian is making me consider going to clean up the grammar on the Ron Paul article and make it better just to prove 'em wrong.  :) Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dang, I just went to look at that article. So in a nutshell your complaint is that because I didn't mark an article about reading newspapers to the blind for deletion, I'm an evil anti-libertarian who wants to see the libertarian movement wiped from Wikipedia? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I'm done debating with you. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I posted this to RPF, and I apologize for the rash judgment. I've edited my post on that forum to remove the bias, and have noted such in the post. Nickcoons (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Kevin Cossom (American R&B Artist and Songwriter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Lack of references to present notability of artist Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Non-admin close- article is a re-creation of deleted material, and has been submitted for G4 speedy deletion. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    RosenkreuzStilette[edit]

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

    See previous discussion. The game is still not notable, is still self-published, and the only sources are a messageboard and the official website. Suggest deletion and salt. roux   03:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Open Education Institution[edit]

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

    The article is nothing more than an internet directory (WP:LINKFARM). Potentially, the article could be re-written to use internal links instead of internet links; but that requires a fundamental re-write that's just as easy (if not easier) to do from scratch. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of controversial books of poetry[edit]

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

    Delete per the usual AFD thing about lists that tag the topic as "controversial". Bearcat (talk) 03:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Red Hill, Australian Capital Territory#Schools. MBisanz talk 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    St Bedes Primary School Red Hill[edit]

    St Bedes Primary School Red Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable primary school. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Davud Sadinlija[edit]

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

    A junior tennis player, does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Very little mention in secondary sources; only one relevant hit on Google. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 02:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Shadmehr Aghili[edit]

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

    no references, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Pierre Cotant[edit]

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

    Player has never played in a fully-pro league and fails WP:ATHLETE. Contested PROD; removed by IP with no rationale given GiantSnowman 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Chesner[edit]

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

    Delete insufficient coverage by reliable 3rd party sources to meet WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was redirect to List of sex positions. MBisanz talk 05:29, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Widely opened position[edit]

    Widely opened position (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable sexual neologism. KuroiShiroi (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? it shows just the opposite - that Burton's translation is the most widely used Kama Sutra translation in English. The phrase turns up in many other books (like as not traceable to Burton but often not credited). I agree, though, that it is difficult to see how this could ever be expanded much on Wikipedia. There are sites out there that have a page length article on the position, but these mostly amount to "how to" descriptions which is not really suitable material for Wikipedia. But if someone were to present an outline of how this article could be expanded eventually then I would be willing to !vote keep. SpinningSpark 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry- I mean that translating whatever the underlying phrase is as 'Widely open position' seems to not be popular with post-Burton translators, not that Burton's translation is unpopular. That indicates to me that 'widely open position' may be an idiosyncratic translation, and so wouldn't be the best choice for a title if the article were capable of being expanded. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ivan Gašparovič. MBisanz talk 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Googlovic[edit]

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

    Appears to be a neologism, no evidence of significance of the term; may also be thought of as a pov fork of the Ivan Gašparovič article. Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NPOV. TeaDrinker (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I had considered redirecting as well, but I didn't think the term was notable enough for mention in the Gašparovič article (although I know little of Slovak politics) and it seemed unprofessional to use an insulting term as an (uncommented) redirect; a bit like redirecting TOTUS to Obama in my opinion. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:50, 26 March 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, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Bole[edit]

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

    no referencees, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete - non notable, too many red links are suspicous. Deletion Mutation 15:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC) N.B. !vote of sockpuppet of blocked user struck through. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MUSICBIO is clear: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). (emphasis added) Also, what you call a review is not anything published in a reliable source, but is actually a website that's selling the album. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Rainforest Stakeholders[edit]

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

    Article in its current form is simply a definition (violation of WP:NOTDICT). It does not seem to me like this article could be expanded to anything beyond the definition of who someone interested in protecting the rainforest could be. Nick—Contact/Contribs 06:06, 26 March 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 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    OnBoard PowerSeller 2[edit]

    OnBoard PowerSeller 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. Would appear to be little more than a set of technical specs, and a link to the companies' web page. Partial advert, and dubious notability (though there is a possible claim based on the number of transactions - though this is not from an independent source). No independent coverage. CultureDrone (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Show-Me Institute with no prejudice against reverting if notability independent of Show-Me Institute can be established (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jason Hannasch[edit]

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

    non-notable vice president of the Show-Me Institute, a local organization, whose Wikipedia article, is also currently the subject of an AfD discussion. TommyBoy (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suspect this should await the outcome of the Show-Me Institute AfD. I'd like to suggest merge and redirect to the Show-Me Institute if that article survives, and if not this should simply be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because his employer was found notable doesn't mean that he is. Or am I missing your point? Locke9k (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    of course not,but its enough to prevent too rapid a close in the other direction till we can check further. :). I remind you that argument for deletion seemed to emphasise the unimportance of the organization. Your're trying to have it both ways. DGG (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, not sure what you mean. In fact the organization was not found notable through a SNOW close - the nomination was withdrawn. Not the same thing at all. The point is that an employee of a notable organization is not necessarily notable themselves. I haven't been able to find any significant independent coverage of this individual to show otherwise. Locke9k (talk) 03:31, 31 March 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 00:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 08:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    DeSoL[edit]

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

    It may well be true that this band is well-known in some circles, but there is no evidence of notability in the article - which has been created and added to by a suspiciously large number of one-off users Deb (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Billboard AC Chart Listing and a blurb on Billboard commenting on it being the highest debut in AC history.
    Does the Adult Contemporary Billboard chart count as a national music chart?
    Here's two more articles from Billboard that discuss the band itself a bit more...although they seem like they might overlap a bit.
    Washington Post article & New York Times article. --Onorem♠Dil 11:50, 27 March 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 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth McLaughlin II[edit]

    Elizabeth McLaughlin II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Can't find any independent reliable sources Nerfari (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to List of characters in the Hitman series. Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Purayah II[edit]

    Mark Purayah II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable. Could be redirected to List of characters in the Hitman series. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    Agent 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Mark Parchezzi III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    — Levi van Tine (t – c) 07:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've contacted the editor a couple of times to offer guidance. He/she isn't particularly talkative. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 14:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The availability of reliable sources. Someone like Lara Croft, for instance, has been talked about all up and down reliable sources like GameSpot, GameSpy, IGN, etc. in various articles and features. These Hitman characters are minor and have received little or no coverage. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 15:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 10:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fuziyah al-Ouni[edit]

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

    Contested Prod (don't know why). There is no assertion of notability here. She's named as a human rights activist (so am I) who was "involved" in an abuse case (how involved). A source has been provided which "mentions her", but all it does it relate a bland quote from her about this one case. Google News gives nothing - and Google itself not much more than this one case and "activist". Sorry, probably a righteous woman, but unless we can say something significant about her, and verify it, we need to delete. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This article did survive the first attempt at deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuziyah al-Ouni. Have things changed much since then? PatGallacher (talk)

    No sources were provided then either, and only three people opined. I hope we can do better this time. Can you find anything else on this woman that would make her merit an article? Why do you think she does? I can't see the case for keeping this at all? What is it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Jon Heder. MBisanz talk 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dan Heder[edit]

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

    Relationships do not confer notability. No indication that the rest of his bio would qualify him for inclusion (WP:CREATIVE) without that relationship. Rd232 talk 13:54, 21 March 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 · Review 00:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No consensus to delete, so kept through a merge and redirect to Takaful per debate below. Hiding T 09:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The World Takaful Conference[edit]

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

    Declining db-spam and taking to AfD, I'd like comment from people from the region if possible. Google hits suggest this is probably nonnotable by our standards, but it's possible people from the region will have a different view. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 12:48, 26 March 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 00:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|(talk) 09:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Derek Brook[edit]

    Peter Derek Brook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has no sources and I couldn't find any to add. His book (his main claim to fame) is from a vanity press. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - non notable self promotion. TeapotgeorgeTalk 08:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Backup Direct[edit]

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

    Advertising a business Be-technical (talk) 14:53, 26 March 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 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 lack of independent sourcing in a subject like this is a serious issue, and none have been found in spite of attempts during the course of the debate. The secondary sourcing alluded to by Gigs has not materialized. Hence, the delete opinions get the nod on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevan Shaw[edit]

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

    Poorly sourced article about a lighting design consultant. Some passing references turn up in Google news searches, but no significant coverage. Contested prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:00, 26 March 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 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Clatworthy[edit]

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

    Prod contested with no reason given by an IP editor.

    also nominating News 140
    Two articles on a sixteen schoolboy and the internet news channel he has set up. Unfortunately, and despite claims in the articles, there is a distinct absence of coverage in the news or any other reliable source of either subject. Hence, failing WP:BIO and WP:ORG (or any others available) Nuttah (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The age of the kid is not relevant to the debate. Lacking sources is deleteable for articles about people of any age. - Mgm|(talk) 09:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of both articles felt it is relevant to include references to the age and educational status of the subject, so I included this in my summary of them. At no point was this information given as a deletion criteria, so I'm not sure how you arrived at that incorrect assumption. Nuttah (talk) 09:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I arrived at that conclusion because you mentioned it. Age is frequently used as a reason to "prove" someone hasn't yet lived long enough to establish anything. Your clarification is appreciated. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 31 March 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 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Deja Chan[edit]

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

    No evidence whatsoever that subject meets Wikipedia:BIO#Pornographic_actors notability criteria (no awards, etc.) Prod was disputed. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:11, 26 March 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 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Felix's machines[edit]

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

    Non-notable art. KuroiShiroi (talk) 20:45, 26 March 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 00:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    More