< 9 May	11 May >

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 Tracks Deep[edit]

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The EP fails WP:NALBUMS. Tim meh ! 23:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-charting EP and no significant coverage in reliable sources. — Σ xplicit 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Explicit. American Eagle (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of sources of Chinese culinary history[edit]

Article is a scattered list of sources (nearly all of which are red links) for some generic Chinese cuisine articles. Looks completely useless; sources would have long been added into a references section in whatever articles that used this list, and the list is completely vague as to what exactly it sources. In fact, it doesn't seem to be a list of sources at all, just random articles that are hardly related to each other. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It appears to be copied from the German Wiki. It is completely unclear why this article xists or what the inclusion criteria for this list is. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Useful list that could be a navigational guide and be references for history of Chinese cuisine-related articles.--Caspian blue 13:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I update the list by expanding contents and sourcing with reliable references. Please see the progress.--Caspian blue 23:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More I add and read sources, more I get to realize that the list has very valuable information to not only Chinese cuisine, but also Chinese medicine, and herbs, and East Asian cultural subjects. Given the comprehensive information on German Wikipedia, I'm convinced that the creator of the list is a German expert in Chinese medicine and food therapy. The list is correctly compiled by period and each entry is carefully chosen. Actually I intended to create a list of historical Korean culinary books, so I can easily accumulate the list. I once saw a similar list written all in Chinese on Chinese medicine sites, but could not find it this time. However, English sources can be easily found because of the notability that the subject has. If somebody asks me about what the Shijing, Confucian studies, other poetry works have something to do with cuisine, I'd say those refers to not only foods, but also eating habits, and historical contexts. Some of books even refer to foreign dishes. At a first glance, the list filled with unintelligable Chinese characters had no reference and no information, but the nominator is a native speaker of Chinese, so he can easily detect what each entry means. However, he nominated it to be deleted. He also tried to PROD List of Chinese dishes. That practice does not help improve the articles.--Caspian blue 00:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I tried to, I couldn't make any sense about this article or the other one, List of Chinese dishes (especially when there's a category designed just for this purpose, and contains far more entries than that one). Also isn't it a little generalizing if you assume that Chinese can always be understood? It's a language like any other, and fragments of text on articles with a nonsensical title is... very hard to understand. GraYoshi2x►^talk 23:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Do you think the article List of Spanish dishes is a redundancy of Category:Spanish cuisine? --Caspian blue 23:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just confusing me with a completely unrelated article. What I was trying to say was that the original article was completely redundant and offered no useful information besides a generic picture. The Spanish dishes list complements the category very well, while this (and the Chinese dishes list) only provide redundant information and nothing much more useful besides that. And I really doubt it's possible to convey much more useful information. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't confuse you at all. I see many potentials from the list of Chinese dishes as it is. The list of Spanish dishes started from "zero" but has a good shape (still needs more references though). A small improvement by editors can turn a seemingly useless article into a valuable article. I just want to say deleting is not always a right solution. Do you think the current article in question still has no valuable information?--Caspian blue 00:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing what you've contributed to it, I'm more neutral now. I'll leave this up to the other editors and see what the result is. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would withdraw the nomination at this stage.--Caspian blue 01:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Caspian blue 13:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic.--Yopie 16:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Move to a subpage of the Food wikiproject. This looks more like a tool for development of articles than a valid list article in its own right. Otherwise if it gets blue links it could become part of a portal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you look at the Yuan dynasty section that I expanded today? The list is not just a tool for generating blue links. The list is also a timetable to show the Chinese culinary history and flow. This can be compared with List of online encyclopedias too, but I think it has more potential than the latter.--Caspian blue 23:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep OK it is looking like it could make a valid list article in it self. I had rejected the speedy delete earlier. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Any type of historical list comprised of 100s of years of materials needs to be kept. A list does not have to resemble an article. There is no rule in wikipedia that says lists are not allowed. If people want examples of unenyclopedic lists, just type "list of" at the search box and watch the huge drop down list of stuff having no importance that doesn't get challenged. Benjwong (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is an interesting time line of culinary history that has potential. Let Caspian work on this, lists are her forte. Being in East Asia, she has better access to reliable, secondary sources on the subject than us in the West and can make this a viable list in short order. --Jeremy (blah blah) 10:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An encyclopedic article listing precious sources of Chinese culinary history. The importance of this article should be clear to all editors, not just those active in editing articles on Chinese cuisine. Badagnani (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - an invaluable, well-sourced and informative list. There is no requirement for lists to be restricted to blue-linked items. Occuli (talk) 23:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, when GraYoshi2x nominated the article for deletion, it was like this, but I saw a potential, so expanded. But if the nominator still thinks that the article is redundant of the pertinent category, well, I suggest him to rethink about purposes of lists and categories--Caspian blue 00:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even said anything about that in the deletion rationale. Lately it seems you've just been posting the same message at a list-related AfD instead of actually reading the reasons why it was posted. What do red links and blue links even have to do with this discussion (I did mention it, but that wasn't my main point at all)? That just plain confuses me. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bartlett above says 'if it gets blue links'. It is not all about GraYoshi2x. Occuli (talk) 20:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing over two thousand years worth of historical documents that exist, which mention a specific topic, is clearly encyclopedic. The fact that the English wikipedia doesn't have articles for all the Chinese historical documents, thus the reason for the many red links, is not a valid reason to try to delete it. Dream Focus 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedied. Flowerparty^☀ 05:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Life Less Plagued[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I hate to nominate an album for deletion, but it doesn't seem right that this should exist independent of an article on its creators, the erstwhile and glaringly redlinked Carry On. Seegoon (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A9 as album by redlink artist. Wow, this sat around for two years?! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel thinking[edit]

No evidence of notability. Vague subject matter, limited to one particular author. Tagged for references for almost a year, PROD was removed with remover expecting me to provide the refs. Dmol (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said when I removed the prod tag, a Google Books search shows obvious notability, with loads of other authors discussing de Bono's concept. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then put some of them in if you think it is notable, and let the rest of the community decide it is or not.--Dmol (talk) 01:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to fully reference every article on a notable subject that is nominated for deletion, but my time is limited so I can only do a few per week. I've done some of the work by pointing to where many sources can be found, so hopefully somebody will show some collaborative spirit and try to build on my work by putting some sources in the article rather than demand that others do so to a deadline. Here's a slightly more focused Google Books search, and there are more sources available from Google Scholar and Google News. If you're worried about this being an "advert", as you tagged it (as if Edward de Bono were so unknown that he needs to spam Wikipedia), then you might be interested in adding some material from a review entitled "That word is ‘bullshit’ and this book is full of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. The issues do not require a massive re-write. The topic appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix. Worthy of work to improve. I will look into Editor:Phil Bridger's suggestion. My favorite de Bono-ism deals with viewing a project from completion rather than beginning. Time allowed, I will improve.--Buster7 (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Adding sources would be great, but showing they exist is sufficient to not delete something. I added a few anyway, but don't see why the nominator couldn't have done so, when the sources clearly exist from the most simple google searchYob Mod 09:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Yobmod, that the nominator should've used Google to check for sources, before nominating it. This article is for a valid subject, no reason not to have it in the encyclopedia. Dream Focus 09:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Pridi Banomyong. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madame Pridi Phanomyong[edit]

No independent notability asserted; without "Madame" in page name already redirects to husband, who was notable. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as implied by the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've trimmed the article down to info about her, moved to her own name Thanphuying Poonsuk Phanomyong, etc. Not much yet, but seems worth a stub. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you explain the above sentiment ("seems worth a stub")? While I tend to believe in the benefit of the doubt, I don't even see an attempt at independent notability here. Nanowolf (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If someone becomes interested in expanding this article, they can undo the redirect without much trouble. Nanowolf (talk) 07:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This name would of course go against the MoS, but we know what you mean. And yes, if independent notability asserts itself, I agree. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No assertion of notability at all, as notability is not inherited. Anything of interest about this person would only be in relation to her husband, so readers should be directed to that article.Yob Mod 09:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Lincoln Public Schools. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Star Middle School (Lincoln, NE)[edit]

Contested PROD by User:Postcard Cathy with the edit summary "just because a school doesn't exist anymore. Plato's school doesn't exist anymore yet it is notable!". The article documents a temporary school that opened about five years ago inside of a high school, due to overcrowding in the district. It's no longer in operation, and as such, it no longer has a functional school website or any secondary sources that I can find. (WP:GNG) Hexagon70 (talk) 18:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTEMP might apply here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful content to Lincoln Public Schools. No clear assertion of meeting notability guidelines, especially for a primary school. tedder (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant details to the LPS page. While NorthStar's existence might be of historical interest to the school district it does not seem to meet a notability threshold as an article. Ngaskill (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Lincoln Public Schools per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. While the overcrowding situation may have garnered much news coverage in local news media, the school iteself as an entity does not exist, and arguably never really did. There may be worthiness to mentioning it in the high school's article, and certainly should be mentioned in the district article. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Never mind Problem solved. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wreckers (disambiguation)[edit]

The opera is already linked from The Wreckers, and I can't find any evidence of the Polish jazz group warranting an article. Useless dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A merge/redirect to Wrecker would seem apt. PC78 (talk) 18:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The third entry did not have a wiki link as it should have. That is now fixed. There are a total of three articles that would be valid results for a "The Wreckers" search. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 between keep and merge, so default to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bandersnatch (Known Space)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

In the two years since the last AFD, no reliable sources have emerged that demonstrate that this fictional species is independently notable. Subject is covered at the article for the fictional universe/series. Otto4711 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notice how many books and short stories the award winning and highly praised influential science fiction writer created? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Niven#Bibliography This is a significant part of that fictional universe. There is enough information to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 19:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability of the author does not mean that every aspect of every piece of his fiction inherits his notability. Please cite reliable sources that are substantively about this fictional species. Otto4711 (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appears to be enough info for a standalone article, it just needs to be referenced better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. They're already appropriately covered in Known Space (which is a terrible article), and there's little if anything else published on them, near as I can tell. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction has nothing significant on them (I have the '93 edition but this is forty-year-old SF anyway), Google Books hasn't heard of them beyond hits in Niven's books, and even some usenet digging hasn't gotten anything. Anyone suggesting that this simply be "referenced better" needs to come up with some ideas where to look. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. Merge if someone does something with those sources, redirect if nobody does. There's something here. Not an article's worth, but something. 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Keep or merge with Bandersnatch, leaning to merge, this article does not explain the origin of this strange word, whereas the Bandersnatch article does. We could cut and paste this information nicely into the existing article. Ikip (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is mentioned in Science Policy Research Division (1977). Possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Library of Congress. ((cite book)): |last= has generic name (help). Also in an article in the Chicago Tribune:[1][2] Fences and windows (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in... is not the standard for notability. I am mentioned in more sources than this fictional species, does that make me notable? No. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Being "mentioned" in a book or a newspaper article does not meet this standard. Otto4711 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. I have added some citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What reliable sources significantly cover this fictional species? Otto4711 (talk) 12:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article and discussion above. Also, please see WP:BEFORE and WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "sources" on the article are not significantly about this particular fictional species. Simply mentioning a particular fictional species in a source that is not significantly about that species does not establish the independent notability of that species, as even the most basic understanding of WP:RS and WP:N amply demonstrates. Throwing out BEFORE seems to have become a favorite tactic of the extreme inclusionists who never met an article they didn't insist should be kept without regard to its utter failures of bedrock policies and guidelines in an attempt to discredit people who nominate articles for deletion. NOEFFORT is simply meaningless to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your views on the significance of the sources as, along with the original works, they seem quite adequate to support the article. WP:BEFORE is relevant in that, in the previous AFD you indicated that the article should be merged. Merger is a good alternative to deletion and you fail to indicate why this is no longer appropriate. WP:NOEFFORT indicates that your argument that the article has not been improved since the last AFD is a poor one. These poor arguments are common at AFD and perhaps this is why you keep encountering these rebuttals. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read the relevant policies and guidelines regarding sources? Did you miss the bit in WP:N that states clearly that passing mentions of a subject do not and cannot establish notability? Did you miss the bit about how non-primary sources (in other words, something other than "original works") are necessary to establish notability? My comment at the last AFD was "merge and delete" because I did not know at the time that this was not possible. Thus, having learned otherwise, I say straight delete because there is nothing in this article that should be in the main article, since this article consists of nothing but in-universe description which is more than adequately covered already in the main article. NOEFFORT remains irrelevant because I am not claiming that no one has worked on the article in the last two years. I am saying that two years ago there were no reliable sources supporting the independent notability of this fictional species and two years later there are still no sources. Find one, just one independent reliable source that covers this fictional species in a significant fashion. Just one. All you have to do is find one. It's so easy to claim that they exist, yet when asked to supply them they never seem to appear. Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read WP:N. It does not use the words "passing mention" and so yet again your comment seems to be an empty assertion, not based upon any accurate research. The example provided of a trivial mention is not applicable to this case, in which the sources are concerned with matters connected with the topic. In such cases, the issue is a matter of partitioning the topic(s) into articles of a sensible size and configuration. Where some adjustment seems appropriate then merger/splitting is appropriate. Deletion is never appropriate because it would remove useful search terms and edit history. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is never appropriate Well, that pretty much says it all, doesn't it. You want everything kept, policies and guidelines be damned. The question remains, find even one single source that is significantly about this fictional species. Come on "colonel". Just one source. Just one. You can't do it, because there are no such sources, which means that this fictional species is not notable. Of course you'll never admit that, because "deletion is never appropriate", right? Otto4711 (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My meaning is that deletion is not appropriate in such cases. Also, please see negative proof. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's being demanded is not a negative proof. You're being asked to show a single example of your positive claim, that sources exist. (That said, it's kind of unnecessarily combative; this will be a redir to Known Space in a month's time.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One- or two-sentence definition merge and redirect to Known Space. Insignificant component of the fictional world. --EEMIV (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already covered in the Known Space article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Known Space (or simply redirect, if already covered).Yob Mod 10:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing administrator this article has gone through improvements since its nomination, with several references added.[3] Ikip (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:Known_Space and Talk:Larry Niven page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Delete and redirect to known space (i'm a niven fan, but this is a fictional creature of no established, separate notability).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The combination of notability in the series, notability of the author, notability among xenobiologists and not least significantly the notable inclusion in the Library of Congress on regards to alien life. The article needs expansion, not deletion. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "delete" arguments effectively refute the "keep" arguments; no prejudice against recreation if non-trivial sources are actually found. I'll go ahead and redirect to Poltergeist (film series) as a possible search term. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverend Henry Kane[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Two years after the previous AFD, there remain no reliable sources that indicate any independent notability for this fictional character. Also fails WP:PLOT as the article is nothing much beyond a plot summary. Otto4711 (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable character from different films, and which was referenced by others in their media. Dream Focus 19:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not enough simply to say that the character is notable. Reliable sources that substantively discuss the character are required to establish notability. I do not know what "referenced by others in their media" means. Otto4711 (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dream Focus has it right. A notable character from the Poltergist trilogy, often referenced in other media, and even spoofed in other projects. Sources definitely available... and yes, I used proper WP:AFTER, saw a number of decent sources, and added a few before coming here to opine. Discussions about article style belong on its talk page per WP:DEL and WP:ATD, and not at AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. Source 1 is one sentence out of a 332 page book. Source two is from a 726 page book that covers every film from 1986. Source 3 is a paragraph and a picture. Source 4 is a two-paragraph review of the film which does not discuss the character in any significant fashion. Source 5 is pay-per-view but the preview does not mention the character at all. Source 6 is one sentence from an entertainment Q&A column. None of these come anywhere near meeting the requirement of WP:N which calls for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Simply being mentioned in a book or a newspaper story does not meet the threshold for notability. Otto4711 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is enough, I think, to be a central character in major films. As is obvious, views differ on this, and it is clear there is no generally accepted consensus; the existing guidelines only persist because there is no agreement on what to change them to. Obviously, Otto and I and the others on each side can assert indefinitely that our own positions ought to be right, and will until there is finally an accepted compromise. I see however that MQS has found some sources, and there are probably more; the films were extensively reviewed & the director is much written about, so it is to be expected that the character would be discussed. Otto, did you yourself search before niominating, as advised by WP:BEFORE? DGG (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I searched for sources. And no, it is not enough that the character is one that is central to a film or even two films because the notability of the films is not inherited by every fictional character or aspect of the films. The "accepted compromise" is already spelled out quite clearly at WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The standard is "reliable sources that significantly cover the topic", not "oh, I'm sure there must be sources out there somewhere! It is quite frankly shameful that an administrator is advocating keeping an article based on his assumption that sources exist. Otto4711 (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets all requirements for notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of "Well, it's notable"s above, but they don't address the fact that all of this coverage is completely glancing Google fishing. We don't write an encyclopedia by cobbling together a few trivial factoids from published sources then using plot summary and original research to fill in the gaps. Nobody has treated this as a separate subject, so neither should we. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources have significant coverage that addresses this character to satisfy WP:GNG. It would be nice if people commenting saying keep could actually try and demonstrate how the sources provided meet wikipedia guidelines. Until there is some sort of agreement regarding these characters we can only refer to WP:N. Quantpole (talk) 22:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There's a bit of stuff that's not just plot re-hashing, but not enough to justify an individual article. Mr. Absurd (talk) 02:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

María del Luján Telpuk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article does not meet the notability criteria. Camilorojas (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet the notability criteria. Sources are not reliable and are not independent of the subject: " it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)."

according to wikipedia: Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities [are notable when]: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. [for] Pornographic actors: Has won a well-known award, such as those listed in Category:Adult movie awards or Category:Film awards, or has received nominations in multiple years.[10] Is a Playboy Playmate. Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. also, "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics".

Also, the article is an orphan. It could also be merged with Maletinazo. --Camilorojas (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the reasoning in the previous AfD. Edward321 (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much of the reasoning in the previous AfD wasn't very reasonable. It was said that "Maletinazo, which has not even been updated for events for the last six months. Thus, if one should be deleted it should be the other since this one has much of the current detail." This it totally crazy. Just because one article is more updated it's more relevant?

WP:ONEEVENT DOES apply, since the modelling wasn't urelated to the scandal. Mainly, those were articles about the scandal, with pictures of her.--Camilorojas (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject of an international scandal.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Repeating that she is a "notable subject of an international scandal" doesn't make it true. Just because you saw some adult magazines with pictures of this girl doesn't make her relevant. She was in a few magazines and that's it. The majority of the references are about the scandal, and most of these don't even have her name on them.--Camilorojas (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This is a second delete "vote" by the same editor as above.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Again, this is not a poll, you have to make convincing arguments to why we should keep this article. Just saying it is important is not a valid argument. The intention of deletion talk pages is to have a substantial discussion about the article.--Camilorojas (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. But one person is not suppose to try to make it seem like he has consensus by adding delete everywhere. Would you kindly unbold your second delete.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets Notability guidelines as the coverage moved from the original incident. Substantial coverage, much of it focused entirely upon her beyond the case. Note Camilorojas: You don't get to "!vote" multiple times. If you'd like to disagree with someone's argument, "Comment" is the appropriate heading, and try to indent with two asterisks or two colons prior to your comment. T L Miles (talk) 21:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Wikipedia policy clearly states that this is not a vote, I was merely making a point, not trying to make my arguments "weigh" more. I didn't, however, respond in an orderly fashion, and for that I apologize. Regarding your argument: please, read the references. It seems as if nobody is actually reading them. If you had, you could have never said that the coverage moved from the original incident.--Camilorojas (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at first blush this did feel like a BLP1E as the article is written a bit wonky - that's a clean-up issue. Plucked from obscurity this BLP is about a D-lister who has certainly be featured in multiple interviews and plenty of media coverage including television appearances. If it were just one model shoot then perhaps, but that is not the case here. A preponderance of sourcing supports its inclusiion. The rest remains regular editing concerns. -- Banjeboi 02:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per cleanup of article. Keep up the good work! King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postorgasmic illness syndrome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome

Medical curiosity which can't be expanded with reliable references. 269 unimpressive ghits and 1 hit on pubmed that reports two cases. DilatoryThrush (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep or Merge per S Marshall below: It does appear to exist based on the original paper[4], and a handful of mentions in other places [5][6][7]. I think the sources take it very close to notability, close enough that I am willing to err on the side of notablity. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My weak support for keeping the article aside, the article needs to be less expansive. It should merely describe what the illness is, and the research behind it, and not go into detail unless and until it is confirmed in other studies. Right now too much of the information in the article is questionable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have revised my recommendation above to Merge, per S Marshall. The subject is verifiable, so it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia, but I do not think the sources establish clear notability sufficient for a standalone article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ as non-notable. Other than the original article in a journal and a couple of references to this journal article in a book and a journal, there have been no other books or scholarly publications about this disorder all the Google hits seem to refer back to the original article. Our purpose is to judge the notability and verifiability and it does not meet the general notability guidelines. It is up to the scientific community or the world at large to make it notable, not Wikipedia, and neither has done so. Drawn Some (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per S Marshall, changing to merge per my original reasoning combined with S Marshall's additional comments. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least blindness isn't one of the symptoms. Don't go it alone, always use the buddy system. Mandsford (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect to Sexual dysfunction. Reasoning: it's verifiable from reliable sources that this condition exists, so information about it should be on Wikipedia; but it's not notable enough to merit its own article. The redirect is appropriate because this is a remotely plausible search term.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the syndrome is real and verifiable, it's almost an inherently notable topic. It appears to have scholarly research on it and clinical significance. Those two features are a strong showing of notability. I disagree with a redirect. I doubt sexual dysfunction is actually an appropriately related topic. Just because it involves orgasm doesn't mean it's a sexual dysfunction; it looks as though it could be equally characterized as an anxiety disorder. In any case, it's much more precise to keep a notable article. Shadowjams (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we're not judging whether or not the syndrome is real. That's for the scientific community to decide. We're supposed to judge whether or not it is notable and verifiable per Wikipedia guidelines. I still insist that it is not notable judging by the evidence I discussed above. The scientific community has not addressed the original journal article in a way that makes it notable by our standards and neither has anyone else. To be clear, it could turn out not to be real but still notable, like phrenology. Drawn Some (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your argument. I believe a medically recognized syndrome is inherently notable. The question becomes if this is widely recognized. I've done some more research, and I've found more articles mentioning the syndrome, however I'm unable to verify how it's used in some of them because I don't have access to the journals. For someone with electronic access, or near a university library, here are those cites:

Ejaculatory disorders: epidemiology and current approaches to definition, classification and subtyping; DOI 10.1007/s00345-004-0486-9

World Journal of Urology, Issue Volume 23, Number 2 / July, 2005

The Relation Between Mood and Sexuality in Heterosexual Men, 10.1023/A:1023409516739

Archives of Sexual Behavior, Issue Volume 32, Number 3 / June, 2003

Handbook of sexual dysfunction, By Richard Balon, R. Taylor Segraves, ISBN 0824758269, 9780824758264; p 241-242

The Balon book is a handbook of disorders and it acknowledges that the 2002 article is the first mention of it in the literature, but his treatment of it at all indicates the disorder has been recognized.

As I said, if I'm able to quickly find this on google, I'd imagine someone with university access might find more. Shadowjams (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with your basic premises, I guess the difference is it doesn't look like it IS recognized, in fact, I'm pretty sure it isn't. My opinion may be influenced by my recent experience with this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wind_turbine_syndrome situation. Drawn Some (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that all medical conditions are inherently notable. There are a really enormous number of medical conditions, and this is a general encyclopaedia. I think custom and practice is, where a condition is apparently rare, to group several conditions under the same heading. (Randomly-selected example: Lysosomal storage disease has an article, but Mucolipidosis IIIA is a redlink.)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should probably be a redirect to Pseudo-Hurler polydystrophy instead of being a redlink.

Most all recognized disorders are notable and verifiable by Wikipedia standards. Rare disorders that are notable and verifiable may be included if someone chooses to write about them even though this is a general encyclopedia.

However, this one isn't notable because enough independent non-trivial reliable references simply don't exist. In fact, all references hinge on one journal article. I'll fix the redlink. Drawn Some (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're disagreeing. Rare disorders that are notable and verifiable may be included, but not all medical conditions are inherently notable just because they happen to be medical conditions.

In practice, most medical conditions are covered in multiple reliable sources so they meet the GNG and the whole question doesn't arise, but I wouldn't want it said that "all medical conditions are notable", because that opens a door to all kinds of quackery from snake oil salesmen that I would certainly wish to remain closed.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm glad that S Marshall has mentioned it, but think it is essential that we recognize that the reason most medical conditions/disorders/diseases are notable is that they typically meet WP:GNG by being recognized, because that requires publication(s), and then ancillary coverage usually occurs in various other sources. This discussion has strayed to almost implying a presumption of notability for medical conditions. To my knowledge, no such presumption exists, nor do I believe it should. Allowing for such a presumption would, as S Marshall has noted, create a slippery slope in which all sorts of snakeoil "disorders" and "treatments" would slip into Wikipedia. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I agree and have clearly stated more than once that notability and verifiability according to Wikipedia standards are what we are concerned with. Most all recognized medical disorders will meet those standards. Some NON-recognized medical disorders will also meet those standards and there are included as well. We don't screen things out because they are snakeoil, we include them anyway if they are notable. See Shark cartilage for evidence of this. Drawn Some (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "medically recognized" I implied much of what was said above. I never wrote "all medical conditions are inherently notable." And you're right, most cases will have ample sources so it never comes up. But similar to the notability guidelines for schools, towns, and taxonomy articles (articles on species of fungus, flowers, and others that I've seen bot added in bulk), there are inherently encyclopedic articles. WP:RS are extremely important in all of these cases, but as always, WP:RS demonstrate notability, and notability is the key. This point is made explicitly clear by the notability guideline "A topic is presumed to be notable..." (emphasis added). As a practical matter we differ very little on the guideline; snake oil and bogus medical phenomena (of which there is plenty) is not "medically recognized", and in the event it is, the answer to its legitimacy won't be found on wikipedia. Shadowjams (talk) 06:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "..the most productive research has been carried out independently by posters on the Naked Science Forum." Blog-based articles are not encyclopedic. One journal article is insufficient to satisfy WP:N. Edison (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete reliably-sourced material just because it fails to satisfy the notability criteria. There are very, very few circumstances in which it's appropriate to cut verifiable content completely—it could happen in a copyvio, or a BLP concern, but certainly not for failing WP:N.

Where a guideline is in conflict with a policy, the policy shall prevail. WP:N is a guideline, and WP:PRESERVE is policy.

Fortunately, we can normally reconcile WP:N with WP:PRESERVE by turning the non-notable article into a redirect into an article that is notable, merging the reliably-sourced material and cutting the rest, which is what we need to do here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I mis-spoke. I said "we don't", where I should have said "we should not".

It obviously does happen that reliably-sourced material is deleted for failing notability; but that happens because the !voting editors are ignorant of policy, and should be challenged wherever possible.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for those that haven't read the relevant policies and guidelines: the WP:Editing policy (PRESERVE is a small section in this policy) says only, "Try to preserve information [that] would belong in a "finished" article", not "It is mandatory to preserve everything". A good deal of this article's current contents does not meet Wikipedia's requirements. For example, anything sourced to the internet chat room (an astonishingly unreliable source that accounts for more than half the content of the article) should be removed.

It's also worth remembering what WP:Policy says about these situations: "While neither label confers an inherent importance over the other two, if process, guideline or policy pages appear to conflict, then policies should be generally, but not always, followed before guidelines, and guidelines before processes." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Marshall's claim that we may not delete articles about subject failing to satisfy WP:N if they have any scrap of referenced information in them is incorrect, since we delete articles for failing WP:N every day. We should "try to preserve" those articles which have some hope of satisfying the reasonable requirement of multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. One source is not enough to keep an article about something, or Wikipedia would become a mirror of every article in every one of the tens of thousands of scientific journals, and every book about something from a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a court of law where "my law trumps your law" is always a winning tactic. One source is not enough, or we would become a mirror of every directory. Not every referenced scrap of information belongs in an encyclopedia at all, but we can often find a more general article to which to redirect or merge it. Edison (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The POV problems of the article can be dealt with by editing. Presenting it as well-defined science is a little absurd. DGG (talk) 01:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with redirect, to sexual dysfunction. I can find one citation of the original paper in this review, where the paper is cited only once, to state "Finally, in rare subjects, orgasm may alter central neurotransmission, provoking a postejaculatory pain syndrome [66] or the postorgasmic illness syndrome characterized by severe fatigue, intense warmth, and a flu-like state, with generalized myalgia [67]. Etiology, pathogenesis and prevalence are unknown". That pretty much sums up the state of current knowledge and really isn't enough for a stand-alone article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge as discussed. It's real and rare. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One person's coinage, no evidence of widespread use from the references provided. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Nominator asserts: "Medical curiosity which can't be expanded with reliable references." Well, I found additional references, and cited one. Another contributor voiced the opinion that this syndrome was verifiable, but not notable. ~~However they didn't say why they considered the syndrome not-notable.~~ Having read the discussion more thoroughly I don't find the arguments that the syndrome is not notable convincing. I don't see any advantage whatsoever with bloating up the sexual dysfunction article through merging. The article is currently a perfectly valid, referenced stub. And there is nothing wrong with referenced stub articles. Geo Swan (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The reliable sources are a single journal article describing two cases and one-sentence summaries of that article in reviews. The article can't be expanded beyond a summary of a single reliable source; were it notable, it would have been written about more widely.DilatoryThrush (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources appear to be reliable and notable. There is no rule that says that 269 Ghits is worthless, but some higher number is worthy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This condition is the subject of present research. It can be extremely debilitating, and is real; I suffer from the problem myself, and my blood-work shows potentially dangerous abnormalities, which likely relate to this condition. Through the information linked in this article, I now have some hope that this problem is curable. Indeed, the prevalence is unknown, but the number of reported cases is increasing at such a great rate, that it would be extremely unfortunate to deprive people of information relating to this condition -- in effect, preventing others from receiving help for a serious medical problem. And why? Because 270 google hits isn't enough? (Aside: Note that "Post orgasmic illness syndrome" produces 1560 google hits). I find some of the positions against the article condescending and mean-spirited. The encyclopedic concerns can be addressed. Finally, I have just updated the 'symptom' section to more accurately summarize all of the available information. In this case, the UK Naked Science Forum is extremely relevant in any discussion of this condition, since a majority of the reported cases are documented there. We should not have to wait until publication in a particular journal to make mention of this. Indeed, one of the advantages of Wikipedia over more conventional encyclopedias, is access to the most up to date relevant information, in the form of an objective summary. In this manner, various non-journal web sources are frequently summarized on Wikipedia. (Though I do not object to making the particular summary in this article more succinct). A 'flu like' state is simply not an accurate description, on the whole. The goal of this article is to present an accurate, succinct, and helpful summary of all available information about a serious medical condition, which is the subject of present research; hopefully we can work together so that this goal can be accomplished without needless controversy. Counterpoints (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of fact, the purpose of Wikipedia is WP:NOT to collect "all available information" about anything. It is to collect information that is presented by properly published, independent, reliable, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking. An internet discussion forum by untrained people that claim(!) to have this condition fails on every single one of those counts. The chat room and associated pages simply cannot be used any more than a conversation at a cocktail party. We can only include in articles what's in proper reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS for the specific medicine-related guidelines. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see anyone here being mean spirited. Also, the blog you've referenced needs to qualify as a WP:RS. I'm also not sure your edits actually further the goal of making this article more likely to stick around. Although there are questions as to its notability, everyone agrees that the journal article is a WP:RS. Replacing information that came from that journal article with your own personal experiences, and similar ones from a blog, is not likely to convince people here that this article, if it remains, will stay accurate and free of WP:OR. Shadowjams (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had modified my original 'keep' just after you had posted your comment. I think this modification is important, so I encourage you to read it. Certainly many of the comments here, whether they are for keeping the article, merging the article, or deleting the article, are fair-minded. However, I consider dismissal of an article about an allegedly serious medical condition, with a journal source, on the basis of "270 google hits" to be mean spirited. That is a largely irrelevant statistic, and it is also deceiving, since "post orgasmic illness syndrome", as opposed to "postorgasmic illness syndrome", gives over 5 times the number of hits. Admittedly, I am biased. I have suffered from this problem for 10 years, and the neurologists and endocrinologists I have seen certainly feel it is notable. I think it's fair to say I am more of an expert on this specific problem than Dr. Waldinger. If you were in my position, you might find a cursory assessment of the condition as "unnotable", together with several abrupt dismissals, to be mean-spirited and offensive. I am emotionally invested in treating this problem; I think it is curable or treatable. Also, I did not replace journal information with 'information from a blog'. My edit is a summary of all available data. I believe it will be more helpful to people who have the condition, and to others who are trying to understand the condition, than to leave an inaccurate characterization. Others may disagree. Counterpoints (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PS. I do appreciate the consideration you and others have given this topic. Counterpoints (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Change): Counterpoints alternative spacing to "Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome" turned up a number of newspaper articles on the subject. I don't know if they are linked above, but please see this 2002 newspaper article from IOL [8], and this 2002 newspaper article from the Glasgow Daily Record [9]. Also see this 2002 article from Family Practice News [10]. Those mentions are sufficient to push it past WP:GNG, and therefore I am changing my recommendation to keep. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are, I hope, aware that those three "stories" are derived (very) directly from the same press release, which was put out by Waldinger and Schweitzer to attract attention for their (single) journal article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I suspected as such for the IOL and Glasgow Daily Record pieces, but I felt they were insulated just enough to be independant under WP:GNG, but you are welcome to disagree. I originally thought the Family Practice News source was totally clean, but now that I noticed who published it, I'm less certain, but think it is probably okay. I'm still erring on the side of inclusion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I have cleaned up the article, removed all the unverifiable and personal-experience cruft, and properly sourced every statement. What we're left with is a single journal article (case study involving two people), a press release that says they've actually seen five such cases, a glorified dictionary that summarizes the journal article, and an unrelated column written by a physician that is very probably, but not definitely, the same condition. I have tried to include every possibly relevant fact from the sources, even including these non-medical sources, without transgressing WP:NOR, WP:CRYSTAL, or WP:V, so what you see is about as much as possible: just fifteen (15) short sentences. It's maybe not a bad article, but there's no chance of this being a good article unless/until dramatically more is written about it in proper reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praise: Not bad work considering the materials you had at hand. I'd be more than confortable leaving the article like this, for future review. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This so called 'personal experience cruft' is critically relevant to anyone who is researching POIS. It contains over 99% of the cases. Your indifference to whether a characterization is accurate or not, so long as it follows certain bureaucratic standards, is amazing. It seems to show a total loss of perspective. (I am referring to your comments in the discussion section of the article). Information from essentially any source is frequently summarized on Wikipedia if it is relevant. In an article on 'Perez Hilton', you're going to find summarized information from his blog. You seem far more concerned with following a rigid protocol than in developing an article that will be of use to readers (you basically said it yourself). Any serious researcher, including Waldinger, is extremely interested in the UK Naked Science discussion, because essentially anyone with POIS, has summarized his symptoms there. For the time being, however, I will withhold major edits. Also, 'WhatamIdoing', don't lecture me on scientific credibility. I'm sure my scientific credentials far exceed yours. With your attitude, there would be no physics ArXiv, or any mention of it in Wikipedia. Counterpoints (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pretending to speak for anyone else, but whatever insult you took from WhatamIdoing is almost certainly not intended or personal. Maybe we randomly quote policy too much on AfD (which as Marshall notes earlier in this discussion, is all just guidelines and not true policy), but you'll find that on Wikipedia there are a few basic premises, and one of those is about WP:OR or "original research."

In a project this big, there has to be a quick, non-fakable, and reliable way to assess a topic or a fact. For that reason we use third party "reliable" (often a synonym for published, but not always) sources. We do this because, although we realize there is valid information out there that doesn't fit this requirement, there is also bad information out there that doesn't fit this requirement. The project has to make a choice, and WP:OR is the end result of that choice. It's really a fundamental part of the encyclopedia. Unfortunately we can't be everything to everyone. Shadowjams (talk) 17:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowjams has it right: Wikipedia has its own standards, and excluding original research is one of them. It's also enshrined in WP:NOT. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good cleanup. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the pride of Macedonia[edit]

Subject completely unnotable Neologistic (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of this article is the lyrics to a song, which may well be a copyright violation. The remainder (the part other than the lyrics) does not need to be an article unto itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aris Thessaloniki, although I have a feeling that it was kicked out of there. Mandsford (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, as per Metropolitan90. Allinthebrain (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2006 Atlanta Braves season. The "delete" arguments are somewhat stronger than those for "merge"; nothing wrong with a redirect. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Atlanta Braves Draft[edit]

This page is just a listing of names, most of whom are not notable. Muboshgu (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A link to the website can be added to the article 2006 Atlanta Braves season. Although Wikipedia sets a really low bar for sports articles, there's a limit to how much fancruft should be indulged. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a webhost. Mandsford (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The draft itself is notable. The fact that many of the drafted players are not (and likely will not be) notable means that the non-notable players themselves shouldn't have articles. But that fact does not make this subject non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a time where we can invoke WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and ask "Is there an article for other sports, other teams, other years?" If not, then there is nothing notable about this one either. Let's just stick to each year's draft being notable and not break it down by team. Eauhomme (talk) 04:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with 2006 Atlanta Braves season. Tomdobb (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2006 Atlanta Braves season. Doesn't need it's own stand alone article. The relevant info can be merged. Spanneraol (talk) 16:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2006 Atlanta Braves season, deletion not necessary because the draft itself is notable and this particular page would need to be edited massively to make it read better. Just merge see no need to delete.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not necessarily opposed to listing notable (i.e., actually played in the majors) picks in 2006 Atlanta Braves season, but listing players not notable for anything other than being drafted is pushing it - most players in MLB drafts aren't really expected to make it to the majors. Note that 2006 Major League Baseball Draft and similar stick to the first round picks - if we were going to list the full results anywhere, I'd think it would be there. BryanG (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have said, not notable enough for its own article. Wizardman 18:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Neutralhomer/Inspirational Country Radio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inspirational Country Radio[edit]

Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. This "radio network" consists of a single station. Appears to be primarily a streaming radio station. Maybe notable one day but fails WP:N today. RadioFan (talk) 13:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While I completely agree, 3rd party sources are REALLY lacking (and I am the one who created the article) I think it should be given a chance to grow along with the network. One station isn't much, but it is something. If the page is deleted, please move it to my userspace. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unfortunately there isn't anything in the notability guidelines to allow for articles that might be notable one day. Gotta treat 'em all the same you know.--RadioFan (talk) 14:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why I put the userspace part in there. Cause I am pretty sure this isn't going to last AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 14:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I can't find a single source. Creating a page with "a chance to grow" is appropriate only in the cases where sources exist and are known, but editors haven't written an extensive article based on them yet. Keeping this page would undermine the basic spirit of wikipedia's notability guidelines. I tend to be pretty lenient with notability: if this ratio station/network later attracts some detailed coverage, in the form of even a handful of articles in local papers, for example, I would probably argue to keep it. But I'm not finding anything remotely like that. Cazort (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no sources found, shouldn't be given a "chance to grow" if there's nothing that can make it grow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not notable yet, move to NH's userspace (as he requested) and it can return when there's enough to support it's notability. User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Argentine[edit]

are there any reliable sources that prove the article subject is notable? Norwegian Argentines do not even feature on the top 46 by birth. the Norwegian version of this article says pretty much the same. perhaps someone could search in Spanish? because I couldn't find anything in English. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do not know about Norwegians, but the Finnish settlement in Argentina is notable, not because of their numbers, but because of the utopian communities they established. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. Here is a link to info on Colonia Finlandesa: Spanish Finnish. Th Finnish article fi:Suomalaiset ihanneyhteisöt says it had 500 colonists. Did Norway have anything like this? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; unless notability can be proven then it should be deleted. PMK1 (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on what the embassy has to say, notability seems doubtful: [11] (in Spanish) --- 300 Norwegians, the first ones came on merchant ships, and most of the Norwegians who live there say they don't know any other Norwegians --- i.e. no community, so no community functions, organisations, or gatherings that might attract the attention of academics or journalists interested in expats/immigrants. Most Scandinavian immigration to Argentina would appear to be Swedish, not Norwegian. Haven't dug too deeply into the GHits yet though ... bunch of permutations of "norueg@(s) * en/a/de argentina/buenos aires/etc.". cab (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete after some additional searching, the only thing I managed to find is a brief mention in a profile of an architect [12] about a church for Norwegian sailors built in Buenos Aires in 1918, and later demolished; there don't seem to be any in-depth newspaper articles or scholarly papers about this community, so we can't write a Wikipedia article about them. cab (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Punjab Police Bahawalpur[edit]

Most of the text on this page was copied from Punjab Police and Bahawalpur, respectively. What is left is merely a non-notable directory-type listing about a local police station. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is the local office of a state police authority that already has an article. It does not appear to be notable and the article is quite confusing because it appears to be an article about the entire state police authority. Also there may be some copyright issues involved in the copy & paste. Drawn Some (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, the article duplicates a large amount of material in a confusing way. And a lot of what is there is not adequately sourced. And I think the name of the article "Punjab Police Bahawalpur" is confusing and unlikely to be searched for. Cazort (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- User:Docu 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Malta–Slovakia relations[edit]

non resident ambassadors. the only thing in common is that they joined the EU at the same time. besides that all media coverage I found mentions these 2 countries only in a multilateral not bilateral context. [13] LibStar (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Both countries are members of the EU but on top of that I have found some refs to justify notability,[14], [15], [16], ~~[17]~~. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Nominator, did media coverage search include Slovakian language and Maltese language results? --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you are welcome to. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent sources. To address Marcusmax' points. That they are EU members is documented at Member State of the European Union. Link 1 talks about their foreign ministers meeting (relations are "excellent" - surprise!); that happens literally every week of every year and goes unnoticed by us, outside this series of nonsense articles. Link 2 violates WP:PSTS, its importance not being validated by secondary sources. Link 3 says nothing about the relationship. Neither does link 4, which is about the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, located in Rome. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Link two can be used per WP:PRIMARY so long as it does not make any exceptional claim, but rather facts. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can be used for what? To tell us that two banks, one of which doesn't even have an article here, signed a document "expressing their willingness to co-operate on the basis of mutual trust and understanding"? Is there any reason this should interest us, or aren't we sort of forcing the idea of WP:N here? - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and my apologizes for adding in the order of Malta, obviously I got things mixed up. Im stricking that link now. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If one could figure out how to explain the strong symbolic and emotive nature of the Order of Malta, as it relates to modern Malta, then the link could easily stay in the article. It has 13,000 volunteer medical personnel and 80,000 permanent volunteers; it's like a centuries-old precursor to Médecins Sans Frontières, and Malta's emotional and sentimental value must be an important part of the organization's image and cachet.... I can't really figure out a way to effectively explain this, in the article. If I could do so I would do so. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One could ask "What is Malta doing? What is the nature of their foreign policy activity? Malta occupies a strategic place in the middle of the Mediterranean, vis a vis maritime affairs like Piracy in Somalia; and no doubt the country is an important part of the Africa-Europe solar electriciy transmission infrastructure (under construction; see Hassi R'Mel integrated solar combined cycle power station). The "Ministeru ta' L-Affarijiet Barranin"[18] at the center of this nomination has a very nice site; and what should be said about the ministry and its activities in this or any related article? --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment w:sk:Malta seems like a competent article. w:mt:Slovakkja needs some expansion. --Mr Accountable (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another stub about bilateral relations of X and Y which would be better covered by "Foreign relations of X" and "Foreign relations of Y" to allow 200 articles rather than 20,000 stubs. Wikipedia is not a directory. The websites of the foreign ministries will always be better sources than these stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question If the article is deleted, then how will "Foreign relations of Malta" and "Foreign relations of Slovakia" ever be written? --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you discuss the above on the relevant talk page of articles, your comment does not address the AfD. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? How does it not address the AfD? Please explain. AfD means "Article for Deletion", am I right? I am addressing the topic of the article, rather directly!....Perhaps the article could be considered in the context of Malta's presence on the international stage. If one is not interested in Malta and/or Slovakia and/or bilateral relations, then why would one have nominated the article in the first place? --Mr Accountable (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you voted yet? LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am just not sure what my vote is. It is difficult to proceed without an open discussion. If we could understand Malta's role in the European Union and its strategic role as part of the European southeastern sea frontier, we could start to put together an article "Foreign relations of Malta". --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To assesse Malta's place in the world, it has something to do, Eurocentrically, with it being one of the first safe European ports of call on the perilous journey from the East, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, through piracy in Somalia and piracy in the Strait of Malacca, to Suez, the Mediterranean and safely to Gibraltar and South Europe. It's strategic. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not established the notabilty of the subject matter. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know the notability guideline for foreign relations, but according to Slovak sources there is some room for improvement. In the sources I've added (Slovak government website and major conservative Slovak daily newspaper "Hospodárske noviny") you can find in addition to trivial diplomatic jargon also some economic data and futher information on Slovak-Maltese relations. Any scandals or unusual events, just simple information about economic and political cooperation. This could be useful for the readers. Btw, it's a bit surprising for me - someone create article without further care, leave it and let all the work and arguing on others. This is irresponsible editing. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage of the article topic as stated in the title, fails WP:N. Two of the references are primary, fail WP:RS. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets Wikipedia standard of verifiability and notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is too much sourced content for it to be replicated in the tables in Foreign relations of Malta and Foreign relations of Slovakia. Presumably more will be added - relations between the two countries are still relatively new. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the page still requires much work but sufficient sources are available to stand up notability and permit expansion. Smile a While (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep well referenced article. meets all notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

e3value[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This has been re-created thrice (1 2 3) and sent to Proposed Deletion twice (1 2) since it last went through AFD. The rationales given by Nsk92 and Stifle in the prior AFD discussion do not now apply well enough to comfortably re-delete this as re-creation of deleted content. As can be seen from the article and edits such as these ones, independent sources were added, after both editors commented. Problems of writing in the first person were addressed. (Ironically, the re-created article by Kardell is worse than the original by Pipo489 in this respect. See this diff. But this difference again adds to the fact that this is not exactly the same content, even though it shows that the original content was better.)

This is clearly at the very least a contested Proposed Deletion, and the addressing of the rationales given in the prior AFD discussion by Pipo489 adds substantial doubt to deleting it in line with those rationales. Therefore, I'm bringing NawlinWiki's Proposed Deletion nomination here, for being a contested proposal that should go through an AFD discussion, per the Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion procedure. I reserve my own opinion at this time. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be another case dependent on your view of the tension between verifiability and notability. Personally, I think a doctoral thesis is a reliable source, and thus information about E3value belongs on Wikipedia; but I think this subject is not notable enough to merit its own article.
It follows that the outcome should be merge, but since Uncle G is being cagey, I shall be so as well; I reserve my opinion as to where at this time.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of the term or concept being used except by the originator and his company. A concept invented in someone's thesis does not necessarily or even usually make make a good Wikipedia article DGG (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree there! It doesn't make a good article. The question is whether it might make a good footnote or subsection of another article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Written like a brochure / white paper, in bizarre marketing-speak and essentially represents an advertisement. Would require a complete rewrite to be even remotely acceptable as an article, and I don't think that would be possible due to sourcing issues and fundamental non-notability of the topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does that apply to this version of the article, too? Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If anyone wishes to have it userfied, just leave a note on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staten-Island-Underground-Music-List[edit]

Almost completely unreferenced and unverifiable list of mostly non-notable bands. According to the page text, it was compiled from a series of message board postings, so it will be virtually impossible to locate reliable sources for most if not all of these entries. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment isn't a notable "underground" music list an oxymoron? Drawn Some (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - I'd say CSD but it looks like a lot of work from mostly new users. Could be the basis of some valuable articles if references can be added. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord ² 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikify - Agreed with Hexa. If it survives this AfD, I'm willing to take a hack at making it look like an encyclopedia article. If it's still full of redlinks in a month, I'll nominate it for deletion myself. Nanowolf (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That said, "Staten underground bands" seems a bit specific, and this specificity could be the cause of the notability issues. Anyone with more experience regarding WP:Lists willing to chime in? Nanowolf (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment After further thinking, I'm tempted to call this listcruft. But two editors is hardly enough for consensus... Nanowolf (talk) 09:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Augment Image Studios[edit]

Not notable per EL. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Better the Devil You Know (film). -- Jeandré, 2009-05-10t12:26z 12:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable film studio with only passing local press coverage. Fences and windows (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and further source. The IMDB link offred by the nom is of no use for notability or sourcing... however the added sources do show a growing notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Company lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, wp:corp. Added sources provide only trivial coverage of Augment Image Studios. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoodlum Rock Vol. 1[edit]

Fails wp:music#Albums, singles and songs -- Jeandré, 2009-05-10t12:21z 12:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Was released on a major label by a notable band, so there's probably something out there somewhere. At the worst, redirect to the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just a quick Google News search shows several reviews, including this one. Tim meh ! 20:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closed a bit early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Moldova relations[edit]

non resident embassies. very little coverage of relations except on the football field. [19] in any case most relations are in Moldova-EU context. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They don't even have an embassy in the country. Nothing indicates notability. Shadowjams (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant, independent coverage of the topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stubs on bilateral relations of X and Y which would be better covered by "Foreign relations of X" and "Foreign relations of Y," thus including the same info with 200 articles rather than 20,000 stubs. Wikipedia is not a directory. The websites of the foreign ministries will always be better sources than these stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One of the 37,000+ potential articles on bilateral relations which has not shown notability of the subject. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since i find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship. The article as it currently stands has one primary source -- the moldovan foriegn ministry -- to establish the fact that moldova does not even bother keeping an embassy in Finland.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possible Merge. Google and GNews searches throw a fair few pages up but most of it's just clutter. The only useful source I found was the Finnish foreign ministry acknowledging Moldova's independence but nothing more. I suppose it could be merged into the diplomatic relations articles of the respectivce countries since relations exist but are simply nto well enough documented for an article. HJMitchell You rang? 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as clear a case as can be imagined. "NEW EVENTS" do not affect the normal processes here at all. In fact, they make the need to remove the weeds quite apparent. (consider this posted in all similar AfDs) Collect (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the stated article topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 05:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldblade[edit]

Written like an advert and appears to be copy-pasted from another site. Also not notable. Razakel19 (talk) 12:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nomination makes no sense at all. Several albums on prominent labels, notable members including John Robb, minor chart hit, written about in several books. You don't state which site you think it was copied from or what attempts you made to establish whether the subject is notable. Try Googling "Goldblade" (Google, Google News, Google Books) and see WP:BEFORE before bringing any other articles to AFD.--Michig (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple members previously in other notable bands, 2 albums on Captain Oi, a "more important" indie label. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources easily found here and here, meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 16:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Hardly reads like an ad to me, asserts notability finely, just needs cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep It needs cleanup, but it is notable. I don't understand what nominator means with "written like an ad". Acebulf (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per Hammer. AfD is not a forum to force clenaup. Sources above more than establish notability, no link for a copyvio. I respectfully suggest the nominator read WP:BEFORE and utilise ((advert)) instead of ((subst:afd1)). HJMitchell You rang? 11:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- User:Docu 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Belgium–Malaysia relations[edit]

whilst these 2 countries have embassies, the relations are not notable nor subject to wide coverage. the Belgian foreign ministry doesn't even mention Malaysia in this. Coverage is mainly in a multilateral or sporting context [20] LibStar (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no actual content on the page - wouldn't that make it a candidate for speedy deletion? --Razakel19 (talk) 12:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you would think so, but the fact they have embassies show some limited relations...whether or not this is enough to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not worth an article just documenting the fact that notional relations exist, however keep if any reasonable content on the subject is added.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - weak keep per refs,[21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Plus UN treaties -Marcusmax(speak) 13:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources show, more or less, that Belgian companies want to invest in Malaysia, or have put a few millions there. We need more to show evidence of a notable relationship; an article saying "Belgian companies are thinking of investing in Malaysia" wouldn't amount to much. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So a statement such as, "After all, it is one of 16 countries that have enjoyed half a century of diplomatic relations with Malaysia.' in link two fails to show some notability. The title of this article is Belgium–Malaysia relations after all. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - We've deleted articles before involving relationships lasting half a century or more. The question is: has something noteworthy happened in that half century? I don't see evidence of that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noteworthy means it was noted by the media, it doesn't have to be front page material. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically a dictionary definition. Stubs on bilateral relations of X and Y which would be better covered by "Foreign relations of X" and "Foreign relations of Y," thus including the same info with 200 articles rather than 20,000 stubs. Wikipedia is not a directory. The websites of the foreign ministries will always be better sources than these stale robostubs. Edison (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A telephone book is a directory, this is a not a directory entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in its current form the article is a directory, contains no real information about their bilateral relations. and not an almanac either. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insufficiently notable. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, there is this - http://www.mymabl.com/pages/index.php - The Malaysian Association of Belgium and Luxembourg, affiliated with the embassy in Brussels... it counts 75 members incl the ambassador; more of a social/cultural organization rather than an actual Chamber of Commerce, EU group, security group or internet trade facility. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided in the article and the additional material provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, and merging these articles like this into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure that Belgian officials can locate Malaysia on the map and vice versa. This is the single basic fact, not inherently notable, and the rest of the article is trivia we would not have around for any reason whatsoever, were it not for these ill-conceived "rescue" attempts. That one can hyphenate random countries is not reason enough for having this sort of articles around. Dahn (talk) 22:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to respective articles on diplomatic relations by country. The sources in the article seem to suggest there is a relatiosnhip but not enough to merit its own article. HJMitchell You rang? 11:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no overarching coverage of the article topic as stated by its title. All references are from within the last week, so hardly convey ongoing significance. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder there are more articles up for deletion that can use more Google searching and more references added and they are here --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I tried Google translate since any news sources would be in the languages of one of those countries, but when said to French to English, Belgium–Malaysia translates as Australia-Malaysia. Obviously the translator has serious problem, unless those two nations decided to switch names or something. When it doubt, its best to just leave the article alone. You gain nothing by deleting it. With so many articles nominated at once, there is no way to search for references for all of them. You'll have to find someone who speaks French of Malaysian, or a translator program that works properly, in order to find news stories from each nation about the relationship between both of them. Dream Focus 03:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't think this article in any way establishes any kind of coverage or notability of this topic; however, as Ikip pointed out, Wikiproject International Relations appears to have a centralized discussion on fixing all these bilateral relations topics, so I'd hold off on deleting until they can take a crack at it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Too much well-sourced content to reasonably merge/replicate into both the tables in Foreign relations of Malaysia and Foreign relations of Belgium. Significant duplication in the two articles would invite forking. Aymatth2 (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If you were worried that it's not notable (and someone said the foreign ministry's page didn't even mention Malaysia) here's a whole page on their relationship (in French only, sorry). -Oreo Priest ^talk 14:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources have been found to enable expansion and meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was both speedy deleted WP:CSD#G3 by Closedmouth. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 10:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junders Plunkett[edit]

Possible hoax. I can find no information whatever through Google Web or Books on this alleged "notorious" Dutch pirate (web search, eliminating game sites; book search) The only results are for the videogame character (which is listed in the article as being named after pirate). I am made additionally suspicious by a few details. Why would a Dutch pirate have an English named ship ("Valid Point")? And content such as that he "earned a reputation as the Valid Point after he punched the Captain of a British ship with his set of Brass Knuckles" doesn't sound right to me. Aren't brass knuckles an anachronism given the time frame? The two urls added to the article just now as references do not return pages mentioning this pirate.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User has now also created a page on the alleged pirate ship which I am bundling into this nomination:

Delete both as hoaxes. The story is improbable, as nom. points out, searches find no confirmation, the on-line links provided say nothing relevant. I have added ((hoax)) to both articles, which may attract more users to check them out. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as hoaxes. Not that there are no Google Books hits and it is improbable that this improbable tale was preserved for centuries orally. Drawn Some (talk) 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [27] details where this came from. Completely fictional character that someone made up history about. The links providing "proof" do not even mention this pirate in passing. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Clear hoaxery. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you guys all say "delete as hoax", do you mean speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3, or wait until the AfD runs then delete? - Dank (push to talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I placed my !vote I thought the articles deeply suspicious but not quite blatant enough for G3. Now that others have also checked them out, and the SPA author has not provided any better defence than "Please, do not delete. I will fix it. Honest", I'd be happy for them to go at once, per G3 or SNOW, take your pick. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'll move this to 22nd Midsouth Emmy Awards (correction of a space). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

22ndMidsouth Emmy Awards[edit]

Delete ~~Unsourced and~~ does not indicate notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-10t12:01z 12:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is now referenced to primary source, but still doesn't indicate notability. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-11t21:09z

I am unsure as to how a major award does not indicate notability. The google search will take yout o the emmys themselves and they are aired on national television just as the international awards are as seen here> [28]. So, on the issue of notability for wikipedia guidelines, if a porn stars page can be kept because it states that they have won one non notable award, then why should something as notable as an Emmy Award be discounted as non notable? Doesn't that seem a little moronic for lack of a better word? Canyouhearmenow 22:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which network aired the regional Emmy Awards for Tennessee, North Carolina, and part of Alabama on national television? I found the videostream of the awards at the link you provided, but it didn't indicate who broadcast the ceremony. I would have thought the ceremony was broadcast only in the local area to which it pertained, but in any event I saw no indication of who the broadcaster was. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last broadcast was shown on the PBS network on January 24, 2009. The show was aired at 9:00 PM and hosted by country recording star, Hal Ketchum. I am really still at a loss here as to why we are debating notability of an Emmy Award? Regional or National, an Emmy is an Emmy! NATAS has 19 regions and divides the awards up among the regions because it cannot hold all of the awards at one time. This is also the reason we have the "Daytime" and "Primetime" Emmy's. Each chapter has it's own televised awards show and one can tune in on a PBS channel and watch whatever regional ceremony they want. The academy recognizes each chapter as being part of the international offices and the information can be found on their main web site[29] The Midsouth also has various student awards and scholarships that are sponsored strictly by the national headquarters [30]. This is true of many various awards such as the Grammy's, People's Choice awards, Telly Awards and so on. The stations listed as winners here are notable and most have their own page. A majority of the winners are also notable. One in particular is Christian recording star, David L Cook. No one can say that he is non notable! The bottom line of this whole matter is that this page is a SUB PAGE that stems from a host article and not the article itself. No one seems to be realizing that. Then to argue that it is indiscriminate information? I have re read that guideline and there are too many gray areas and I am not even sure that rule could apply in this instance. Canyouhearmenow 11:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate information. Just a list of winners of a regional (not national) competition. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not an article but a subpage that was created to save space on the main page. If you will look, the subpage is directing you pack to the main page. As far as notability goes, the academy does not distinguish between regional and nationals when it comes to being an "Emmy" winner. So, for someone to use that arguement, it is not valid. I would agree with the deletion if all it was were a group of winners and no host article.Canyouhearmenow 17:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations. I believe that this would meet this criteria. Just because it is not a part of the International awards broadcast does not mean that it is non notable and worthy of its own place on wikipedia. Canyouhearmenow 17:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the Academy itself makes such a distinction, I think that Wikipedians can judge for themselves whether a competition involving only television stations in Tennessee, North Carolina, and part of Alabama is as notable as a similar competition which is run on a national basis. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As precedent has been set for such "list" articles spliting off a parent article so as to not overburden the parent, and Wiki has room to recognize that notability is notability, no matter if its only for a few dozen million in a national region or 300 million nation-wide. In the Midsouth Emmy Awards we're not talikng about a neighborhood bake sale, but of something "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice" for a major portion of the United States. The informations contained therein can show in-depth coverage in reliable sources per WP:CLEANUP to pass WP:N and WP:GNG. It is the height of hubris to suggest that such notability must be nation-wide in order to matter. As long as the pieces of the puzzle pass WP:N, the puzzle itself is allowed and encouraged. Tag if for expansion and sourcing and encourage pro-active participation in further improving the article. It has existed for less than a month and it improves wiki to allow it to grow per WP:POTENTIAL. After the keep, move it to the proper 22nd Midsouth Emmy Awards per naming conventions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If an award is notable, than a list of those who won it, is valid also. Dream Focus 21:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick McNamara[edit]

Contested PROD by IP user, without any explanation. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional game. --Jimbo^[online] 11:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This player just about passes notability guidelines IMO. He has played 5 games for a professional (albeit non-league) club. John Sloan @ 12:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Conference National isn't fully-professional, as the criteria states he needs to have played in. --Jimbo^[online] 13:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a matter of opinion really. Also, the standard of the league isn't the only factor to consider here! People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport. ASAIK, Rushden & Diamonds are still a professional club. My interpretation of WP:ATHLETE is that this is enough for their players to meet the notability guidelines. John Sloan @ 13:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't the "fully professional level" the league/competitions he's played in rather than the club itself? --Jimbo^[online] 13:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not necessarily, I would certainly say playing for a professional football club qualifies as a "fully professional level". And although not fully professional, the Conference is still a pretty high profile league. However, because this is on the borderline, i'll be keeping the "weak" keep !vote. John Sloan @ 14:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - gazillions of players who have never played above the Conference have been deleted in the past for failing WP:ATHLETE, this guy's case seems no different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Conference isn't fully professional as some clubs are still semi-professional, so he hasn't competed at a fully professional level yet. Delete this article, then recreate it if he makes it to a pro league. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources (at all) to suggest he passes the general notability guideline, so WP:ATHLETE is all we can go on. Rushden are a pro club, but the league in which they play is not fully professional. The article says McNamara played on non-contract terms, so there's no evidence that he himself was playing as a professional. I don't see how he can possibly be argued to have competed "at the fully professional level of a sport" as required by WP:ATHLETE. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hasn't played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fully professional level means fully professional league, no matter if his club pays him on a full-time basis. What if a level 14 club decides to sign professionally all of its players? Are they suddenly notable? I don't think so... --Angelo (talk) 10:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 02:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cash room puzzle[edit]

WP:MADEUP Ironholds (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by letting it get sucked out the vent the money came through. WP:MADEUP. Drawn Some (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced "thing made up one day" with "some say" non-reference. The first edit says "My friend and I came up with this theory/puzzle." Fails WP:N and WP:V. Edison (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and more. Recommend snowball or speedy delete. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article withdrawn by author; no support for keeping DGG (talk) 00:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licence to print money[edit]

I don't believe the definition of the expression "licence to print money" is correct when it states that there is an actual license to print money. I don't think that the institution that prints a country's money has a license to print money any more than the justice department has a license to prosecute criminals or the treasury has a license to collect taxes. It's purely a metaphor. Further, there is no citation to support the "one of the earliest references" claim.

If I'm correct and if we remove the problem parts, this is nothing more than a dictionary definition followed by a couple of random instances of its use. It's been added to Wikitionary and should be removed from here. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just discovered the ((wi)) template. I suppose I could have just boldly used that instead of taking up everyone's time, but now that I've launched AFD I suppose I have to let it go through. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Licence to Delete A poorly written article with two sources, one of which quotes a television broadcaster as saying that his broadcasting rights are practically a license to print money, and the other citing a completely different phrase "which means much the same". The lack of information should be a clue that this isn't a very widely used expression. Besides, printing money is too much work -- I'd rather have a "licence to steal". Mandsford (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a metaphor. It's a U.S. English metaphor according to several dictionaries. And you're right that banks aren't, strictly speaking, granted licences to print bank notes. It is done through charters and statute. And many of those statutes exist because of prior experience with unregulated over-issue.
In the U.K., for example, note-issuing banks were restricted (as a response to the collapse of many note-issuing banks) by the Country Bankers Act of 1826 and further restricted by the Bank Charter Act of 1844, which prohibited (newly founded) banks from issuing bank notes. The last note-issuing private U.K. bank, Fox Fowler & Co. of Wellington, was taken over in 1921. (Source: ISBN 9780415185837 page 104)
In Italy, for example, note issuing banks flourished in the 19th century, including the Banca di Torino, the Banca Nazionale degli Stati Sardi, and the Banca Nazionale Toscana. Italy had a lot of problems with over-issue because of lack of regulation. Italy's first banking act was passed in 1874, codifying the note-issuing situation of the time. Another banking law restricting note issue was passed in 1893, after the collapse of many banks and a scandal wherein the Banca Romana had fraudulently issued the same banknotes twice, which led to the merger of many of the note-issuing banks, resulting in only three note-issuing banks, the Banca d'Italia and two southern banks. (Source: ISBN 9780198292890 chapter 4).
In the U.S., the first note-issuing bank, the Bank of North America, was chartered by the Continental Congress in 1782. The Bank of the United States was chartered by the United States Congress in 1791.
The second note-issuing bank in Sweden was the Riksbank, founded by Act of the Parliament of Sweden in 1668. (Source: ISBN 9780521573610 page 4)
In Hong Kong, the note-issuing banks (the Bank of China, Standard Chartered, and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) are currently authorized by the Hong Kong governement, under the terms of article 111 of the Basic Law. (Source: ISBN 9781567204476 page 176)
Whilst, as you can probably see, there is a lot to say on the subject of note-issuing banks (especially for Italy!) that we don't have at the moment, this article isn't the right place to put it. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's some good source material for an article about the authority conferred by a government for the printing of currency. We have an article about one of those printers, the American Bank Note Company, but, surprisingly, nothing about such companies in general. As Uncle G correctly notes, we don't really need an article about metaphors for money-making opportunities. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like the solution of replacing the page with the wiktionary template. I would say to just close the discussion and keep the page with only the template, and maybe link to this discussion on the talk page. Cazort (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as originator of this article, I support its deletion; the Wiktionary article is now better (it did have very grave mistakes when I made it, spelling errors surely are not acceptable in a dictionary, and it had no references at all). My references were weak? Sorry but they're in Wiktionary now, and I've had no hand in editing that — at least I do actually look up and try to find references. Now it's in Wiktionary it should be deleted here. SimonTrew (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim meh ! 23:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BytesForAll[edit]

Reason: I think this article is promotional in tone - although here since 2006 and extensively edited by others, it's very poorly referenced (both links dead) and doesn't give in-depth coverage of the subject. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In other words, you just don't like the article? I do not believe that is a valid reason for proposing at AFD. Rather than propose for deletion, how about looking up some references. I actually found it rather easy by just going to Google News and behold, came up with these [31]. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - nothing to do with what I like or dislike, but I accept I incorrectly listed this article and I apologise for wasting your time. Please close the debate, thank you. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. From WP:Deletion: "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion". Deletion is only appropriate if the page cannot be improved, with the sole exception of copyright violations or other content that needs to be removed from the edit history for legal or practical reasons. The page simply being bad, no matter how bad, is never sufficient grounds for deletion. I see no question of notability for this topic, given the large number of sources that exist out there, and no other grounds to delete. In addition to google news, google scholar turns up: [32]. Cazort (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is notable. Poor quality of an article is not a valid reason for deletion. Tim meh ! 20:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion has been badly tainted by sockpuppets; no prejudice against renomination if need be. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Fishing (album)[edit]

Non-notable mixtape with no coverage of substance. Everything I could find amounts to "this band released a free mixtape, here's the tracklist, artwork and link". (OK, one Belgian entertainment blog/website wrote three paragraphs about it—still, insubstantial.) Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of significant coverage, and an official release from a notable group.--Michig (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Major and official mixtape by a popular hip hop group, many other mixtapes have their own pages with just as much information as The Cool Kids one.--gameworldduelist2 (talk) 5:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Confirmed Sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gameworldduelist2 Icestorm815 • Talk 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- Doesn't really address the issue (notability per WP:NALBUMS). See also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to being about a promotional item, the article resembles advertising. --Fremte (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia can and does have articles on promotional items and there's no problem with that. If you object to the tone or style of the article then edit it or place a template such as: ((advert)).

Deletion discussions, according to WP:Deletion, are to focus on the notability of the article, and whether it could be cleaned up, not on how bad it currently is. Cazort (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Even though being a new user, this article does nothing against wikipedia policy and i don't understand what the person above me means by it being a promotional item, because a mixtape's purpose is to generate hype for an artist or help gain fans. Obviously he/she does not understand the purpose of a mixtape, and besides, if you think there is something wrong with this article for being a mixtape, why not go and try to ban mixtapes from being created on wikipedia? There is clearly no substance for TheJazzDalek's argument.--thecool702 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Confirmed Sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gameworldduelist2 Icestorm815 • Talk 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

You have made the point as to why it should not be here - hype for an artist and gaining fans is advertising, c.f., Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles. --Fremte (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why aren't mixtape articles banned from wikipedia? That's what a mixtape is and me being an avid hip hop listener would know. What's the point of allowing mixtape articles when people like you are just going to whine and moan about the definition of a mixtape? Get tha hell outta here with dat shit and propose to someone on wikipedia to block mixtape pages from being made--thecool702 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of the current "sources" listed are blogs, which are inappropriate according to Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources. I am going to remove them as sources, look for other sources, and then return here to comment. It's unclear to me whether this topic is notable before I examine the current and potential sources in more detail. Cazort (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Keep Only one source was a blog, and I removed it. Although some of the hits in google news are blogs, the remaining sources appear to be from reliable sources, and they certainly cover the topic in detail (although only two of them are extensive articles) and are non-trivial coverage. This is the very essence of WP:N which is why I am arguing to keep. Cazort (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which you consider "extensive" and "cover the topic in detail"—there's only one that's more than a paragraph long, the rest consist of a track list and a couple of sentences. Also note that WP:NALBUMS says mixtapes need significant independent coverage in reliable sources. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me lenient but I tend to think that a paragraph of direct (exclusive) coverage usually constitutes significant, because it is quite far from trivial coverage, i.e. from [[WP:N]: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". This source has 3 paragraphs plus track listings: [33], and this (non-english) source: [34] has more than that. Cazort (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cazort. Tim meh ! 20:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Liik3 Duhh!!! Hairybeast92 (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Confirmed Sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gameworldduelist2 Icestorm815 • Talk 05:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CryptoHeaven[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable software masquerading as neologism. Contested PROD stating "the article is not about any particular software application, but a generic term; the article establishes notability per WP:N listing 5 sources"

However the sources only make the very briefest mention to an "application" called "CryptoHeaven" referencing www.cryptoheaven.com, so it certainly is not a generic term. Also, the sources do not establish notability as they are technical manuals and white papers, again most only mentioning the name and website.

I can't find thrid-party sources to establish notability, google turns up many download pages etc but I didn't find any reliable articles. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good research by the nom. I think it's advertising masquerading as a neologism. Shadowjams (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This is the second nomination for the same name. It appears from the first AfD that the previous article was written with an eye towards the company (rather than as a term). The result was delete. Shadowjams (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I went through Pontificalibus' same process and I found, in agreement with everyone here, that (a) all references to this "term" seem to really be references to the software, and that (b) the software is probably not notable--although there are things that show up in a google news search: [35], they are mostly press-releases or other material originating from the company. Also, I notice many of them come from mathaba.net, and this article: [36] that looks like it is a news article, seems highly suspicious: "Other security analysts recommend computer users at least use secure email programs such as CryptoHeaven"... Other security analysts = who? I would recommend a Delete or, if we were talking about the software, a weak delete and possibly a delete for that too. Cazort (talk) 19:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to be inventing the term "cryptoheaven" as all of the references only refer to a specific piece of software and not as a general term for a type of software app. Timmie.merc (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Leggins[edit]

Unsourced stub about fictional character in non-notable books. Google search does not find any reliable sources establishing notability for the books. Prod removed without reason by article creator. Does not meet WP:FICTION, WP:BOOKS, or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN Numbers added as proof of authenticity. Books can be purchased on amazon.co.uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Leo+Leggins. so they must exist:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Integritytorso (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says these books don't exist. The point is that notability has not been established. --Crusio (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither this character nor the series of books nor any of the individual books is the slightest bit notable and I am even unable to identify a name for the author. By odd coincidence one copy of the book pictured is for sale on amazon.co.uk. Drawn Some (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Crusio says, it exists, but it is not notable. No sources refer to it. Fences and windows (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the books aren't notable, then a character in them definitely isn't notable. Tim meh ! 20:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename Leo Leggins book series and then expand and source per WP:POTENTIAL and WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For WP:POTENTIAL to work, you will need sources. Can you tell us which ones you have found? --Crusio (talk) 07:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Agreed. Renaming to the series is shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Fences and windows (talk) 20:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page rename to Leo Leggins book series as per above link - Yikes - working hard on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Integritytorso (talk • contribs) 02:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Agartala#Churches. Verifiable content may be selectively merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala City Baptist Church[edit]

Barely verifiable church. Disruptively deprodded by new user Varbas. Resurr Section (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Agartala#Churches This church is non-notable; a Google News Archive search returns no results. Instead of losing all the information in this article, a selective merge to Agartala#Churches should suffice. Cunard (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Can you verify this or the other church even exists as described? According to Wikipedia's own article Religion in the United States there are at least 310,000 churches in the US alone. Extrapolating from the estimated number of Christians on earth, there are about 2,800,000 churches in the world. Should Wikipedia have a redirect for each church, there would be more redirects for churches than there are current Wikipedia articles. WP:Wikipedia is not a directory. Resurr Section (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources have been provided, and individual churches are not inherently notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Agartala#Churches I think Cunard has the right solution. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we cannot even verify the very existence of the church (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). If that baseline requirement is met, a merge into Agartala#Churches would be justified, but right now there is nothing to merge! Abecedare (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Agartala#Churches. Verifiable content may be selectively merged. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala Baptist Church[edit]

Supposedly older than the other church. Still no evidence of notablility. Disruptively deprodded by "new" user Varbas. Resurr Section (talk) 07:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Agartala#Churches This church is non-notable; a Google News Archive search returns no results. Instead of losing all the information in this article, a selective merge to Agartala#Churches should suffice. Cunard (talk) 08:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Agartala#Churches I think Cunard has the right solution. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we cannot even verify the very existence of the church (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). If that baseline requirement is met, a merge into Agartala#Churches would be justified, but right now there is nothing to merge! Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Pretty Things (album)[edit]

Delete. Who cares? It simply is not notable. End of discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Future album with no release date announced yet.--Michig (talk) 08:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You could speedy it as an article about a musical recording that does not assert notability. --Pontificalibus (talk) 09:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, no verifiable info of yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Clearly the article, the musician, and the album are all notable -- by any standard. There are plenty of reliable sources. However, the album does not exist yet and has no clear or consistent release date or history (this winter from what I last read). Perhaps the "TBA" under artist's discography works for now. --Junius49 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear? Clear as mud, perhaps. JBsupreme (talk) 04:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although the artist is notable, there is as yet no release date or any other details about the album, which may or may not (probably not, in my experience) get released later in 2009, so an article is not warranted yet. When the album is released or at least recorded and given a release date it will no doubt get sufficient coverage to be considered notable, and at that point an article may be merited.--Michig (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep !votes do not establish how this standard is notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Stone[edit]

No assertion of notability; cannot find any through searching etc. Reads like an advert. Chzz ► 17:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Merge whatever salvageable content into a building stone or building trades or quarry article. Only references are to its own website. Dan D. Ric (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Fair stone Information because it informs people of a fair trade stone and it is not advertisement for a company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.3.31 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comprehend why this article seems to be unsuitable, unhelpful, or does not meet the required criteria for Wikipedia. It shows and explains a social standard for natural stone imports from emerging countries which is an important issue. Perhaps it is not that common in an English speaking world but in Western Europe there are many discussions about child work in that sector. Furthermore there are several links so in my opinion this article is neutral and an enrichment for all wikipediants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.180.93.49 (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take into consideration that the listings you see in Google’s Search Engine Results Pages are different in each country and also depend on which version of Google you are using. With google.de you get thousands of references to Fair Stone - alas mostly in German. The enwiki article here is down on Page 3 with a number 26 listing. Different country – different listing/ranking. This does not imply that Fair Stone is non existant/irrelevant or whatever.Gmolls (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep If you can Wikify it, keep it! --The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 07:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: While I can tell it exists, I don't see anything that suggests notability sufficient for inclusion in the sources. Therefore, I recommend the article be deleted. I would also support a merge into Fair Trade or a similar parent article. The sources just aren't there. Find an article somewhere about Fair Stone and I'd reconsider, but without one... Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and dont merge into fair trade: Since the television documentary »Gravestones made by children« there has been a growing attention for sustainability performance throughout supply chains, from producers up to consumers. As a reaction to the deplorable circumstances (child labour, non-observance of occupational health and safety regulations, violation of basic labour rights, disregard of the protection of natural resources), municipalities have included social demands in public tenders (see http://www.ka-news.de/nachrichten/karlsruhe/Karlsruhe-Grabmal-Fairer-Handel;art6066,171714 and http://www.aalen-dewangen.de/sixcms/media.php/93/kw_11.pdf and http://www.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/servlet/is/42059/frau_hertlin_xertifix_ka_130209.pdf?command=downloadContent&filename=frau_hertlin_xertifix_ka_130209.pdf ). Suppliers are confronted now with ethical requirements in order to be permitted to deliver stone products to the municipality. They are required to specify details of their supply chains and to send documentation on how they are adhering to the new demands. Some authorities are satisfied with a simple selfwritten statement others however ask for verifyable documentation or an approved label. Here Fair Stone plays a decisive role. Independent, accredited certifiers (e.g. TÜV Rheinland Hong Kong) assess factories against the Fair Stone standard. This third party assessment gives credibility to the Fair Stone label. The need for such a label is undisputed as well as the public interest in this label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmolls (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and salt. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New topic[edit]

Article previously tagged for speedy deletion, was contested, I declined speedy because there was at least a claim of notability. I don't believe the claim is strong enough, though; from what I can tell, the individual has won one minor award (I see no indication that this award is a huge deal), and most of the "reference" links included at the bottom of the article are the individual's own websites (google pages, google groups, etc.). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy userfy to User:Sachdeva sameer. Since the subject matches the article creator's name, the best assumption is that if the article does not look much like a true encyclopedia article, the creator would want it to be treated as a userpage. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am a little concerned about encouraging this to be in the userspace. He doesn't meet standards of notability or verifiability with independent resources. Drawn Some (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither do you, or I, or Rjanag, and yet we all have user pages in the userspace. A user is not required to prove notability through independent sources to have a user page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:UP. This sort of content is clearly inappropriate and expressly forbidden in a guideline (though not a policy). As I say, we shouldn't encourage it. The two statements in my original opinion should be reversed to make my thoughts clear, I apologize, it should be deleted because he doesn't meet standards etc. and in addition and as a separate matter I am concerned about encouraging this to be in the userspace. Drawn Some (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not userfy. This is just someone's resume; Wikipedia is not a resume-hosting service. But although it clearly fails to be sufficiently notable for an article, it contains enough of an assertion of significance to be ineligible for A7 speedy deletion. WP:G11, blatant self-promotion, is an outside possibility but too much of a stretch for my taste, so I would prefer just to wait out the week and then delete it normally. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline speedy delete. Perhaps by SNOW if not speedy. DGG (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magical girlfriend[edit]

Magical girlfriend (魔法彼女) mostly overlaps with a more in-depth article Magical girl (魔法少女). Also, Google hits for "魔法彼女" are less than 2,000, with most of them being false positives. (e.g. 魔法 is the last word in a sentence, and 彼女 is the first word in the next sentence.) In contrast, "魔法少女" has over 3 million hits on Google. As an entry in Category:Female stock characters in anime and manga, which already has Magical girl, "Magical girlfriend" is unnecessary and not noteworthy. People who use the term "Magical girlfriend" may be getting it confused with "Magical girl" and actually be referring to more or less the same subject. Tokek (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Tokek (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. You should have just been bold and done so, IMO. :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep based on information added from Napier's book. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I concur with Nihonjoe, although it needs to be done properly as there is a degree of usable information that should be kept. Although the two are similar, the articles are currently separate in content, and so the magical girl article should properly address the differences between the two. However, all original research (of which there is a lot) should be removed regardless. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ ~~Keep or delete~~, but do not merge. As someone who watched a lot of anime and has heard the term used, I can assure you that a "magical girl" is totally different than a "magical girlfriend". A "magical girl" is a mostly normal girl who has magical powers. A "magical girlfriend", on the other hand, is usually a goddess, alien, angel, android, etc., and isn't at all a normal person. There really isn't much overlap between the two. If you look at Category:Magical girl anime and manga, you will see that none of the examples listed in Magical girlfriend are listed there, which is because none of them are magical girl anime. That said, I checked both of the sources listed in the article and neither used the term "magical girlfriend", so unless someone can find reliable sources, the article should be deleted. I know I have heard the term used, but I don't know if it has gotten any in-depth discussion in reliable sources, which is why I am voting keep or delete. Again, I very strongly oppose a merge with magical girl. 14:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Changed my vote to ~~speedy keep~~, as I noticed that this is considered a high importance article by Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, and I don't want to vote delete without actually having searched for sources myself. It does need to be sourced however. I'm voting speedy keep instead of just keep since no one seems to be in favor of deletion. Merge discussions should not be taken to AfD, but instead should be discussed on the talk pages of the articles to be merged. Calathan (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if, as you say, "magical girlfriend" can account for non-homo sapiens, I suppose they have enough anthropomorphic characteristics that would allow for them to be included into "magical girl", as I propose, no?

Also, could you give me a link to where the "high level of importance" has been explained? In the talk page, the rating it received was

This article has been rated as C-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria:

B1 (Referencing and citation) = Failed

B2 (Coverage and accuracy) = Failed

B3 (Structure) = Failed

B4 (Grammar) = Passed

B5 (Supporting materials) = Failed

B6 (Accessibility) = Failed

Neither this, nor your comment so far clearly address the question of notability or importance. Simply being able to conceive of a consistent definition for a stock character, or any other form of categorization, is not enough to prove notability. The concern over the very low hits for "魔法彼女" also remains. —Tokek (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did a little bit more digging and found a series of edits [37] (one interruption), or [38] (no interruption) by Repku. This shows that at one point in time, one editor thought it was of high importance. Since this article may be classified as a Definition article, the user most likely thought that it could be described by the following: "This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge." (WP:MANGA/ASSESS#Priority_scale). I'll post a notice over at the user's talk page in case s/he may be intrested in this discussion. —Tokek (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm onto the third search result page [39] for "魔法彼女" at Google Japan and still no hits that aren't false positives. If it's an actual term used in Japanese, whether or not it's notable, I would imagine I would be able to find an Internet usage for it near the top of results, if at all. —Tokek (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were proposing a merge. If you actually want the content deleted, that is a different matter, and it shouldn't be speedy kept. Voting for a speedy keep is not the same as voting for a keep. I was voting speedy keep as I thought you wanted a merger, which isn't something to discuss at AfD, but if you don't want any of the content merged, I will change my vote back to keep or delete but do not merge. I'm not sure if this term is regularly used in Japanese, or if it is mainly an English language term (one of the article editors might have just provided kanji without it being a common term in Japanese). I personally would have thought it was primarily an English language term, just because I have never heard anyone give a romaji name for the term outside this article (I can't read kanji, so I wouldn't have seen it in kanji even if it is commonly used). A search for "Magical Girlfriend" returns lots of actual results on the topic, though I didn't bother to see how many are reliable sources. Again, since I haven't done an in depth search for sources and don't want to do so, I'm not voting either for a keep or a delete, just opposing a merge.

Also, about it being a high importance article, you just have to look on the talk page and see in the box at the top that it says "high importance". I have no idea how article assessment works (either in general or for the Anime and Manga Wikiproject), so I don't know why it would be assessed that way. Also, I still think you don't understand what a magical girl is. It isn't just any girl with magical powers, but a mostly normal girl with magical powers who has to deal with both the issues that a normal girl would deal with and the issues brought about due to her magical powers. A magical girlfriend, however, doesn't usually deal with the issues of a normal girl. Also, the two genres have very different conventions (e.g. a magical girl often has a transformation sequence, while a magical girlfriend usually doesn't). They also have very different target audiences, as magical girl shows are often aimed at young girls (though some are aimed at moe or lolicon fans), while magical girlfriend shows would always be aimed at guys (they are wish fulfillment for guys who wish they had a girlfriend.) They really are completely different genres, which both happen to have female characters with supernatural powers. Calathan (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is for ~~delete~~, because I believe the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. What I wanted to say was, magical girlfriend may be mistaken for a notable term by confusing it with magical girl. I agree with you that the definitions as stated in each article are not compatible. We can leave magical girl at that.

While in English, "magical girlfriend" could appear accidentally without the anime connotaion [40], the term 魔法彼女 is not used in Japanese, period. This is because, unlike the Japanese term, the English term [41] can be used to mean "1. produced by or as if by magic" or "2. mysteriously enchanting" instead of just "3. of or pertaining to magic." The article uses this characteristic of the English language to be ambiguous with its definition enough to not overlap with magical girl.

The article is currently about a sexy female protagonist character that falls in love with the male protagonist. Sure, sexy female protagonists exist in anime, but like I said, just because one can create a definition for something doesn't automatically mean the term is notable. Looking at the edit history, the article was first a redirect page, then a genre page. Now it's about a female stock anime character, and maybe still also about an anime genre. There is only one external link referenced in this article, despite being tagged for references since 2007. And the referenced external link does not use the term "magical girlfriend," so in reality there are zero relevant references. There is no external references to give definition to this supposed neologism. As unreferenced material with a somewhat shifting definition, it doesn't really have encyclopedic value for any possibility for a merger. It would be like any other content out there that was created without Wikipedia's standards in mind. Even though it's all GFDL, I don't see where it could be merged to. —Tokek (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The one who is confusing magical girl and magical girlfriend is the nominator. They are separate concepts with very little ovelap. Edward321 (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Edward said, it seems the nominator is the only one confused. These are two totally different things. A girl with magic, and a magical perfect girlfriend. Both articles are fine, so leave them be. Dream Focus 05:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My apologies, and a bit of clarification. Currently we are already in agreement that "magical girlfriend" != "magical girl" according to the articles' definitions, and no one is disputing this anymore. With this fact agreed upon, the article itself still has the problem of notability, as initially addressed. The article references a pseudo-Japanese term that has zero usage in Japanese, and it has been unable to come up with an external source that actually defines the term (despite being requested for references back in 2007), so we can't be sure of what the article actually is supposed to be about. Neologisms are considered problematic. "Magical girlfriend' could be given the illusion of notability if confused with the notable term "magial girl." —Tokek (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't believe anyone will confuse the two. Google gives 4,180,000 for 魔法彼女, so perhaps somewhere they are referred to as that. There is usually more than one way to translate the Japanese characters. The examples listed seem to validate the article's concept. Dream Focus 20:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Please re-read: my argument for deletion is not based on whether the two terms can be confused. I am saying that, hypothetically, if the two were confused by a reader, one might fail to see the underlying problems with this afd nominated article. The part where you think the fact that the article lists other anime titles validates the concept to the point that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for notability was IMHO constructive, however. Thank you. —Tokek (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Anime and manga are a subculture, so it's easy for people who aren't familiar with it to confuse the two - they are both girls who wield magic, but the question of the gaze and story function largely determines which is which. Susan J. Napier devotes a chapter to magical girlfriends in a book. I've done a rough initial add of it to the page. --Malkinann (talk) 20:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep appears to meet minimum notability requirements, this article of course wont grow past C without more references, but as it stands I don't see any problem. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep per Malkinann's reference. Just that the kanji, which initially mislead me, should be removed from the article. —Tokek (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Non-admin closure as article was speedy deleted) Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 11:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animunch[edit]

non notable website; Founded April 2009; alexa rank 6,916,545. Gilllnnm (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A prime candidate for speedy deletion as there is no assertion of notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rockdale Christian Youth Softball[edit]

Organization has not been the subject of third-party, reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Atmoz (talk) 04:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; NRVE. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ORG miserably. would qualify for speedy delete as well. LibStar (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable and in addition no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 17:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green-baiting[edit]

Unsourced original research. A definition of a non-notable neologism. The few mentions I could find of this word do not even support this definition anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Wouldn't be surprised to see this again in a couple of years though. Drawn Some (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drawn Some. Taelus (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice because as the nom points out, this term will likely see much greater use in the next few years and gain its notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Students Against War and Racism(Australia)[edit]

Has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Fails WP:ORG. Atmoz (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google searches don't turn up any usable reliable sources on this organisation. Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as outlined above, not the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Am happy to believe it exists in the schools it claims it does, but at least at present it is not a sufficiently notable organisation for a Wikipedia article. Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only reference is its own blog. says it all. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not an activism directory. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SOURCES and WP:ORG. WWGB (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, due to a lack of reliable third-party references. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Brandywine Hundred. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinhurst, Delaware[edit]

This neighborhood does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for populated places. See WP:NBHD. Hokie RNB 03:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brandywine Hundred. There are several of these types of neighborhoods in New Castle County, Delaware. It is impossible for an article to exist for every one. Gwinhurst should passingly be mentioned as a neighborhood in the Brandywine Hundred article. Dough4872 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Gwinhurst" gets almost zero mention in a Google news search [42] (four references in an "all dates" search). Somehow, even the Wilmington newspaper seems to be unaware of this "town", probably because the area is Brandywine. Mandsford (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as a hoax. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precuylerosis[edit]

Suspected hoax, article title has zero Google hits, and the key term does not appear in any of the article references. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax or neologism. Drawn Some (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cited sources do not mention the term; zero non-mirror hits on Google Web, Scholar, Books, or News. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if not a hoax then original research. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check obvious misspellings first. (I've checked "Precylerosis", "Precyulerosis" and "Percuylerosis" already without result.) Let's just be certain this isn't a genuine vetinary condition that's been mis-spelt.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I spent about 15 minutes doing just that as well as looking for evidence of a syndrome involving pine needle bedding without any name at all as well as trying to figure out how they created the name or if it has meaning in another language. The reason I labeled it hoax or neologism is because it is perfectly plausible that it was not intended as a hoax. I am pretty sure someone's guinea pig died, it is referred to as a food prodution animal and "cuy" is what they are called in Spanish-speaking countries such as Peru and Ecuador where they are eaten. I guess I could have said all that originally. Drawn Some (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Drawn Some. Delete as complete bollocks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Autobiography of a Person in the Spirit[edit]

I am nominating this article at the request of another editor with whom I agree. The article fails to address the notability of its subject, and especially fails to address any of the notability criteria for books. Khalfani Khaldun 03:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Limited preview is available here, but no reliable sources are in evidence to establish the notability of this book. Deor (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article as proposed is not notable and was original research. Appropo (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If the creator of the article wishes to have it userfied, just leave a note on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Happened to Eden[edit]

Musical still in its very early stages of development. Until the musical is actually staged, there is simply no way to write an article based on reliable third-party sources especially since the musical's author is not a well-recognized name. Best of luck to the project but there's nothing to warrant an article for now. Pichpich (talk) 03:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have edited the page so that it no longer expresses that it is in the "concepts" stage, for the musical is very much underway. We understand that the name of the author is not well known, but would like to point out that an article on the Author would not be relevant, while the musical is perfectly adequate for the website. As for it not being staged, there is nothing we can do about that now, but please recognize that talk is currently underway for the Detroit Opera House; and it is also expected to be shown at a more local off-Broadway venue by Winter. We would like to also note, that no one is going to die or be seriously injured by the page's existance =)

Thank you,

The Creative Team of What Happened to Eden —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canten5202 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is seriously rediculous. so the writer isn't well known. well how is he supposed to become well known when you are trying to get his work taken down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.233.228.70 (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he's not well known has the unfortunate consequence that there isn't any reliable third-party coverage about the development of this musical. And at the risk of stating the obvious, deleting the article will have no impact whatsoever on the musical. I seriously doubt that the Detroit Opera House is monitoring Wikipedia in order to make up its mind... Pichpich (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete utterly not notable, see WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not to be used for promotional purposes and the author saw the warning and apparently chose to ignore it. Drawn Some (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We apologize, the above comment is not of our doing...

Uswerfy back to author in good faith, so that if/when the production takes place and achieves notability it may come back with our welcome. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arahau[edit]

No notability, no reliable sources. As a sysop in ru.wiki I have just deleted this article from there. The articles on this subject created in many languages seem to be PR action of one person. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only sources to attest to the language's "notability" are ones created by the author himself (possible exceptions are a page in Russian that I can't read and the page on Omniglot, which accepts submissions of any and all conlang writing systems regardless of their notability). Fails WP:RS and WP:N. I'd suggest also considering the page on the author, Ivan Karasev for deletion--I can't find much to attest to his notability either (at least in English...maybe there's some in Russian?) --Miskwito (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arahau per nom. I was also unable to find reliable sources. By the way, is this the same Ivan V. Karasev who edited "The reconstruction of agriculture in Pskov oblast 1945–1953"? I've not read it, but it turned up in my search. Cnilep (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is another person. He published two books of fiction and claimed that they were widely discussed in some Russian regional periodics. It is possible and not so easy to check. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note! Andrei Romanenko known as the killer of interesting articles and operates from revenge as is noticed in dishonesty and the question on deprivation of the rights of the manager Russian Wikipedia is considered.Neemus (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note: making personal attacks against the one who proposed deletion is not going to help your case.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge: :The language should be clearly be merged with the Ivan Karasev article. Subsequently that article should be mended to show whether Ivan Karasev is himself notable enough to have a wikipedia entry. If he is not then the language material should be deleted with his article. Currently the Ivan Karasev article does not demonstrate notability of its subject, nor does it even claim that he is notable. This should be corrected. Finding third party sources mentioning him would be a good step on the way.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, merging could be a solution. But we should keep into consideration that this solution was proposed a year and a half ago, and still nothing has been done. It means that the main author of both articles does not support this idea while no other user is interested in the subject. Under these circumstances I would suppose that the most reasonable way is to delete this article and then perhaps consider deletion of Ivan Karasev, though that is not so clear case. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to nominator. No notability or third-party sources at all. --RedAndr (talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: author of the article also created the same articles on other wikipedias, especially smaller ones, which can not react quickly on such actions. --RedAndr (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This conlang proposal has no dictionary. It is merely a vague idea of a new language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quinacrine (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... Arahau-Russian Dictionaty (near 3.000 words) Neemus (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It doesn't matter whether it's a good or complete language, or whether it's been well-documented by its creator. What matters is if it's notable for Wikipedia--i.e., has been reasonably well-documented by sources not affiliated with its creator. --Miskwito (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Look: languages Sona, aUI, Ro... Why its in Wiki else? Rules must be equally for everybody. Ore no? 85.173.13.190 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not right, these languages have independent sources. Anyway, it is not an argument to keep this particular article, it could be the argument to delete that articles. --RedAndr (talk) 15:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yet another nonnotable conlang. +An gr 18:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SNOW and CSD G5.[43] لenna vecia 04:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths from anal disease, anally introduced disease, and anal trauma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of deaths through interference with the anus

Delete: Article is now too broad in scope (the common cold could be passed anally). The article's creator is also drawing unsupported conclusions regarding the sexual practises of several deceased celebrities. To report that the people listed engaged in anal sex simply because they were homosexual is libellous. --JeffJ (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please Delete This article holds little if any value, and if a person died of anal disease, the information doesn't need to go any further than their bio into an arbitrary list. Law_{type! snype?} 02:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is either far too big or far too small. Since those portions that make it a big memorial page were deleted by another user, the article is now only about one incident (since the second one likely never really happened). The author has done a great job of linking references, but there's not really enough for an article. Banaticus (talk) 03:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(triple ec, dammit) Delete, as I was trying to nominate this but edit-conflicted with Jc128842 as I was typing the rationale. Clearly an attempt to attack people who have died of AIDS; the specification of "diseases contractable by other routes where it can be plausibly asserted that contraction of the disease via the anus took place" is a clear invitation to unverifiable original research. Note that a recent AfD of the article under a different title was closed when the nominator withdrew, and the flurry of subsequent page moves seems intended only to obfuscate the matter. Recommend that snow fall on this one. Deor (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! :-) --JeffJ (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain: It's survived deletion attempt within the last 24 hours with the same content, the content is referenced, and there's nothing in it about AIDS. Even so, AIDS/HIV is one such disease notoriously introduced that way. There is no libel of the dead, only the living, and provided all contained statements are reliably referenced - as we can see they have been in the past - it can house informative content. There's many death-by-cause lists in the database. At least this is a fully referenced list. Also there should be no approval of the persecution of the good faith efforts to adjust the lead scope and article name to reflect the precise article content. Honour the AfD outcome already recently obtained.Konstrukiv (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Konstruktiv is a loudly quacking sock of BumLawd (talk · contribs), who created the list. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The scope of the article has changed since the last nomination. I also think that the estates of anyone slandered here would have issue with it. The 2 historical deaths were suspect and the rest is simply a List of celebrities that died of AIDS, but with original research, which users have been wisely deleting. --JeffJ (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't need another venue for trolling. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entirety of the modern portion of the list is AIDS. Let's just not do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article sounds disturbing. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. Drawn Some (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as troll. Looie496 (talk) 03:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shirehampton Colts AFC[edit]

No sign that this club comes anywhere near close to the notability requirements for a football club, or is intrinsically notable for any other reason. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far from being notable. Any "significant" media coverage, if any? Fails notability guidelines. – LATICS talk 05:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as club fail notability guidelines. John Sloan @ 12:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable club. Giant Snowman 16:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it would take something staggeringly out of the ordinary to make an under-15 boys' team notable enough for WP, and I can find no evidence that such has happened to this team. I'm sure they're a fine bunch of lads, but sorry, they doen't meet WP requirements -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable club by any stretch of imagination --Angelo (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The local men's team aren't notable enough for the 'Pedia, so I'm afraid there's not much chance for these lads. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hobnox[edit]

Declined speedy deletion. The article has no indication of notability and is unreferenced. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - some WP:N and WP:V indicated by this Stern article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 06:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it is notable. Also Alexa ranking of 44,000+ corresponds to the large number of available references. Drawn Some (talk) 07:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic is notable with a largish number of web hits. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm the (really bad) creator of the article, and I personally believe it should be kept. It has notability for Audiotool. Irish Techno Zombie 16:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, please add some reliable references! Drawn Some (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve through WP:CLEANUP, WP:POTENTIAL, and lack of WP:BEFORE. Not being sourced is a reason to tag for improvement, not for deletion because it has not yet been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Offer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Paul Offer is no longer a parliamentary candidate and has never held significant office. signing unsigned comment by 01:40, May 10, 2009 Pi (talk | contribs)

Delete - If politics are the only claim to fame, he fails WP:Politician. Shadowjams (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, he served in a minor local office. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moon slayer[edit]

This article started out as a complete hoax[44] before it was completely rewritten by the original author.[45] The external link to the allege webcomic turns out to be a dead link and there is no other evidence that the webcomic even exists. Original author's only contributions are to this article. Strongly suspected hoax given the original article's content. An earlier speedy delete request was denied stating that the hoax wasn't obvious.[46] --Farix (Talk) 01:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 01:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 01:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoax 300%. Comparing the different versions of this article alone proves its hoax nature. --KrebMarkt 07:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even in the remote chance it isn't a hoax, it completely fails WP:N. Dandy Sephy (talk) 09:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best. Edward321 (talk) 16:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to User:SchnitzelMannGreek/The Bible In 30 Minutes ... Or Less! per WP:SNOW and WP:USERFY. Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 17:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible In 30 Minutes ... Or Less![edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable play. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in church plays. Small groups of people writing fiction is fun, but not always noteable for Wikipedia. Delete Lots42 (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an actual and notable play especially in christain schools. Many of them preform this each year. Please don't delete...some people like students may use this article as a reference. I don't see why delete this. It is a notable play with igood intention...esp. among the private christain schools. God...please reconsider deletion.

God BlessSchnitzelMannGreek (talk) 01:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "small group of people writing fiction" or small church play. A recent production happened at Christain Heritage Academy in Jacksonville Florida and it was even advertized in the Omni hotel and on Comcast. Definately worth wikipedia.SchnitzelMannGreek (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, its one of my first articles of the kind. Please don't delete...I worked hard on this...pardon it for the above reason as well.(This isn't a "small group of people writing fiction" or small church play. A recent production happened at Christain Heritage Academy in Jacksonville Florida and it was even advertized in the Omni hotel and on Comcast. Definately worth wikipedia)SchnitzelMannGreek (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)I BEG..please..for God..don't delete thisSchnitzelMannGreek (talk) 01:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again-.not small groups of people writing fiction. KeepUser:SchnitzelMannGreek 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely not notable. Should have been speedy, no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep still confused...why not notable? This isn't a "small group of people writing fiction" or small church play. A recent production happened at Christain Heritage Academy in Jacksonville Florida and it was even advertized in the Omni hotel and on Comcast. Definately worth wikipedia)User:SchnitzelMannGreek 01:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not notable? Please show us a reliable source (click here to see what we mean by that) that will establish the play's notability. If you are still unclear about what a reliable source is, let me put it this way: if the play's producer can get anything changed in a source without talking to his attorney, then that source is probably not reliable. So that would exclude the aforementioned ads, on the grounds that they are... ads. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the sites on the article's references.User:SchnitzelMannGreek 01:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are just repositories. They do not assert a play's notability. They merely assert its existence. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's going to happen now?User:SchnitzelMannGreek 01:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well we could always keep the article and add it to Category:Wikipedia humor. Maybe after a few tweaks....--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL!User:SchnitzelMannGreek 02:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should call it a day and keep the article. Afterall, someone might find it helpful...you never know.User:SchnitzelMannGreek 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indications that the play is notable, no third party sources, and thinking something might be useful is not a good reason to keep it. TJ Spyke 03:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can provide sources. All I have found on it is a couple of school and church productions. --Susan118 (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 05:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No one is arguing if this play exists or not but it clearly does not satisfy WP:N, there are no reliable sources, everything is a primary source. This should be deleted. It would be better off in some churches local site, not here on wikipedia. meshach (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources have been provided; the only sources cited are from the play publisher's own web site. There are a few Google hits but most of them appear to just be announcements of local productions of the play. There would need to be some independent sources that discuss the play in some detail before the article would deserve to be kept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trimper's Haunted House[edit]

Nonnotable amusement ride. Dough4872 (talk) 00:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence or even claim of notability. JJL (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep claims of notability provided by references. And if you give the article some time, I will try and build this article to meet Wikipedia standards.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 02:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, there aren't any claims of notability provided by the references, because they're all published by the creator of the ride and/or the amusement park themselves (violating WP:SPS) (the YouTube video can't even come close to counting). The building of the article Sky Attacker has been doing seems to mostly consist of adding advertising and unsourced personal opinions (e.g.: "[Bill Tracy is] the greatest designer and builder of dark attractions the amusement park industry has ever seen"; "It is believed that thanks to the Trimper family, the attraction will be able to be enjoyed by visitors for decades to come"; etc.). I don't see any improvements appearing here. --Miskwito (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advertising at all. e.g.: "[Bill Tracy is] the greatest designer and builder of dark attractions the amusement park industry has ever seen"; "It is believed that thanks to the Trimper family, the attraction will be able to be enjoyed by visitors for decades to come"; etc. is all cited from reference 1.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep per multiple brief mentions in newspapers, and a few other sources. [47] [48] both prove it exists. [49] indicates that it is a dark place. [50] talks a little about the influences of its construction. [51] is an unreliable source talking a little about it. [52] is a questionably reliable source on the park that talks about it. Based on the number of weak sources, and the long-running nature of the subject, I'm weakly supporting keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. —Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've changed my recommendation to keep (from weak keep) per the book sources Whitehorse has found. Coverage in published book sources changes things a lot.

Comment I'm very confident that this article will be kept as I don't see any good enough reason to get rid of it, but just in case it does get deleted, could somebody please give me a ~~coffee~~ copy of the article. Thanks. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per above comment. Can the above user please add those references to the article. It would be appreciated. Thanks. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the article survives AfD, I'll do a careful review of those sources to determine which should actually be in the article, and add them then. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ride is covered in printed book sources—previewable on Google Books: e.g. Rhodes, Jason (2005). Maryland's Amusement Parks. Arcadia Publishing. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-7385-1795-7. The designer, is mentioned in further titles such as Butko, Brian (2007). Roadside Attractions: Cool Cafés, Souvenir Stands, Route 66 Relics, & Other Road Trip Fun. Stackpole Books. p. 123. ISBN 978-0-8117-0229-4, and Hahner, Carl, O; Hughes (2007). Kennywood. Arcadia Publishing. p. 81. ISBN 978-0-7385-3563-0, which can provide information to give context to the reader and build a more complete article. I have expanded the article using the sources I found. As the ride is explicitly covered in at least one printed book (meeting WP:V), which is not self-published, and we can reasonably believe additional reliable-sources exist to further establish its notability, the standards for inclusion are met. –Whitehorse1 04:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Juliancolton. Jamie^☆S93 00:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Febs linux[edit]

Contested prod. Software in development. No assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 05:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources. WP is not a not a collection of websites for small Linux distributions. meshach (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources exist beyond Wikpedia. Heck, I couldn't even find a project website! Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a website (although it appears to be down). Febs is supposed to stand for "Fast and Easy Beowulf System". Whether is exists or not seems dubious. meshach (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator rewrote the article and withdrew the nomination.

Pecoraro[edit]

WP:OR fails Synthesis of published material that advances a position and Original Research as a whole.

It says it's a Ancient Roman family name, but it brings no citations for this, instead, it tries to deduces this from the words found in Romanian and Italian. In Vulgar Latin, it was just an obscure word for "shepherd", claiming a continuity of a family named like this is absurd. bogdan (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does this surname with that spelling (Pecoraro)exist among Italians with Wiki entries? In Wiki search I found some with the surname and with bio entries, so it can be a disambig page. Alex (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are some Italians, so I guess the article should be turned into a disambig. bogdan (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yolanda Pecoraro's father was Italian, I just checked. Maybe others, of various nationalities. Alex (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But it has to be seriously cleaned up towards a disambig/surname page. It exists as a surname among at least two individuals with Wiki bio entries: Yolanda Pecoraro, Susú Pecoraro. Alex (talk) 00:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I created Păcuraru for the Romanian name, so this should remain for the Italian name. bogdan (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Qatar Total Open[edit]

Seemingly notable tournament but no context provided in the article. It's a 3 sentence stub containing no references and only a collection of links to main articles which do not exist. HJMitchell You rang? 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That the article is a stub about a notable subject is a call to improve the article, not delete it. Drawn Some (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It got some coverage in the international press at the time. Needs improving. Fences and windows (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Can't find much about it but it's mentioned on Sony Ericsson's website [53] and CBS Sports [54] so it seems notable. Laurent (talk) 00:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spats (Space Technology Students' Society) IIT Kharagpur[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article about a local student club at a university. The only references I could find, discounting copies of this article and self-published websites, were a couple of letters written by a member of the club and an account of a talk at the club by a noted space researcher, which by itself doesn't seem to grant sufficient notability for an article. ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to IIT Kharagpur. Not notable enough to have its independent article. Salih (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Salih. Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is the most important of all Indian engineering universities, equivalent there to MIT. It is plausible that this organization might be notable as an exception, but I don;t see the references to prove it. DGG (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with IIT Kharagpur, since we have no reliable independent sources, though we can verify that the society exists. No prejudice against recreation if SPATS gains more mainstream coverage. Abecedare (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted by Juliancolton. Jamie^☆S93 00:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D'X-Man...[edit]

Notability is very questionable: many google hits are from social networks or video sites. Notability tag has been on this for pretty long. Samuel Tan 05:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing about it on Google; written like an advertisement; and author had 8 months to prove notability but didn't do it. Laurent (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: First, everybody needs to remember Wikipedia:There is no deadline. That said, there is very little coverage in sources[55][56][57], and nothing that I feel satisfies WP:GNG. I must recommend deletion. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primary cell terminology[edit]

This article claims, based on a reference written in 1911, that there is a problem with confusing terminology. In my view, this article is going to create more confusion than it prevents. It has no useful content for the modern reader. The bit about the conventional direction of current is misleading, since nowadays the positive current convention is almost universal.

I thought initially that I would propose a merger with Primary cell, just to avoid destroying any information since I'm an inclusionist at heart, but on reflection I can't find anything of value in this article. The only bit of information that's helpful is the last sentence, but that is repeated in the Primary cell article anyway. After that, all we need to say is that the cathode is marked as (+) and the anode as (-). Maybe somebody could make use of the 1911 book in an article about the history of electrochemistry, but it shouldn't be presented as current information. Heron (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still opportunity for confusion. As you say, "the cathode is marked as (+) and the anode as (-)" but, in an electrolytic cell, the opposite is the case. Biscuittin (talk) 21:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS nothing has changed since 1911 so the information is not outdated. However, I am happy to merge it with Primary cell if you prefer. Biscuittin (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a summary of Primary cell terminology to Primary cell and I withdraw my objection to deletion. However, I see that Primary cell terminology has been nominated (not by me) to be copied to Wikiversity so please do not delete it until this has been done. Biscuittin (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful replies. I'm happy with your addition to Primary cell, and I shall wait to see what happens with the transfer to Wikiversity before deleting Primary cell terminology. I still don't see what use the article will be to them, but that's their problem. --Heron (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to primary cell, maybe it shouldn;t have an article in its own right but it should have something. HJMitchell You rang? 14:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One book from 1911 does not constitute "multiple reliable and independent sources." Now adequately covered in Primary cell. Edison (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we ignore the request to copy to Wikiversity and delete anyway, for two reasons:

The article is misleading, as the alleged 'confusion' results from archaic terminology that is no longer used
The request was made by an anon IP that has no history of replying to questions, so there is little chance of getting the requester to explain his or her reasoning, and therefore the request is unlikely to be acted upon. --Heron (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Village Voyage[edit]

nn website Losr2300 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A rather barebones nomination... I feel the website concerned is a little young for notability yet. Perhaps if someone could come up with something more that's independent things might be different The website itself obviously doesn't count, and nor does crunchbase which relies on user supplied information. The Aztec Chamber of Commerce reference looks interesting, but more references would help - and possibly (with all due respect to Aztec) concerning places outsiders might have heard of.... Peridon (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5/4/2009 Update: I added an additional external link to further demonstrate Village Voyage & its use within one of the many cities it serves (see link to Zeeland, Michigan). Note: I was hesitant to add this link, for concern of poluting the article with unnecessary links, yet it was in response to threats to delete the article, which questions the article and the business' legitimacy. Furthermore, I provided a link to Village Voyage's Statistics page in response the "citation needed" request. This link substantiates that Village Voyage, with over 9 million legitimate articles, is one of the largest wikis in the world.
- Comment I removed the link you added, as it was to a unknown blogspot blog and was indeed pollution. Do any major sources or cities recognize Village Voyage, or use it services? As it stands, the page seems little more than a placeholder and attempt to push some PR. The "largest wiki in the world" claim is particularly spurious, as most of the pages on Village Voyage are completely computer generated. Pugget (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming on Now for some outside references... Someone must be getting enthusiastic or hot under the collar about this service. Looks good to me, but some others running paid advert funded sites won't be happy little bunnies, perhaps. It is probably harder to provide such for a service catering for smaller places than for one catering for the major cities, say, but keep looking. Oh, and please sign posts here with four ~s. Peridon (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of reliable, independent sources. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 09:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Mikhailovich Chekhov[edit]

I am not sure why this person is notable. Anshuk (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A cousin of Anton Chekhov (which is no notability in itself) and no other aparrent form of notability. I42 (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Notability is not inherited. Being related to a notable person does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Anton Chekhov. There is enough said about Mikhail Mikhailovich Chekhov in secondary sources to warrant inclusion in the Anton Chekhov article under a "Family" section. book, book, Gbooks search. Mikhail also got some press coverage as an "exceptional actor" Gnews. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've followed the links Linguist found and I agree with his assessment. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; notability isn't inherited. Stifle (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Anton Chekhov; notable only in connection to his famous cousin, and notability is not inherited. JJL (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no personal notability. Even mentioning in Anton Chekhov does not seem so necessary. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, correspondence with Anton Chekhov isn't sufficient for notability. The various book hits for M.M. Chekhov are all because Anton Pavlovich and Mikhail Mikhailovich wrote back and forth, and biographers have worked extensively with Anton's letters. Also note that the actor Mikhail Pavlovich Chekhov is Anton Pavlovich's younger brother. This article was written by a family member (User:Darya Protopopova) of the subject's grandson, Oscar Borisovich Protopopov, as described in the info for the photo in the article. I am happy to see such a high-quality, slightly historical picture contributed, but the text probably fails notability. Avram (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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