< 20 May	22 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 Keep - Nominator has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 16:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Märklin Digital[edit]

Unreferenced. Fails the general notability guideline. May qualify for CSD A7 as it does not indicate why the subject is important or significant.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Märklin decoders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Märklin-6088 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Märklin-6050 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

McWomble (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I tried searching for reliable sources in support of notability but could not find any. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Märklin Digital per coverage in books such as in [1], [2]. There are even books dedicated to the subject, it seems: [3], [4]. Merge the others, possibly shortened, into Märklin Digital as not individually notable components of that system. Sandstein 06:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The threshold for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. The articles do not even assert the importance or significance of the subjects let alone provide reliable sources to support such a claim. If there are non-self published books dedicated to the subject, then cite them. McWomble (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in the books linked to is neither trivial not incidental, as is apparent from the Google Books preview. The two books dedicated to the subject are Schneider, Hans Lorenz. Märklin digital HO mit dem Commodore 64. ISBN 3925943005. and Schneider, Hans Lorenz; Mika, Christian. Märklin Digital mit dem IBM-PC und Kompatiblen. ISBN 3925943102.. Sandstein 16:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. According to the Gemeinsamer Verbundkatalog entries, both those books are self-published. Thin Arthur (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Märklin Digital as a notable control system. Märklin decoders could be merged there, if desired, or kept as valid sub-article. Other topics should be merged. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Märklin Digital was one of the first digital model railway control system. Sounds notable enough to me, model trains quite big with some people. And with mention in books about the subject, I don't see why anyone would object to there being an article about it. You can't have more than a set number of pages in any book that mentions it, since there isn't really that much to say about it. Dream Focus 04:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Märklin Digital was one of the first digital model railway control system. This is factually incorrect. Lionel Electronic Train Control predates Märklin Digital by 37 years. Railcommand, Zero 1, Dynatrol, EMS, Protrac and Salota all appeared around 1979-80. Märklin was a relative latecomer in 1986. The only thing notable about Märklin Digital is it was designed for Märklin's AC analogue control. As already noted the books are self-published, therefore not acceptable sources. I am not !voting here, but merely pointing out that the threshold for notability has not been established. Thin Arthur (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth , as per WP:V. Considering 1986 was before the advent of the world wide web and that sources from that time period I recon will be mostly European-based, and more specifically German, their claim is valid in context. We're reading this with 100% hindsight and search engines. MLauba (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reduce to stub & cleanup. Found two English sources supporting WP:RS and WP:V (added to lead), some additional material in German could form the base of a functional description. Available sources however do not support, by far, the currently lengthy article. Note that the German wikipedia article is in pretty much the same sorry state and no further insight can be gained there. --MLauba (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The suggestion that this might meet CSD A7 is odd. We're not talking about a person, a corporation or web content, and the article makes plenty assertions of importance - so many that it's being tagged for WP:NPOV. I'd respectfully suggest in turn that the nominator review WP:A7M for clarity on what A7 is for. --MLauba (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominee has raided other hobby train control articles with AfD noms, e.g. Trainmaster Command Control‎, and has a sock on him. Procedural close as Keep - I played with Märklin trains many, many years ago, and can't possibly imagine that this article should fail inclusion criteria. Cleanup, yes -- deletion, no way. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:14, 26 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. Cirt (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spike ball[edit]

Contested prod, thus listed here - Article is on a self-invented game Passportguy (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable game, "invented in 2009 at North Royalton, Ohio". WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:GAMEGUIDE, and possibly quite a few others as well. Take your pick. Yintaɳ 23:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment copied from a second afd that was filed by accident. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turned it into a vote. And thanks for mopping! Yintaɳ 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any game that claims to have been invented in 2009 is suspicious. This one has no assertion of notability whatsoever. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not how to / non-notable game. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 00:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to figure this out from the narrative. Demonstrate it on YouTube, come back after 1,000,000 views. Mandsford (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Tyrenon (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable game CTJF83Talk 04:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete WP:MADEUP Eauhomme (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails Wp:OR (possibly - well, there's no references), Wp:N and Wp:NFT. The article's first line - "Spike ball is a game invented in 2009 at North Royalton, Ohio" - doesn't do itself any favours. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are no sources. I'm only going weak delete because it seems interesting. --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These things are never kept, but I'm curious how it's supposed to work-- it sounds like foursquare, but you get a point for throwing a ball into a one foot square-- how far back are the 3-player teams supposed to stand? Most of these invented games would get more attention if the inventors would just video them and put it on YouTube instead of trying to describe it on Wikipedia. For all I know, there's a YouTube Group on "Games deleted from Wikipedia". Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 23 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 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sly 4[edit]

The article is complete speculation. There are no cited sources, and consequently no facts. There has not really even been any confirmation that Sly 4 is even in production, much less platform or release date (The announcement in May 2007 was rescinded, and the team began work on inFamous, instead). The only acknowledgment that Sucker Punch Productions have given at all since then is the Easter egg in inFamous where the name "Sly Cooper 4" appears on a movie marquee in the environment (and incidentally, this one fact isn't in the article). All the correct info is in the main Sly Cooper page, Sly_Cooper_(series), and until more information or confirmations surface, that is where it should stay. RokXRokX (talk) 23:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The definition of speculation--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 03:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overly speculative --MASEM (t) 12:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree as well. They have sent out an e-mail from SuckerPunch saying they revamped their website, and saying "And for you Sly fans out there, we haven't forgotten about him or his merry band of thieves, and maybe we'll return to them one day" Still not enough to have a full article for though. --Blake (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More silly speculation. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sly Cooper (series)#Sly Cooper 4. A reasonable search term, but the content of the article is entirely speculation. BryanG (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are various references to the new game appearing now that inFamous, Sucker Punches last project, has been released. I will add some of these references to the article. Arwin 10:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BryanG makes a good point. I support Deletion then Redirection. -RokXRokX (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above as speculation. Eusebeus (talk) 12:23, 28 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 to List of phobias. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmikophobia[edit]

extremely nonnotable and rather dubious phobia: "fear of cosmic phenomena, such as black holes or nebulas". No reputable sources. Mukadderat (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps this article can be salvageable someday...but not now. There is only one source, the "Phobia List". --I dream of horses (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Sourceable [5] yes, notable beyond a definition, no. Mandsford (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki: per WP:NAD. However, if someone is so inclined to expand it, it does seem to rate inclusion.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of phobias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as (dubious) dicdef. Eusebeus (talk) 12:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of phobias for now. I don't find it dubious. Several gbooks hits, all relevant [6], though none of them cover it beyond a definition. Someone could probably find the sources for a decent article, but there is nothing in existence right now that couldn't be at List of phobias. Cool3 (talk) 14:39, 28 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 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcoreracefans[edit]

CSDed twice for G11 - Spam and A7 - NN-Web, the latter action by me. When it was created a third time, I tagged it DB-web to get a 3rd opinion. This was removed by a non-admin who said the author's talk page arguments were persuasive. So be it, but I still am not persuaded. So IMHO we still have a somewhat spammy article that does nto meet the WP:WEB requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete No independent verification besides PR stuff and self-promotion. Mukadderat (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - Not notable already! And, G11 material still IMHO.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 03:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single purpose account, advertising tone, nothing left to keep. Do not salt. Not speedy material, AFD is the right venue. Royal broil 03:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to be notable, and most assuredly feels like advertising. At the very least needs a substantial cleanup if it meets notability, which I don't feel it does.Tyrenon (talk) 03:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salt per nominator --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The promoting on the page comes across more as promoting its own validity and existence on Wikipedia, rather than promoting the actual magazine. Add in a reference to the ESPN recommending it, and I think it would qualify as notable. Zivlok (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't see how this meets WP:WEB, and searches to find reliable sources writing about this site turn up nothing of substance to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Salt per the above for repeated recreation of WEB-failing subject. Eusebeus (talk) 12:25, 28 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. One two three... 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microbo (artist)[edit]

Not notable. I suspect the author of the book used in the reference is the original author. No other significant search engine results. Nothing can be verified. Two other nearly-identical articles about other "artists" by the same author were speedied, but another editor inexplicably declined the speedy on this one because of the claims of notability. Claim it all you want, but there's no notability here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 13:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should be at "Microbo" anyhow. There are some blog mentions but no reliable references exist to establish as notable or to verify an article. Information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This certainly isn't just a blog mention, and there are plenty more sources where that came from. It just needs someone who reads Italian to use them to source the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:26, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per Google News. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think so. We can't verify because we can't translate it. Still not convinced. Maybe he deserves an article in Italian Wikipedia, but not here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment' - enWikipedia is an encyclopedia written in the English language, and not an encyclopedia of topics only related to English. See WP:BIAS, and also WP:Verifiability#Non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^{talk to me!}_{what have i done?} 23:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient proof of notability and close to none information. Mukadderat (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Did you check the source that I linked above? And the others from the Google News search that I linked? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (provisionally): Non-English sources are discouraged on the en-Wikipedia. Unfortunately to the vast majority of users to this wiki, the references provided above mean as much as something written in Klingon. If English sources can be found then keep, if not delete.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article in il Giornale is a substantial piece on the artist from what i can gather through machine translation. It would appear that sources are available in Italian to satisfy notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As someone who can read Italian, I see nothing here to indicate notability - a few local newspaper mentions in Il Giornale hardly suffice, especially since the main source is nothing more than an interview. A minor figure in (as one of the articles states) the "underground surreal pop world of Milanese Graffiti art", she clearly fails WP:BIO (Artist). Possible redirect to Graffiti art. Eusebeus (talk) 12:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll trust Eusebeus's interpretation of the Italian source. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He seems to be one of the authors/artists for this book [7] and this one [8]. I'm surprised by all the delete votes. It's hard for me to sort through the Italian sources, but I think the indications of notability are pretty strong. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very substantial coverage in additional sources Apparently these aren't archived in Google News, but here's a nice article in Format another in Shift and an interview inCanned Goods. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because he wrote two books doesn't mean those books are notable. Out of the articles, only Shift is a notable magazine, but that doesn't count as "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:17, 29 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. Allowing for userfication if desired. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Wilton Parr[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Tagged as reading like a résumé since 2007. Someone tried to afd this but didn't format it properly, and once again I seem to be the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE PROJECT who notices or cares when an afd turns up red linked. Last AFD from 07 resulted in keep with the provision of adding sources, which still ain't happened. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ for lacking sources showing notability and little likelihood of ever being able to based upon the length the tag was there and lackluster info in article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Switching vote to Undecided per sources provided below. Portfolio.com page seems to be best source as it focuses solely on him and in depth, others seem to be passing reference (failing the "non-trivial" coverage rules) but suggests probably other sources can be found. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DreamGuy. Also, I relisted a broken AfD yesterday, you're not the only one. And in the future if conditions are put on something being kept, there shoudl be a time limit as well. Drawn Some (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Regardless of what he's done as vice-chairman of Lazard, it seems to have escaped attention. I think that there was a guy in Cabrini-Green who who used to write "only person on the whole project" in big letters. He said he'd write it so big that George King could read it without his spectacles. Mandsford (talk) 00:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vice whatever of a bank is NN. Bearian (talk) 01:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it looks like someone tried (and failed) to put it as G10 speedy. I just googled the content, and am finding about 9,000 results here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionhawk (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but your search was for any listings that include the words is, a, deputy, chairman, of, Lazard, he, has, focused, on, providing, strategic, advice, to, financial, institutions, worldwide, prior, joining, was, with, Morgan, Stanley, serving, and here. The search returned websites that included those terms or (this is where the larger numbers come in) had websites that were linked from other pages containing those words. Granted, the top three turn out to be about Mr. Parr, but that doesn't mean that there are 9,000 hits for Mr. Parr. Mandsford (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: the facts in this entry are correct. Certainly written like a resume, but new info is being added. Mr. Parr is very involved in advising many of the struggling financial institutions and a lot of info about him is in various financial and other publications 9LIKE nNY Times). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridintherails (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ridintherails -- I see that that's your first and only edit so far to Wikipedia. Normally when claims are made about sources it is expected for details to be given. If there are NY Times articles backing this person's notability up, I'm sure we'd all be interested in knowing specifics. DreamGuy (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem (forgot my other password). This article from NY Times gives a lot of info: [9]. This is a profile from portfolio dot com: [10]. This NY Times articles references his role in the Bank One/JP Morgan-Chase merger: [11]. This articles discusses his role in the sale of Bear-Stearns to JP Morgan: [12]. This one discusses his move from Morgan Stanley to Lazard: [13]. There's a few for starters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkinthestreets (talk • contribs) 00:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those don't seem to have the primary and indepth focus on him like we expect for articles that try to prove individual notability, but the Portfolio article is strong, a couple others are borderline, and the remainder talk about him in a way that at least indicate he is notable. I think that if you can provide more then it'll probably pass. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If this closes with a delete vote, can we userfy the content somewhere? It's looking now like it might turn a corner. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. The sources above do not address individual notability. Eusebeus (talk) 12:32, 28 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 transwiki to Wiktionary:video remix. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Video remix[edit]

Dicdef, linkfarm, sources are a Google video and a possibly unreliable source. No hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

erase A dictionary definition which really can't be expanded beyond the first sentence in the intro paragraph. Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki in part (less links and fluff) to Wiktionary where it may rot as an example of the lowest ebb western culture has had to offer to date. If you want something less "do not want" then it's doing little beyond linkfarming and isn't much more than a fairly expanded dicdef. treelo _radda 23:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki/delete: insufficient encyclopedic info. Mukadderat (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pernom as dicdef. Eusebeus (talk) 12:32, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Healy - Art Historian[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Contested PROD. Just does nto rise to the level of notability, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Delete. Along with the notability issues, the article text has been reworded only slightly from the text in http://mary-healy.com/index.html and http://mary-healy.com/about.html — close enough to constitute a copyright violation and a plagiarism problem in my view. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability left if one filters out ghits that have to do with this person's namesake. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletestill a graduate student.No significant publications. DGG (talk) 01:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not reached notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. This PhD scholar has contributed significantly to the field of art history - this page should not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment can anyone find verification for the comment on her talk page? because if that is true, then she is clearly notable. --Buridan (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's just a grandiose way of saying she has delivered talks at a few places. Sometimes we call it WP:Wikipuffery. DGG (talk) 04:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so discovering and promoting several 10's of women artists where there weren't more is puffery? if verifiable, it seems it meets wp:prof no? as a major contribution.--Buridan (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Healy has uncovered a number of French women Orientalist artists. This is a major project in the academic field of art historical research. And might I add, those “few places” where Healy has presented (if you read the wiki) include the National Gallery of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin, the University of Limerick, Durham University, National University of Ireland and the University of Stirling, and she has presented to and been recognised by the Irish Association of Art Historians; all of which are highly respected academic institutions/associations – which means her work is notable and meets wp:prof. To verify these dates – follow the links at endnote 6. This is a major contribution! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) 22:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC) — Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. The unsigned above has edits only on this article and has attempted to remove the AfD template. There may be a PoV. In order to pass notability test there must be recognition by authoritative secondary sources. There are too few here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

~~Keep.~~ Please see references 6-12 on mary healy - art historian for additional secondary sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) 23:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC) — Katiearthistory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Please do not vote twice on a single AfD. I have struck out this "keep" comment because you already placed a "keep" comment earlier. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With reference to the above observations made by Katiearthistory, the fact remains that the subject is simply a graduate student doing the standard work by which grad students earn their degrees (no disparagement intended). There are surely tens if not hundreds of thousands of others, none of whom are notable by the mere fact of doing such work. When the WP:Wikipuffery noted by DGG is discounted, there is little of true significance left, which is entirely expected at this stage of one's career. I will point out, however, that there are similar puff-articles (early career women, not-as-yet-notable), which have nevertheless survived well-reasoned arguments for deletion, e.g. Pardis Sabeti and Christel Miller. Will this be another one? Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. Repeating the words of Buridan, discovering and promoting several 10's of women artists where there weren't more is now considered ‘standard work’??? I disagree. This is a contribution which will change the discourse of 19th-century Orientalist painting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.242.225 (talk) 20:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — 86.40.242.225 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. In the sense that one does not get a doctorate without some acceptable generation of new knowledge, yes, I'm afraid it is "standard work". Most doctoral advisors have a good sense of guiding students to topics and problems that are sufficient to satisfy the degree requirements, but not so difficult as to be unsurmountable – this is the practicum where you learn to do research and the overwhelming majority of doctoral projects make only an incremental advance rather than a groundbreaking discovery. I'm afraid these are mostly not notable according to WP standards. Your last statement is naked speculation and I will kindly remind you of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The last comment is spot on in its assessment of PhD work in general. If the work of the LP is as significant as claimed by its proponents then in the course of time it will be recognised by many reliable citations. That time may arrive but is not here yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Yes Agricola44 made a good assessment of PhD work in general – but this PhD candidate’s work is not just incremental advancement. French orientalist painting is a widely researched academic subject; why have such a large amount of women artists, who actively contributed to the movement, not been discovered until now? A major contribution – even if she is a PhD candidate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Apologies for belaboring the issue, but I think you're missing the point entirely. You can pick practically any area and say "X is a widely researched academic subject", then claim that your contribution "will change the discourse of X" and, oh my goodness, isn't that notable! It's certainly true that any student submitting a dissertation documenting discovery of an unknown Shakespeare play, demonstrating practical fusion, curing cancer, and the like, would realize instant WP notability (along with accolades much more important than this:). However, the reality is that most PhD topics are very narrow, having limited interest and importance outside a focused (i.e. small) academic sector. I doubt there would be any argument that "French women Orientalist painters" falls into this category. What this observation means at the practical level is that laypersons outside the field are not really in any position to judge immediate significance, as we would be with curing cancer, etc. As Xxanthippe points out, notability in such situations can only be discerned post hoc by specialists that will frequently cite such work as their field of study moves forward. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. ‘…having limited interest and importance outside a focused (i.e. small) academic sector. I doubt there would be any argument that "French women Orientalist painters" falls into this category.’??? With all due respect, might I remind you that this is a dictionary whose purpose is to cover subjects of interest to many. You may find that the discovery of numerous women artist where there were none before as trivial, however academics and persons with interest in the field of art history clearly find Healy’s work worthy of note. Look at the locations of Healy’s presentations – how could she present in such noted institutions if her work was not notable. Wikipedia needs sources...there they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I commend your passion and have no intention of insult or disparagement. However, I'm afraid you're confused on a number of points. (1) WP is not a dictionary (implying it would be all-inclusive). The criterion for inclusion here is that the subject must merit its own article based on notability, as codified in this case by WP:PEOPLE. Many subjects will fall short. (2) I'm afraid "French women Orientalist painters" is precisely a narrow academic topic. I doubt that many academics even within the allied art and history disciplines could name even a few French women Orientalist painters. This topic is undeniably in the realm of the specialist. (3) You assert that presenting some institutional talks constitutes notability, but I'm afraid this again falls into the classification of "standard work" for academics. It is not at all unusual for grad students to give such talks about their research results (many are actually arranged by one's advisor) at top universities, museums, government institutes, etc. in order to get some reasonable exposure as they embark on their academic careers. Most such institutions actually have regular speaker series for such talks. In summary, this person seems to be almost the complete archetype of a grad student finishing up an acceptable piece of doctoral research. All the argumentative points given above do not make her into something more. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment.

First and foremost I must say I’ve really enjoyed debating with you – thank you for your participation. Secondly, my apologies to wikipedia I should have said ‘encyclopedia’ and not ‘dictionary’ in my previous comment – my ‘passion’ seem to have taken the run of me! Thirdly, regarding souring and referencing (although I think we are going around in circles), I believe that proposing to and being accepted by noted institutions in the fields of art and history, which are peer reviewed, merits notability. Finally, and most importantly, you stated in your last comment ‘I doubt that many academics even within the allied art and history disciplines could name even a few French women Orientalist painters.’ You are absolutely right. But, why do you suppose this is? Women artists who contributed hugely to the orientalist art historic movement have been neglected by art historical teachings and writings and as consequence they’ve been written out of art history. This is why many specialists in the field are unable to name even a few French women Orientalist artists. Healy has proven they existed – and not just a few but closer to 100 (proven through primary documentation). She has proven they were actively productive artists AND she has proven they were recognised by artistic hierarchy, such as the Salons de Paris, during their day. (Ref. Mary Healy, National Gallery of Ireland, 6 March 2008). Do you honestly believe that the entire discourse of French orientalist painting is constructed of masculine contribution? Healy has created a database of women orientalist artists and their works and by doing so has positively proven their existence and their contributions to the movement. This is why this is a major contribution to art history and the entry should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.242.225 (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you and likewise. Your paragraph above describes a very typical PhD project: discover/uncover enough new information in a specialist area to qualify, write/submit dissertation, then publish in a specialist journal. (Evidently the last step has yet to occur.) Indeed, your post reads very much like I would imagine the abstract of her dissertation to be written. The only salient point in this whole matter is whether this project makes the subject herself notable at this point in time, and in my opinion the answer is unquestionably no. Of course, the closing moderator will make the final call. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The subject claims to be a PhD Research Scholar at the Department of History, University of Limerick, Ireland. However I cannot find her here http://www.humanities.ul.ie/ . Perhaps I looked in the wrong place. Clarification would be useful. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitrary Section break 1[edit]

Comment. http://www.history.ul.ie/content/view/16/30/ - department of history, UL, site

On my observations, the departments PhD candidates are not listed on the website for the department of history, UL, - only post-doctorate research fellows (good observation Xxanthippe). Endnotes 6-12 verify that she is in fact with the department of history UL. I doubt that the National Gallery of Ireland, Trinity College Dublin, University College Dublin, National University of Ireland…etc. (being such prestigious institutions) would publicly print that she was a PhD candidate with the Department of History, UL, if she were not. A telephone call could easily verify?? Also, following endnote one, look at Healy’s contact details email: HerName@ul.ie (I can't add her email address to this discussion please follow link to verify for yourself)- I think it’s safe to say that she is a PhD candidate with the department of History UL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.242.225 (talk) 08:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In reference to the above, both Healy and her research are listed on the Department of History, UL, website. http://www.history.ul.ie/content/view/14/28/ (resources), click into postgraduate handbook – Healy is listed on p.7 herein. http://www.history.ul.ie/images/stories/student/mabooklet08-9.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.104.5 (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability per nom, DGG. Eusebeus (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Rd232 ^talk 00:30, 29 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. A discussion on merging to Fictional history of Spider-Man is in order on the article talk page, if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flashbacks (comics)[edit]

This article focuses on a single issue of Amazing Spider-Man, and is mainly a plot summary. I don't think this one issue is important enough to warrant its own article. Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There doesn't even appear to be any attempt to come up with even a half-assed attempt at claiming it's notable. DreamGuy (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In universe, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothing wrong with plot summaries, that's how every book article is anyway. The story was notable enough to be reprinted in a hardcover book, along with other notable tales. The comic and the hardcover reprint are reviewed by third party media sources, such as IGN. Dream Focus 22:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask: Have you ever actually read any of our policies? I see you vote Keep on tons of AFDs with rationales that in no way, shape or form follow the rules of this site. Long plot summaries are specifically mentioned on WP:NOT as unacceptable here, and merely being reprinted or trivially discussed on some fan sites is not even close to a justification for having a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says it shouldn't be nothing but a plot summary, and nothing more. It does not complain about how long it is.

Plot summaries without indication of the work's real-world importance. The coverage of a fictional work should not be entirely plot summary articles require evidence of notability, which can only come from outside sources.

There is more to this article than just a plot summary. Dream Focus 01:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed out similar at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt and this article has pretty much the same problems. Some of the difference though are:

Inclusion of a stand alone issue in a tradepapberback is less than trivial. Unless it's something like the Essentials line, it is more likely the publisher either A) filling pages or B) getting all the issues in. Neither case invokes "notability".
This one actually has the potential for more context with the "Inspiration" section. Though that should have more sources than just the pat on the back piece Marvel published in lieu of a letters page. It should also precede the plot section.
Indexing the individual issues really isn't a good idea unless there's solid secondary references to them. "Flash of Two Worlds" is a fair example of this. But cases like this article... there are over 1000 issues of Spider-Man comics. Even allowing for story arc articles that would cover 2 or more issues, that would still generate hundreds of articles like this one - notable only because they bridge from the "previous" article to the "next".

- J Greb (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if possible, or merge/redirect to Fictional history of Spider-Man. BOZ (talk) 00:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I have already given my reasoning on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt. If I had the time I suspect I could improve notability but there is a broader issue on whether this (and the other similar storylines that were nominated in the other AfD) need their own article - you could add interviews and reviews for most storylines from major titles produced by the Big Two but I suspect we don't want that and perhaps we need further more general discussion (and a merge to Fictional history of Spider-Man). (Emperor (talk) 13:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Evidently notable - I found a source for this quite quickly. I do like the sound of Homem-Aranha. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that indicate notability?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTPLOT. Redirect per Boz if this is a conceivable search term. Eusebeus (talk) 12:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is just as significant, informative and as any other Spider-Man storyline articles we have. And the story is notable enough. I don't see why you should delete it but if you do I do recommend you merge it in Fictional history of Spider-Man as well. Jhenderson777 (talk) 22:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cleanup issue Fritzpoll (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M-girls[edit]

Tagged with notability for a month (found it at the back of the NP backlog). Once one actually works out what the subject of the article is, it appears to fail WP:N- cites no sources and the topic is barely discernible. HJMitchell You rang? 22:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found these within a couple of minutes: [14][15][16][17][18]. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the article's quality, I fully understand why it was nominated, but Phil has shown independant sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Translate Quick research shows them to be notable enough, but the majority of the article is in Chinese, and also contains a plea for youtube videos of them, and the short bios of each member read like the back of Asian Pop Star Trading Cards, if such things exist. I would say that the lists should be converted into paragraph form, but I don't think anything there (favorite color, faovrite food, weight) really deserves to be on a Wikipedia article. I'll go in and do some quick clean-up, though. Zivlok (talk) 20:11, 24 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 by LadyofShalott (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 07:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major Lazer[edit]

This is either an attack page/unsourced bio or a fancruft article on a fictionous character, possibly the origin of the name of a non-notable band yet to release their first album. Passportguy (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G1/G3 "Major Lazer is a Jamaican commando who lost his arm in the secret Zombie War of 1984. The US military rescued him and repurposed experimental lazers as prosthetic limbs." says it all. This is pure nonsense/hoaxery. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as tagged. No way a musician's infobox could be appropriate for an article on a military person. And even disregarding the infobox, this smells like a pure hoax. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on. While the intro part is a hoax, "Major Lazer" is a real musical project; notability to be verified. Possibly We are about to make ourselves laughable. Mukadderat (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the sources in the article don't even mention him and those sentences talk about someone else entirely. I did the smart thing and checked for "Major Lazer" sources but found bupkis. (MySpace test, anyone?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.myspace.com/majorlazer Major Lazer is a musical project by Diplo & Switch. the character is fictional but the project is real! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.52.159 (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't appear notable, as the album isn't out yet. If it comes out and it's decently successful, then it's fine, but until such time I've gotta say this doesn't meet the notability standard. Also, to top it all off, the article feels like an ad. Also, to the unsigned comment above: A MySpace account does not equal notability.Tyrenon (talk) 03:50, 22 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 deleted. Non-admin closure. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 22:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Lesbian Day[edit]

unreferenced announcement of "proto-holiday" with no known history Wuhwuzdat (talk) 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article had been speedily deleted before it was accidentally re-creatd by the AfD tagging process. It is currently tagged as db-empty and is likely to be speedily deleted onmce again. Passportguy (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I deleted it about the same time you all put it up here at AfD. No sources, no nothing. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:39, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young husbands of suburbia[edit]

Contested prod. Article is about an unpublished TV show/script, with no reliable sources listed and none found. Wikipedia a publisher of neither original thought nor saucy TV dramas. TN X Man 22:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Desperate Housewives except with guys instead. Wow, original. Go back to the drawing board and come up with a better idea, because we're not a script-posting bulletin board (and as everyone well knows, you gotta have an agent to have a script read by a studio. All you're doing by pitching it outside the system and sending it direct in the mail is giving the networks free confetti to shred for a reality show finale). Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single-purpose account with a single non-notable article to its credit. Delete, as above.Tyrenon (talk) 03:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsold, unproduced scripts are inherently non-notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried unsuccessfully to a speedy this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one made me lol. Obviously a pet-project, no notability, misuse of both the apostrophe and the word "saucy", etc. Zivlok (talk) 20:15, 24 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Davila[edit]

Fails WP:POLITICIAN - I can't find any indication that she is notable beyond being the mayor of a small city. Passportguy (talk) 22:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100,000 people is not a small city, but not really large enough (especially since it's in a huge metro area) to warrant automatic notability for its mayor. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mayor of a U.S. city that large (100,000-plus) is surely notable no matter where it is located. Kestenbaum (talk) 03:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mayors are not automatically notable. Unless there is significant coverage, which I'm not seeing, subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. لenna vecia 13:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete oer nom, viz the Politician standard at BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 12:36, 28 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. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newpreneur[edit]

Seems to be a neologism. Whether it's encyclopaedic or notable is up to the community- this is a procedural nom. An IP denied a speedy with the rationale: "This page has been designed to articulate a new term that was created to describe a specific class of entrepreneurs. This term has been trademarked and should be defined by its creator to avoid confusion of use. This has been done." HJMitchell You rang? 22:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neoglism and Spam in one shot. Not a combination I've seen very often. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 23:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO, WP:SPAM, nn. F (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP applies too, trademarked or not. Equendil Talk 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. You'd have to have a heart of stone to read this article without laughing out loud: ... introduced in 2009 by Alibaba.com, the world’s largest B2B ecommerce company, to define a new breed of entrepreneurs who are using the recession as a catalyst to start a business or develop an idea. Newpreneurs are innovative thinkers who take their businesses to the next level and seize each opportunity with passion and ambition by relying on a combination of emerging technologies, trusted resources and successful mentors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as far as I know, only admins have the right to deny speedys, and I'm pretty sure an IP is not an admin. JuJube (talk) 15:15, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Berry (musician)[edit]

Lacks notability, recordings are self distributed. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 No assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~A7 speedy deletion per TPH.~~ - Dank (push to talk) 04:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With the improvements to the article, it's clearly no longer speedy-worthy. There are many sources now, but I'm not qualified to judge whether these sources are independent or significant. No vote. - Dank (push to talk) 13:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, but this artist has reviews in a reliable source[19] and claims releases on a notable label (Subkulture). While notability may or may not exist, there are enough claims of it to fail A7. Please remember that A7 deliberately has a lower standard than indication of notability and this article meets that standard. Regards So Why 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment this is not an A7; this is an AfD discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that, but TPH decided to re-tag it A7 after I had declined it, that's why I wanted to point it out. Regards So Why 13:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there seems to be some minor coverage in smaller publications of some of his material, but I really can't see enough to warrant an article. We don't seem to be at the level of "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" that would allow a reasonable, sourced article to be produced here - I can find very little information available about the artist. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to provide the substantial coverage, or anything else that would qualify him under WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am the author of the article being discussed. I have added a number of points on the article's discussion page that I believe are valid and should be taken into account, in particular to counter the points made on "lack of substantial coverage" and some details that I understand do "qualify him under WP:MUSIC." The artist is also being featured on a compilation by Subkulture Records - a company that is listed on Wikipedia and therefore should be considered a credible release. Special:Contributions/86.133.88.29|86.133.88.29]] (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's a lot of links but it's not clear how they establish the notability of this artist. some footnotes would help clear this up.--RadioFan (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will look to add some footnotes as you suggest as I can see that it would help, though I would like to spend a little time doing this so the article is properly set out. With the possible imminent deletion of the article, this may have to wait until the article's survival or demise is determined!Bezza67 (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added some late news: Paul Berry is to played on BBC Introducing with Tom Robinson. BBC is a worldwide recognised broadcaster and Tom Robinson is a well known musician.

Bezza67 (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't think a future playing by Tom Robinson is a good indicator of notability. Tom's show 'Introducing' airs after midnight Sunday morning and after midnight Monday morning on BBC Radio 6 Music. This is a digital station, which limits its possibilities for exposure as many people in the UK still don't have DAB equipment. (I don't... And don't plan to, either.) The show's title sums up its purpose - introducing new bands/performers. If you are already notable, you aren't going to get played there. If you aren't notable, you don't get listed here. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BBC 6 Music is not restricted to DAB: it can also be listened to online and via digital TV, which, according to Ofcom, is now available in 22 million UK homes Ofcom which I do not think limits its exposure or availability - and this is just the UK. The scheduling of a programme is, in the online age, less important as the online version can be played at a later time.Bezza67 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point I was making was that the programme is for new acts - and new acts are inherently non-notable.... Peridon (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The programme has played acts that are established: the Enter Shikari track 'Antwerpen' was played on the programme on April 5 2009 and their Wikipedia listing clearly shows that they are not a 'new act' but a successful established act. I do understand the point you make, however I would counter argue that Wikipedia's own criteria for notability (see my comment and details below) are the rules that need to be considered in respect of the Paul Berry article (which I believe support the article's inclusion on Wikipedia) and not the BBC's.Bezza67 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Under Wikipedia: Notability (music) Criteria for musicians and ensembles, I believe Paul Berry meets two of the criteria: point 1 as there are "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician" and point 10 due to "inclusion on a compilation album" (which will actually be two albums when the Subkulture compilation is released). Point 7 could also apply if Reverbnation local charts are considered by Wikipedia appropriate, as Paul is listed as the top charting electronica artist in his immediate locality.Bezza67 (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject of trivial coverage; does not meet the criteria for musicians of BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you clarify what you mean by "does not meet the criteria for musicians of BIO." as I would like to respond once I have checked the particular criteria you are referring to.Bezza67 (talk) 17:36, 28 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. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Software Engineering, Inc.[edit]

Procedural nom: removed an A7 template because there is a (tenuous) notability claim in the article. Rationale for hangon was: "Lucas Software Engineering, Inc. web site www.lse.com is commonly mistaken for London School of Economics and the London Stock Exchange. By adding a link one a hit I received from Google, I was trying to resolve some of the confusion by adding it as a separate entity. In doing so it appeared to want an article to go with the information, so I added a corporate entry. I will update more info on the corporate page if necessary to make it more notable". HJMitchell You rang? 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the company is not notable per WP:CORP. I don't even see anything like a Hoover's or BusinessWeek profile. The company's products may or may not be notable. The web address may be remarkable but it is not notable either. Drawn Some (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm no expert at this sort of thing, but the company's website alone gives me real doubts about notability. A software company with a webpage that screams 1996? Hairhorn (talk) 02:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, but I'd also note that the site doesn't even claim an up-to-date copyright (it's six years out of date). There's no assurance the company even exists anymore and that the site isn't just being auto-renewed after a fashion.Tyrenon (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-consumer tech business whose authors actually admit they want an article to manipulate search engine results. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 22 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 to List of True Blood episodes . I don't see any compelling arguments for keeping the article below. There do, however, seem to be sound arguments arguments to either delete or merge the article--and a rough balance of voices on both sides--so I'm defaulting to the option that keeps the most content available. For the time being I'll see if I can add a sentence or two to the current summary, but the history will remain visible if anyone wants to take a more in-depth look down the road. --jonny-m t 13:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mine(True Blood)[edit]

I wanted to request a move for this page and then discovered that Mine (True Blood) had previously been redirected to True Blood pursuant to an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fourth Man in the Fire. Question now : what to do with this article and all the other episode pages that have been created in the meantime ?? Passportguy (talk) 12:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry Passportguy but the reasoning behind the original AfD still stands. If you have verifiable useful material why don't you add it to another article? Drawn Some (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't create this article, nor do I have any firm opnion on whether it should stay or not. I am just making the observation that quite a number of episodes articles have been created, inspite of the earlier AfD. I.e. the question is should these all be deleted/redirected or be allowed to stay ?
- Currently the following articles on single eipsodes of True Blood exist :
  - Strange Love (True Blood)
  - The First Taste (True Blood)
  - Mine(True Blood)
  - Escape from Dragon House (True Blood)
  - Sparks Fly Out (True Blood)
  - Burning House of Love(True Blood)
  - To Love is to Bury (True Blood)
  - You'll Be the Death of Me (True Blood)

Passportguy (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you had slipped and fallen and bumped your head.

These don't appear to be notable and are intensely detailed plot descriptions. Yes, I think they should all be merged into the primary article or create one list with a four-or-five line description of each episode. Drawn Some (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with a synopsis, but I am also very much in favor of leaving the idea of break out in to a individual article as per the argument here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Fourth Man in the Fire "What makes an episode "notable"? Should all individual episode entries be deleted for all shows? I recall the initial entries for Lost being quite sparse, yet have greatly expanded as the show became more popular and the mythology expanded. Give it some time. googuse (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)". Peace, rkmlai (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that articles need reliable sources for verification. Drawn Some (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that RS would be found and cited was assumed by me in my idea of article creation. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am in favour of individual episode listings for every programme, because what works for one should work for all. However, I went and checked the official website for True Blood; the description here is about 20 times as long as the official episode synopsis, and I think that's way too much unreferenced material (dare I say "fancruft"? I would, except I'm a fan). If the people who are selling this programme feel they can describe an episode in a single paragraph, I think it ought to be possible to restrict ourselves to that length. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all No sources seem to exist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looking around, unsourced episode guides are a major problem on almost all series related pages. Many of them look very much like copyright infringements of published TV guides. Btw - how would you go about sourcing info on a an episodes ? If the info is copied from a web or published TV guide it would be copyright infringement, and the only other source I can think of would be the episode itself ? Perhaps this should be sufficient as reference ? After all not all references on Wikipedia need to be online sources. Passportguy (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Check out a TV episode article that's GA or FA status. Many source everything from DVD commentary to press releases to books. It's possible, but not easy, to write a decent length, sourced article on an episode. A ridiculously notable series like The Simpsons or South Park would be easy to write a well-sourced article on, but I'm not so sure about lesser known series. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, extremly famous episodes will indeed be easy to source. What I am talking about is information on lesser known episodes included on lists such as List_of_Psych_episodes, where almost all of the info in unsourced and very likely taken off some TV guide or Tv station website. The reason I am taking up this point is that if we delete these epiodes because they info on these pages is unsourced (as opposed to merging the info into the series' article, then this has major repercussions on many, many episode listings here on Wikipedia, most of which will have to be deleted as after removal of all unsourced info they will consist of nothing more than a list of names which don't warrant an extra article. Passportguy (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If it's just a one-sentence summary in a list of episodes, it doesn't need sources out the wazoo. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge --though not as one sentence summaries, 2 or 3 paragraph is usually about right. TPH is right though that the basic facts can be taken from any convenient source, and the plot from the work itself. The part that needs to be sourced is interpretation--for that you need an actual review or article. DGG (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protected redirect or as needed for consensus, merge (although not much to merge here). No independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge much shorter version somewhere. This is enough for a shooting script! Rd232 ^talk 00:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial third party sources here. Official episode guide? Nope, 'cause it's not an independent source for the purpose of establishing notability. The Hollywood Reporter article? From what I can see, it's not enough. Nothing to merge except a big ol' plot recitation. --Blargh29 (talk) 00:01, 31 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. Cirt (talk) 05:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Martín Rodríguez[edit]

Non notable footballer - Has never played at professional level therefore fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. The youth international games do not confer notability and the speculation about a move to Arsenal FC which is the reason for the articles creation, certainly does not confer notability. King of the North East 21:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree - fails WP:ATHLETE. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 21:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. John Sloan @ 21:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 21:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are two sources provided on the article, both of which say the player is called 'Damien Martinez'; I am extremely confused...Giant Snowman 21:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also looks like another player called Diego Martin Rodriguez exists - has the article been hijacked by a Martinez fan? Giant Snowman 21:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very confusing. The article seems to be a hybrid consisting of transfer rumours about the youth team player in the Argentina U-17 squad and the Independiente 3rd choice goalkeeper Diego Rodríguez. Niether of them have ever played for the Independiente first team. King of the North East 22:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My original delete vote stands then. Giant Snowman 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 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 Crystal Ball (album set). Cirt (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poom poom[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Abce2|AccessDenied 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary nor dumping ground for non-English onomatopoeia. Eddie.willers (talk) 21:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Delete~~. All the reasons above, and it looks like the page is just being used for "silly talk." Vicenarian (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. I don't believe a word of it. Yintaɳ 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be pure vandalism or nonsense. --Quartermaster (talk) 21:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Crystal Ball (album set) because it's the name of a Prince song from when he wasn't Prince. Drawn Some (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that song isn't notable, and I don't believe it is, what's the point of having a redirect for it? Yintaɳ 22:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of non-notable subjects redirect to their notable parent article. It's a very plausible search term, there are 37,000 G-hits for "poom poom". If it is deleted it will likely be re-created because apparently it is slang for the female genitalia or "booty" or sexual intercourse or farting, things like that. The Prince song title is very plausible. Otherwise make it a disambiguation page for all of these. Drawn Some (talk) 23:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Good idea, seconded. Vicenarian (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Drawn Some as a plausible search term.--Lenticel ^(talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Drawn Some. Zivlok (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Drawn Some. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:54, 25 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Letter (Hoobastank song)[edit]

This single, apparently scheduled for a Australian release in June has shown no notability as an independent article at this time. Attempts to redirect have been reverted. Sources only note a video has been shot and that Australian artist Vanessa Amorosi is featured, neither of which adds to its notability beyond a mention in the already existing album article from which the song is taken. Until it shows some independent success as a single, the article fails WP:NSONGS and should be redirected or deleted. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources yet, hasn't charted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)}

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "#Just unencyclopedic" and "#Just pointing at a policy or guideline".

Instead of just saying, "Non-notable," consider instead saying, "No reliable sources found to verify notability", or "The sources are not independent, and so cannot establish that the subject passes our standards on notability", or "The sources do not provide the significant coverage required by the notability standard." Providing specific reasons why the subject may not be notable gives other editors an opportunity to research and supply sources that may establish or confirm the subject's notability.

Just as problematic is asserting that something is notable without providing an explanation or source for such a claim of notability.

See: WP:JNN

Keep It is clearly notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.237.149.206 (talk) 00:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for just pointing at a policy or guideline. You'd have a point if I had just said "not notable" as my reason. I stated the specific sources in the article which do not add to the songs notability. Songs generally do not merit an independent article. --Wolfer68 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read that??? WP:NSONGS cite: [[Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the "future-album" tag. Separate articles should not be created [b]until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release[/b].

Hey, its a future single with sufficient reliably sourced information!!! @Ten Pound Hammer: How can a future single chart??? *Strange*

Delete As the gentleman just said, it's a future single. A future album 'might' meet the notability guideline, as might an upcoming computer game. A future single is, however, more like a single scenario or level in a computer game: Not notable until after it becomes notable on its own.Tyrenon (talk) 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The duet Hoobastank/Amorosi is notable by its own! Should chart anyway! PCgo (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now anyway until it has charted then it maybe can be here but right now.Kyle 1278 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Release date of the simgle isn't that far away. I highly recommend to keep this article. Deletion isn't justified! - MausSchupser (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being released as a single doesn't make it notable. --Wolfer68 (talk) 02:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Not worth the hassle! Redirect to the appropriate page for now until it has charted. In some weeks this problem should be solved. BTW I think its already notable. V. Amorosi is huge in Australia. That duet is also quite interesting. Oh! "The Letter" is already the most added song on Australian radio and I reckon it will be another hit for Amorosi. :) >>> 217.238.194.251 (talk) 04:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes notability issues. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. FumblingTowardsEcstasy (talk) 11:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its labeled with the tag "futuresingle".

So it should be handled with care! 217.237.151.116 (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because it is labeled with the tag "futuresingle", does not make it notable or a reason to keep the article. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable."

This song has not charted on any national or significant music charts.
This song has not won any awards or honors.
This song has not been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups.

Therefore, it is not notable enough for it's own article. FumblingTowardsEcstasy (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yep, right! That's for "Songs". You have quoted the wrong section. That's the point.

This article ins't about a rondom song on an album or whatever. Also most "Songs" weren't released as a single. They are just on an album. This doesn't make them notable. Its about a physical single! "futuresingle" is comparably with "futurealbum". A basic notability, with significant coverage with reliable sources is already given. 217.237.149.207 (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No I have not quoted the wrong section, I have quoted the piece of information from the "Albums, singles and songs" heading from Wikipedia:Notability (music). FumblingTowardsEcstasy (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, you have!

You may want to read the policy more closely. The section is named "Albums, singles and songs". One paragraph is about songs, the remainder is about albums. The words are not interchangeable. Everything you have quoted is about SONGS. See Wikipedia:Notability (music) This article is about a physical single! "futuresingle" is comparably with "futurealbum". A basic notability, with significant coverage with reliable sources is already given. Hope you got it now! 217.237.149.208 (talk) 02:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nope I have not quoted the wrong section. Songs and singles are basically the same thing on Wikipedia, just because it was released as a single, does not make it notable. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states this "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs (a Wikipedia guideline on how to write a single or song article) also states this, where WP:SINGLE was redirected. Wikipedia:Notability (music) is stating that released either as a single or not, a song/single is not worthy of an article unless it has — "ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups". FumblingTowardsEcstasy (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nope! Songs and singles are NOT the same thing on Wikipedia!!!

You really should read the policys more closely! There are categories for "Songs" and Singles. So it can't be the same thing on Wiki! See WP:SINGLE. This article ins't about a rondom song on an album or whatever. Also most "Songs" weren't released as a single. They are just on an album. This doesn't make them notable. This article is about a physical single! "futuresingle" is comparably with "futurealbum". A basic notability, with significant coverage with reliable sources, is already given. 217.237.149.208 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This argument is just going around in a circle, so I have posted a question about this issue and hopefully soon I will get an answer from an established user on Wikipedia, who knows the guidlines. FumblingTowardsEcstasy (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is he/she evenhanded? Who's this established user? A friend of yours? Grrr... 217.237.149.208 (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), where I have posted the question. Both answers states that Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Notability are refering to both album tracks and singles. FumblingTowardsEcstasy (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, but you have asked something out of context. 217.237.149.206 (talk) 14:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. 121.221.200.219 (talk) 02:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Right!! You may want to read the policy more closely! Of course, its already notable! 217.237.150.207 (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per stated above. 121.221.200.219 (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Also as per stated above. 149.208 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not enough information to bring beyond a stub, fails WP:NSONGS on all other grounds: hasn't charted, no multiple cover versions.—Kww(talk) 00:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Enough informations for now. YnosGer (talk) 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone smell socks? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I smell socks also. FumblingTowardsEcstasy (talk) 11:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can smell what you want! See WP:SHARE YnosGer (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please do not edit my post here. Thanks! YnosGer (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - 217.237.xxx.xxx

This IP address is registered to Deutsche Telekom AG and used by a very large number of people in Germany, including many, many established users.

YnosGer (talk) 12:01, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Maciszewski[edit]

subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, the supposed film was shown, according to her website, on public-access television Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment before you dismiss anything as public-access, see Robin Byrd. Drawn Some (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here: [20] is an article written about her in detail. Other sources:[21], not all public-access, mentioning her both as a performer and conference speaker in ethnomusicology. Some mentions of her performances and her as ethnomusicologist under the name "Amie": [22]. Google scholar search: [23] things to, including this book: [24] in which she is a contributor has a blurb outlining that she received, among other grants, a Fulbright grant, which is a highly prestigious award. This seems pretty clear-cut to me. She seems to be notable as both a performer and academic researcher. I find it particularly interesting to include people like this who seem to do a lot of different things--she even has a published recipe in a cookbook: [25]! Cazort (talk) 19:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only article of its kind and nothing notable about her is mentioned in it, the article basically says she is an American interested in indian music, and this is a curious subject for an article from India, that's all. There are no notable recordings or tours. The mentions listed by Google are trivial. The film has only trivial mentions, too. A Fulbright grant doesn't make her notable, it's perhaps confused with the Fulbright Prize. Hekerui (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first source I gave describes how and why she entered her career as a sitarist and ethnomusicologist, and mentions her film--it basically outlines the main content of the existing wikipedia article. The numerous other sources give small but relevant bits of information that could easily make a full, tightly-sourced article. WP:BIO is clear that notability is about being "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" more than it is about being "famous". The sources I gave document more information about her than is found on the current page. And at the very least, I certainly find everything I read about her very interesting. The information is all verifiable, the current page does not seem at all promotional, and I have seen no one raise any question about the accuracy of the information or reliability of sources (it all seems highly uncontroversial), so I don't see what would be gained by excluding this information from wikipedia. And personally, I think a lot would be lost by deleting it. Cazort (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Based on available info. I must conclude that User:Hekerui is correct regarding this subject's non-notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amelia Maciszewski is an ethnomusicologist (PhD), concert performer and expert on sitar music - one of the contributors of this book. This may be interesting information for the readers, especially for fans of Indian music. Vote keep. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Hekerui (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete run of the mill musician - no evidence of meeting our notability standard at WP:MUSICBIO. Eusebeus (talk) 12:41, 28 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. One two three... 04:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convicts on the First Fleet[edit]

This list is a clear example of WP:NOT in particular WP:DIRECTORY. All the linked people from the article are already present here: First_Fleet#Notable_First_Fleet_members. I assume this list has just been picked off another site and effectively it serves no purpose. Smartse (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for useless copypasted lists. Link to the First Fleet article will be sufficient. Agree with nominator. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First_Fleet#Notable_First_Fleet_members as a valid search term. The content isn't needed here, but I can see people looking for it StarM 00:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyvio (as demonstrated by User:Vejvančický), and then redirect to First Fleet as a plausible search term. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I am not so sure. I feel this ties the whole history of a very important historical fact together, whereby giving readers somewhere to delve into the people of the first fleet. I have used this page extensively to give me ideas on who to research next. Without a list like this all of my work has little to no context. That goes for others works as well. It is the cinch pin in a very important part of our (Australian) history. And to say that it is purely a copy violation, could be pointed to all other pages that references and uses information from a website IMHO. I think deletion of this is very short sighted.

Macr237 (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your point of view but as has been pointed out it is a copy of a list elsewhere on the web. If anyone on the list is notable then by all means create an article and link to it from First Fleet. A long list of names doesn't really give much insight into anything. Smartse (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how this inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. It's not indiscriminate, it's a list of the people who first colonised Australia. If all the names can be verified, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include them, despite the fact that most of them will be non-notable in themselves. And as for copyvio, well, it's a list. It's sure to be the same as the list to which it was referenced, but it has the possibility for expansion if more detailed refs can be found.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But that being said, it might be an idea to organise the list in a different manner, such as by ship, and to exclude extraneous information (eg "alias") --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct that WP:NOTDIR isn't the most applicable piece of policy to quote WP:IINFO is perhaps better. Particularly "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Lists tend to be discouraged and one this long with so few links does seem particularly poor in my opinion. True they are the (English) people to colonise Australia but what does this doesn't really tell us anything. Smartse (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A clearly encyclopedic list of the people involved in the most significant event in the history of Australia. I hate to bring out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but how can lists of sportsmen be considered notable and not the people who founded the modern nation of Australia? I wonder at the priorities of some editors ... The list is elsewhere, so what? All our content is elsewhere, otherwise it would be original research. "What does this list tell us?" Where to start answering a question like this one. The list, quite obviously tells us the name, origin and other information about the founders of Australia, a nation uniquely (?) founded as a prison colony. The list is not indiscriminate, inclusion in the list is very strictly defined and verifiable. The setout of the list needs improving and addtional information added, the list should be made sortable by name, ship, offence, origin, sentence, fate etc. and the lede needs improving but that is not a reason to delete. This is exactly the sort of list that should be encouraged not deleted. I for one feel an encyclopedia that includes List of Pokémon but not this one is barely worthy of the name. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of Australia Test cricketers and List of Pokémon are a different matter - each has links to a separate article and so it serves a function in that it organises the articles into a list. If each person on this list was notable then the list would be needed, until that occurs I still see no reason for inclusion. As I mentioned previously the list of those with articles is already on First Fleet. I think that an external link to a full list such as this would suffice. Also I can see the argument for them having founded Australia but what about the Second Fleet - surely they are also founders. Are we going to make a list of them too? My point is that this is not encyclopedic. If anyone can find any policies on WP:LIST that deem this worthy for inclusion please point them out - I can't find any. Smartse (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of the common functions of a list is to include information on otherwise non-notable items in the encyclopedia that would not otherwise merit a stand-alone article. From WP:SAL "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles" As for the Second Fleet, I would not be opposed to such a list personally but even so, the First Fleet is such a historical turning point that such a list of its members (and it isn't a huge list, around 32k at present) is entirely appropropriate, even if others feel the Second Fleet would be overkill. "My point is that this is not encyclopedic." My point is that it is and merely stating that it isn't without any support for that reasoning is merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The list has historic and educational value, it is verifiable and it has clearly defined inclusion criteria. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know we have looser standards than most encyclopedias, but this is ridiculous. I can't remember the policy off-hand but there is one about not including primary source material like this. This is especially true when there is an online university database, searchable in 3 ways, which we can link to [26]. This is far superior to a copypasted list, the copyright status of which I'm also not entirely sure of. Rd232 ^talk 00:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The list here on Wikipedia can be enhanced in ways that the online searchable database cannot by bringing together other data as it comes to hand. The list should not be judged on how it looks now but by what its encyclopedic potential is. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic potential: zero. Articles on notable individuals in the list can be linked by a category. WP:NOT a database. Rd232 ^talk 01:19, 29 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 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Galindo[edit]

Non notable footballer - has never played at fully professional level therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Appearances for international youth teams do not confer notability. (PROD was removed by IP without comment) King of the North East 19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly Strong Keep has wider notability, such as this article as well as an article in the Times on 11/05/09. This article also suggests Galindo has been called up to the national training squad for the full team. Having played for Bolivia at under 20 and 17 level I'd say that also suggests some notability well beyond a few mentions in a local newspaper or similar. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Consensus at WP:FOOTY is that U-17, U-20, U-21 caps do not confer notability. If the kid plays for the full international team or joins a fully professional team the article would pass, but until he actually does, it fails WP:ATHLETE. Keeping it on the presumption that he will goes against WP:CRYSTAL. King of the North East 21:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, I understand that, and tend to go for Delete in such cases. In this case, however, I think several articles in mainstream, non-local press suggest a general notability which is being met via WP:GNG. Certainly there have been other cases in other sports where there is considerably less coverage and the same level or less of WP:ATH which have led to keeping the article. I'm not overly fussed either way, but this feels much more like a keep, at least for now, than it does a delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as player currently fails WP:ATHLETE. John Sloan @ 21:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, he fails WP:ATHLETE, however, the coverage and sources are sufficient for including (in my opinion). I vote against WP:ATHLETE guideline in this case. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete player fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. He also fails general notability at WP:N, the only non-trivial source from a reliable source is speculation on a transfer, which fails WP:CRYSTAL #3. --Jimbo^[online] 07:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That he fails WP:ATHLETE is irrelevant, as he passes the more important test of WP:N with ~~extensive media~~ coverage. Nfitz (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources, two of which could be cosidered iffy are extensive? The only credible source on there fails WP:SPECULATION anyway. --Jimbo^[online] 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, extensive removed. References look good to me. Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and restore if he passes WP:ATHLETE in the future. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - added more references, please check the article. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:N, which supercedes WP:ATHLETE. Rlendog (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE. Eusebeus (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. I agree that WP:N would trump that, but I don't think that the sources in the article quite meet the bar. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:24, 28 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gallagher[edit]

Asserts notability as having written and co-produced for Kylie Minogue. Absolutely no sources found, only link in article is a 404. Not all writers for notable acts are inherently notable themselves. If deleted, Category:Songs written by Julian Gallagher should go too. (Wow, this sat untouched for 4 years?!) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick look at Gallagher's allmusic page, cross-referenced with the print edition of "Complete UK Hit Singles," indicates he's written a string of top 10 songs on the UK charts ("In Your Eyes" #3; "Please Stay" #10; "Love at First Sight" #2 for Minogue, as well as "Got the Feeling" #5; "Don't Wanna Let You Go" #9; and "Closer to Me" #4 for the group 5ive, which is when I stopped checking). Gallagher's articles need work, not oblivion.Nostrildamus (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work with what? I haven't found a single source that gives him non trivial mentions. Notability isn't inherited, ever ever ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not seem to be a case of inherited notability. Inherited notability would say that because the songwriter is notable, all the songs he wrote are also notable. But in this case, the fact that Julian Gallgher wrote notable songs makes him notable, as the writer of notable songs. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding some sources, and I'll try to add them over the next couple of days. I see that he received a Grammy Award nomination in 2002 for his work with U2, and a nomination for a Ivor Novello Award for his songwriting for Kylie Minogue in 2003. He appears to be quite prolific. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for the work he has done as a songwriter and producer with many successful acts, with songwriting credits on many hit singles ([27]) - the fact that they are without exception cynical commercial pap shouldn't count against him. Co-wrote two songs nominated for an Ivor Novello Award in 2003 ([28]), part of the hugely successful Biffco production team. --Michig (talk) 20:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probable keep (pop music's not my area). See below. I have access to a subscription news bank (Highbeam), so will quote the bits for those. The others are on the internet.

Paul Nash, "The Irish Connecton", Sound on Sound, December 2001

Minogue gets fever for Dublin, Sunday Mirror, December 22, 2002. "She will again be working at Windmill Studios with Richard Stannard and Julian Gallagher, part of the songwriting and production team Kylie worked with on Fever. The pair, whose credits include the Spice Girls, U2, David Gray and The Corrs, are also working with Gabrielle on her next album [...]"

Gareth Grates Sunday Mirror, April 20, 2003. "It looks like Pop Idol winner Gareth Gates will be the next star to use the talents of Dublin-based producing team Biffco.[...] Biffco is the company name for songwriters and producers Richard Stannard and Julian Gallagher who are based in the famous Windmill Lane studios. One of the hottest songwriting and producing duos on the block, most recently Gallagher and Stannard have been producing and writing for Kylie Minogue, Victoria Beckham, Holly Vallance, Abs and Will Young. [...] and now it looks like Gareth is getting in on the Biffco act too. Our source said: "The Biffco duo are the hottest there are at the minute, particularly now they are working with Kylie."

Life's Sweet for Babes 'n' the Hood, Coventry Evening Telegraph, October 24, 2003. "The Kittens release their third album next month and the first sample, 'If You Come To Me', is out on Monday. It's a trademark up-tempo ballad bearing the stamp of Richard Stannard and Julian Gallagher, the musical team who have worked for the Spice Girls and Dido among others."

Bono: in the name of love by Mick Wall, SevenOaks, 2005, p, 282. "The studio version included input from producers Richard Stannard and Julian Gallagher, who were then better known for working with the likes of Kylie [...]"

2002 Grammy Award Nominees For Production and Engineering All That You Can't Leave Behind, U2. Producers: Brian Eno, Daniel Lanois. Engineers: Brian Eno, Steve Fitzmaurice, Julian Gallagher, Mike Hedges, Daniel Lanois, Steve Lillywhite, Tim Palmer, Richard Rainey, Richard Stannard.

Wannabe: How the Spice Girls Reinvented Pop Fame By David Sinclair, Omnibus Press, 2004, p. 57

Minogue tavels 'Light Years' on EMI, Billboard, June 17, 2000

Gabrielle: I'm hooked on sweets but at least I don't do any drugs, Daily Mail, October 5, 2007

– Voceditenore (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps it would be better to merge this article with the Richard Stannard (songwriter) article, and move to Biffco (currently a redirect to Back to the Future) or Biffco Productions, since the sources generally discuss the production/songwriting team rather than these two as individuals.--Michig (talk) 07:43, 25 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 deleted as G6, treated as an obstructed move. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Mall[edit]

Unnecessary dab. The malls in Jackson and Marquette, Michigan, both had their articles deleted ages ago for lack of notability, and indeed there are no sources for either one. The two Canadian malls listed are so small that neither even has a webpage, much less sources. Therefore, I see no purpose in disambiguating if only one Westwood Mall will ever have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Westwood Mall (Houston, Texas) to the base name -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but change this to a Redir to the Houston Mall, the others could concievablely become Notable (thus making a Dab needed again). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is never a need to have a base name redirect to "base name + disambiguating parenthetical". If and when another becomes notable (thus making the dab needed again), the Houston one might remain the primary topic or it could then be moved back to its dabbed title, depending on the consensus then. The future will take care of itself. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once this is deleted, the Texas mall can simply be moved to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:54, 23 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. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immemorial (film)[edit]

After one expired prod and one prod removed without any improvement to the article, this remains an unreferenced, non-notable sentence about what seems to be an amateur film that does not meet Wikipedia's policy on future films. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

its not a amateur movie but a low-budget movie! and we already got fans in germany and britain although its still in pre-production. i will improve the article when i have time... --Rex92 (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources, also User:TenPoundHammer/Put a little effort into it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:V and WP:NF, especially WP:NFF - Rex92, you need to read those links, and WP:YFA. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion of non-existent film. Might get finished, might become notable. Isn't now. -Quartermaster (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return once WP:GNG and WP:NF cab be met. The article is premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 22 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 g11, book advertising; g12, copyright violation (invalid license). NawlinWiki (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Messiah[edit]

unpublished work, lacks notability, violates WP:CRYSTAL Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My PROD tag was removed without any improvement to the article and I am unable to find any indication that this novel has been published, or ever will be published; my understanding is that unpublished works of fiction have no notability. There is a reference that specifically states it has not been published [29] but I find it very hard to accept that an unpublished book can become notable for being unpublished. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BK, specifically WP:BK#Not yet published books. Incidentally, the author gives a long extract and asserts copyright, saying that he does not give permission for it to be reproduced elsewhere; he has clearly not read the note on the edit screen which warns that by inserting it "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL." JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete

Apologies for amateur contributions to-date. Am Wikipedia novice. Also fairly convinced by arguments above but would ask for this page to be allowed. We hope to supplement with further detail shortly. Green Messiah has not been traditionally published, but it is a complete work by Bristol author Luke Andreski and is due for release by installment over 2009.

Please note that the details provided are factual about the nature of the work and do not seek to advertise it or 'big it up'. They merely state that it now exists as an intellectual entity.

Further references will be added shortly. The newspaper reference so far given is valid.

The novel is an element of a two part project - each element of which we wish to assert as existing intellectual entities about which we believe people should be able to seek information within Wikipedia.

The second entity is the secular eco-creed New Creationism, which is a genuine environmental text despite being featured in the novel. We hope to put details of this on Wikipedia shortly.

Thank you for your consideration.

--AgentAtAWDS (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a crystal ball, then there's the WP:BK guideline, and the copyright notice on the article makes it unfit for inclusion under the WP:GFDL anyway. Yintaɳ 11:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately this book doesn't meet notability requirements. Wikipedia is always behind the curve. Once it becomes notable only THEN can it have an article. Drawn Some (talk) 11:27, 22 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, any content has already been merged with the information at International recognition of Kosovo. Jamie^☆S93 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan–Peruvian relations[edit]

There is no evidence of an ongoing relationship in reliable sources that would make this a notable bilateral relationship that wikipedia should have an article on. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is a stub and will be improved in the near future. We can improve it and save it from deletion.--Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using what sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've got a week. Good luck. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improved with WHAT, Turkish Flame? Delete as non-notable, significant in-depth coverage of the relationship between Kosovo and Peru simply doesn't exist. That Peru recognizes Kosovo as a state can be included in ~~Foreign relations of Kosovo~~ International recognition of Kosovo per HJMitchell if it's not already there. Drawn Some (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International recognition of Kosovo then delete. I'm sorry, but all there is to the article is "Peru recognised the independence of Kosovo". That's good. When you read around and realise that over 60 governments have done the same thing... For the record, I'd have no opposition to re-creation if or when a relationship develops. HJMitchell You rang? 21:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per HJMitchell; in looking at the map in that article, it looked impressive, but Peru is joining a crowd. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Peru, but keep the redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information that "Peru recognized Kosovo" is already contained in both the Foreign relations of peru article and at the International recognition of Kosovo article. So the "merge" has already happened (that's the entire content of this article) so let's delete this.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to redirect for the convenience of the readers. Redirects cost nothing. The merge/redirect for this title should be to "Foreign relations of Kosovo", and another redirect/merge for Peru–Kosovo relations should be to "Foreign relations of Peru" to avoid any NVOP issues. The same material is repeated in both articles. Fork? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N isn't met Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage of the topic, only trivia, ergo, fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with being so short. But it doesn't mean it can't be improved. --♪♫Berkay^0652|message 10:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note some canvassing going on by turkish flame (yes the "message" is neutral, the audience all have voted keep on these sorts of afd's in the past). [30] [31] [32] [33].Bali ultimate (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete really doubt Kosovo has any notable relations with a developing country thousands of kilometres away. doubt that Peru as a developing country has sent any resources to assist Kosovo. doubt that the leaders have even met let alone had a phone discussion. LibStar (talk) 14:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this article should stay and contribute, and I am completely against deletion.--Liridon 18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Sintonak.X (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE is not valid. LibStar (talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to International recognition of Kosovo and/or Foreign relations of Peru--anything but keeping this as a stand alone article. There is insufficient coverage of this topic in reliable, third-party sources to justify an article on it. In other words, it fails WP:N. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI suspect the author creates these articles for a laugh, they surely can't be serious.Knobbly (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per precedent decision to merge these articles into International recognition of Kosovo.--Avala (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of meaningful content here as noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 12:46, 28 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. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasif[edit]

Non-notable member of Students Federation of India and mimicry artist. Salih (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Absolutely non notable. --Deepak D'Souza 04:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a real assertion of notability, and notability is certainly not established. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:38, 22 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 Kraven's Last Hunt. history available for the content merge Fritzpoll (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kraven's First Hunt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kraven's First Hunt

Little more than a plot summary. I don't see this warrants its own article anymore than the countless similar arcs Spider-Man has had since his creation. It's not as if this has had the same amount of cultural recognition as, say, The Night Gwen Stacy Died. I had prodded this earlier but an anon IP removed it with no explanation whatsoever. In my opinion, these would be better off merged with related articles (like the one for Brand New Day) if not outright deleted.Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related for the same reasons--I don't believe that they are notable enough to sustain an article by themselves.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)~~ [reply]

NOTE: These articles are not on this AFD anymore per policy. I have nominated Flashbacks separately but I have not yet the others. Sorry for the confusion.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small procedural thing first... If you are going to AfD more than 1 article, AfD each separatly, even if your reason covers all of them. Provide the links if you feel the AfDs should be considered together, but each article and discussion should be taken on its own merits. As it stands, the AfD tags ar coming off of the other 3 until such time as each is put up for a separate AfD.
Minor points regarding the article this AfD addresses.
- The article is classed as Start, meaning there is room to work on it. Placing a maintenance tag and giving that time may be more appropriate than jumping immediately to a PROD or AfD.
- PRODs can be removed by anyone at anytime. And while an edit summary is preferred, the assumption is that the removal was done in the belief that the article should not be quickly removed sans discussion.

- J Greb (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never assumed bad faith on their part...I just pointed out that I had them up for PROD and anon IP removed them with no explanation. That's it.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 22:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest all that needed to be noted is "I PRODed it. The PROD was removed/contested so I've nomed it for AfD for (reasons). The same reasons I PRODed it." How you stated it though comes off a bit tetchy. - J Greb (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if possible, or merge/redirect to Fictional history of Spider-Man. BOZ (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Colonel Warden below, if Kraven's First Hunt is merged, a better merge target would be Kraven's Last Hunt. BOZ (talk) 17:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP ALL All of these comics have notable reviews in legitimate third party media references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ways_to_Die has more than the others, listed right now. There are plenty of review sites out there which review just about every notable comic book issue that comes out there, so if comics follow the same rules as regular books, that makes them notable. Also, each of these was reprinted as a hardcover book. If they issues didn't sell very well, weren't notable to the fans buying them, then they wouldn't be reprinted in hardcover. Therefore hardcover indicates notability. Dream Focus 22:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, since it was pointed out to the nom that multiple articles in 1one AfD isn't a good way to go, neither "New Ways to Die" nor "Character Assassination" have been re-nomed. Using them to argue for saving "Kraven's First Hunt" is as good an idea as lumping the three for a mass deletion was.
  Second, the review sites don't tend to pick "notable" issues. With Marvel comics they tend to review all the issues that hit the stands in the current week. There's also a tendancy for them to be less critical and more "The plot is...". And someone want to may check, but IIUC film and book reviews are produced not because the work is notable, but to generate sales, hence the reviews preceding the general release of the book or film.
  Third, is salability the same as notability? The trades, and the pattern the publisher releases them in, is designed to generate maximum income. Hardcovers and softcovers coming out within months of an arc ending speaks more to the publisher milking the buzz not the notability.
  Last, there is all but zero real world context present. Where is the material from interviews of Guggenheim about why this story, why these characters, and why extend the Kravinoff family in this way? Where is the information from reviews comparing this arc with “Kraven’s Last Hunt”? Hell, where’s the material from the reviews either picking the arc apart or praising it? All that is there is:
  - Bare bones, index level data, original publication info - publisher, comic title, cover date, writer, and penciller. No other creative staff listed.
  - Bare bones, index level data, original reprint info - title and ISBN. Publisher(s) and date(s) omitted.
  - A single review mentioned in passing. And that just gave where the review was published and a numerical rating. Nothing about the critical comments, good or bad, the reviewer had for the work or even who the reviewer was.

An article should not be only plot summary, ever. Plot summary can and should be part of articles on stories. But it should be there to bolster the real world context of the article. And looking at this article, what non-plot summary elements are present are there only as window dressing. Only so it can be said "The article isn't 100% plot."

- J Greb (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability must be established individually, and this doesn't pass in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other AFD aren't showing up on those articles. When I click on the link there in previous versions of the article page, it links here. If you want to nominate them, check to make sure it lines up properly. I added in two interviews the writer did, on two of those series, and finding more for all of these shouldn't be a problem. Comics like this get more reviews than episodes of popular series. Dream Focus 00:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of those mentioned here as being nominated, are talked about in an interview one of the guys who worked on them did. http://www.newsarama.com/comics/010930-Weekly-Webbing.html Dream Focus 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Nom indicates adding two other articles bt those article don't seem to be tagged for AfD. Are they included or not? -- Banjeboi 01:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep New Ways to Die is a keeper (even if it needs more work), and before nominating the others problems should have been flagged (with ((notability)) as well as any other that apply) - the articles are currently failing but with enough time I know I can dig up more reviews and perhaps an interview. There is a broader issue about these, while we can probably make a modest article on them do we need one? I am unsure from the articles about why these are more important than others and I don't feel Wikipedia is the place for articles on every story arc for main characters. So I'd suggest tagging the other three but unless strong reasons it should have its own article (answering the question: "why this arc and not others?") then we should look at merge discussions to Fictional history of Spider-Man. (Emperor (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

COMMENT Sorry for the confusion everyone. Per policy and J Greb, I have removed the additional articles off the list as they should not share the same AFD. Flashbacks has its own AFD, and depending on the outcomes of these, I may or may not submit the other ones for AFD at a later point in time. Once again, sorry for the confusion.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 13:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fictional history of Spider-Man. No sources discuss it, it isn't a notable piece of fiction by itself. Fences and windows (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation - it wasn't difficult. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How does the article you linked prove that it fits the notability guidelines?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a source which discusses the topic. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a puffpiece/interview. It would be fine for sourcing the article, but I don't see how that proves that the subject is "evidently notable" when such promo pieces are a dime a dozen with comics.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to me. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I searched for quite a while without finding anything that I'd characterise as a reliable source, so well done Colonel Warden. This one sources doesn't change my Merge recommendation though. Fences and windows (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article from the same publisher which reviews the first issue in some detail. Turning up such sources online just takes a minute or so. I expect that there are offline sources such as Wizard too. Note that your merge target is not ideal as Kraven's Last Hunt seems better - it already has a section for this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comicbookresources reviews 90% of the comics on the market. I'm well aware of comicbook reviews on the internet--I just don't think that they ensure the notability of the subject. While I hate to pull out WP:WAX, if issue reviews are notable enough, then that's grounds to make articles for nearly every comicbook out. If the sources you're pulling out prove notability, then the standards for notability have dropped vastly. I'm going to ask for an opinion from the RS noticeboard.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are begging the question. Books are reviewed by book reviewers, films by film reviewers and comic books by comic book reviewers. You seem to be working from an assumption that comics are inherently inferior and so the media that cover them are not acceptable. This seems to be a systemic bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith--I actually enjoy a lot of comics, including Spider-Man. So this isn't a matter of my own personal opinion about comics as a medium or whatever. But in this case, I don't think most individual arcs of a recurring comicbook series are notable enough to warrant their own articles on Wikipedia, with some obvious exceptions. There's stuff like Daredevil: Born Again, The Death of Gwen Stacy, Kraven's Last Hunt that ARE notable enough to warrant their own article. But by your standards, every single comicbook that has received a review on Comicbookresources should have their own article, which I disagree with.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge - bog standard storyline. It's simply not notable in the same way that say Kraven's last hunt is. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge as above - insufficient independent notability for retaining this as a separate article - just plot summary, now with a soupçon of trivial guff masquerading as a source. Eusebeus (talk) 12:50, 28 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mang Tomas[edit]

Delete unreferenced one-liner about a sauce. Is it a product? brand name? what notability or verifiability is there? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Carlossuarez46, did you follow WP:BEFORE? An un-referenced one-liner is called a WP:STUB. You ask good questions and you might well have tried to answer them with a simple Google search if you didn't know what the stuff is. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is definitely a product with photos, nutrition information etc on the web. I have added in some links to confirm it exists. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to have some coverage in reliable sources (or do I mean reliable sauces?). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm Filipino and I know this product. It has been sold over a million bottles per year. This sauce made from ingredients of pig liver is popularized in Filipino retailers. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a fairly common product in Filipino households. Not to be offensive, but I find it odd that the nominator is unaware of the product, seeing as that the nominator may be presumed to be, based on observation of the Masalipit AfD, first, a Filipino, and second, a resident of the Philippines, where the product is heavily promoted in local media. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 16:22, 23 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wall (basketball)[edit]

High school athlete, fails WP:ATHLETE. Prodego ^talk 17:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Meets general notability guidelines. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As said above. He may not need the specifics of WP:ATHLETE, however he meets the WP:GNG which superseeds the specific guideline.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basketball is one sport in which players can receive national attention at the high school level, largely because the best seniors will end up in the NBA after a year or two. John Wall has received a substantial amount of media attention, and there's more out there than what is currently cited in the article. Zagalejo^^^ 19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's very interesting to compare this AfD with this one. As policy and guidelines are supposed to reflect practice I propose that we should say in WP:ATHLETE that North American sports are subject to completely different standards from those in the rest of the world. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep that article, too, based on this. That said, I don't really follow soccer, and the WP:FOOTY people seem to have their own established standards, so I'll probably just let that AFD proceed without me. Zagalejo^^^ 05:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable. --bender235 (talk) 13:17, 24 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Latino[edit]

Top Latino number-one hits of 2004
Top Latino number-one hits of 2005
Top Latino number-one hits of 2006
Top Latino number-one hits of 2007
Top Latino number-one hits of 2008
Top Latino number-one hits of 2009
List of Top Latino chart achievements and trivia

These articles are entirely unreferenced and out of date. I can't find a single source that even verifies so much that the chart even exists, much less a reliable source telling who publishes it, what methodology it uses, etc. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simple weeding here. Wikipedia will not suffer the loss of these articles since the individual artists and songs, if notable, will appear elsewhere. Going to the Top Latino site I can't find any archive of number-one hits in any case. These articles are redundant and not needed. Wouldn't be surprised if nobody shows up to defend them. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking around, I believe I've found that Spain is the only Spanish-speaking country with an official, verifiable, reputable singles chart. I wonder why that is. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, Argentina has an official chart too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment:I'd hate to see this deleted, although primarily for pragmatic reasons. Top Latino is a real radio show, broadcasting on affiliates through Latin America and the Caribbean. I used to pick it up from an Aruban station, even though they've dropped it. They have affiliates in many countries, and some, like Bolivia, have quite a few affiliates. They do keep archives of the top 5 (January 26, for example), although their site is a bitch to navigate. That said, there is very little I can find out about the program, and very little I can find out about their charts. The problem is one of realism: top40-charts.com is run by mystery men, americatop100.com seems to be an amateur site. This leaves toplatino.net as the only set of Latin American charts with any credibility at all, and, should we delete them and list them on WP:BADCHARTS, there will no charts for South America. An entire continent lost. Not to mention an edit-war without end as the charts start getting removed from articles across Wikipedia, and plucky Latins keep putting them back in. Purging the Brazil Hot 100 took me three months, and I only keep it gone by using the abuse filter feature to notify me every time someone re-includes it. All of which are really bad reasons to keep an article, so the closing admin can feel free to discount my request. I'm not looking forward to the aftermath of deleting this so shortly after finally giving up on americatop100, though.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources at all about the program, dude. Basically, all you're saying is "if we delete it, there'll be no Latin American charts on Wikipedia." WP:LOSE. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to comment status.—Kww(talk) 16:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree, keep it, since it works for many people as reference and besides, does the existence of the article affects you? I think it doesn't so why delete it? As you did with the other music charts that were very useful and I am sure the person who created and edited them took long of their time to create them. Please excuse my english I am from a foreing country. So please I think you should keep it, it serves as a reference to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihanoooo1191 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — Rihanoooo1191 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in gears of war[edit]

Article was prodded as a how-to in February, removed by creator. Tagged for no references, orphan status and writing style in March, no edits to improve since March. The article is not notable, not referenced and therefore not verifiable, and so can't be kept. Great game though... Bigger digger (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Bigger digger (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a how to guide. This article may be more appropriate for a specialized wiki. TN X Man 16:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game guide/in-universe content with no real-world context. Could be transwikied, but I'm unsure where to. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE - the article actually contains a link in the prose to a wikia based site, I posted on its main talk page to say they should come and get the information, but how does the copyright work? Bigger digger (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. One two three... 16:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, I cannot come down on one side. On one hand, the article has potential to be note-worthy. On the other hand, making it so would involve removing everything currently in it and completely re-writing it. The article reads like a game guide currently. Taelus (talk) 14:08, 25 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. Cirt (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Chronicle[edit]

This news website is not notable. The site has a disclaimer which reveals that it is essentially a blog as anyone can contribute. Article created by an editor of the website (see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hatashe). The article was PRODd but contested by a first time editing IP user with no explanation. Smartse (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing but a puff piece for a non-notable website. Even the references point to their own website. It's even written like an advert. It's not possible to get an accurate gHit count due to it's unimaginative name. --WebHamster 15:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - made an honest attempt to wade through some google news results, and found nothing that wasn't either a) entirely unrelated, because of the generic name, or b) put out by the site or one of its arms. Note that all the article blue links are circular redirects. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hadn't noticed that - can an admin speedily delete them quickly or does it need to be done by hand? Smartse (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is deleted as a result of this AfD, the closing admin is supposed to also delete all incoming redirects. If the admin forgets to do this, they can be tagged with ((db-redirnone)). Deor (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC

Weak Delete At this point there is nothing in the content of the article to be salvaged. However, regarding the subject of the article, is there a way to show how popular this site really is? If indeed it is, then perhaps the article could be spared (although blanked).--Avg (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The following circular redirects have been removed from the article but should also be deleted if the conclusion of this debate is to delete: World Sentinel, Catalina Chronicle, Florida Chronicle, Fresno Chronicle, Illinois Chronicle, Irvine Chronicle, Long Beach Chronicle, Maryland Chronicle, Palm Springs Chronicle, Pennsylvania Chronicle, Riverside Chronicle, Sacramento Chronicle, San Diego Chronicle, San Jose Chronicle, Santa Barbara Chronicle, Santa Monica Chronicle, and World News Chronicle. Smartse (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete": Ι recently came accross some articles of this which their team may write but not a new user like in wikipedia and the style of writing by the authors I read was hiddeous and certainly non-professional. See a characteristic libel at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/102469 --Dimorsitanos (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are around 400 links on wikipedia to this site. I've reported it to wikiproject spam here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#americanchronicle.com. Smartse (talk) 11:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You have to give marks for effort, but I don't think we want every blog on the planet to make an article based on how many links they can create to prove how "notable" it is in terms of Google. There appears to be no WP:RS saying this blog is notable. Now we just have to clean out the spamlinks. Johnuniq (talk) 11:49, 24 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 BLP delete. The only source was a page on IMDB, which is not reliable enough for a BLP. Blueboy 96 21:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Spensor[edit]

BLP for an actor who has only had extremely minor roles, so fails WP:ACTOR by quite a bit. Recurring role on iCarly is not a major one, so if that's what he's "most famous for" then he's not famous and not even quasi-famous enough to have a separate article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject passes WP:CREATIVE for his regular role on iCarly, in addition to his other acting credits. Nominator's opinion that this actor is "not famous enough" to have his own article is not relevant. Varbas (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a regular role, it's a sporadic role. And my opinion is just as, if not more, relevant that yours, as it follows actual policy. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very minor character in one show and guest starring in other shows for an episode does not meet notability standards -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Most famous for role" is very minor. No coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss the subject of this BLP in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:21, 22 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 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WeeMee[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Little big eyed people pics from a website. No sources, no notability established, no anything that would make a real article. Was up for deletion and didn't quite get consensus years back but article was never improved and topic has not gotten any more notable than the lack of notability back then. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Weeme has been used in numerous notable messaging sites for many years.Varbas (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This person was determined to be a sockpuppet. Not sure why the account has not been blocked since then. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW. Please use a bit more WP:AGF, as the sockpuppet investigation used their own WP:AGF and made note that the Varbas account did not use abusive sock-puppetry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what's that got to do with establishing notability for an encyclopedia article? DreamGuy (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... and how does trying to smear Varbas establish notability or improve the project? Let's talk edits and not editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed to keep - third party sources have been provided (for some reason, none of these had appeared when I did a google news search a month ago) -- The Red Pen of Doom 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC) delete no thrid party coverage in reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPEEDY Keep per WP:AFTER and significant in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that need only be added to the article. Their missing is simply a matter for WP:CLEANUP, and AfD is not for cleanup. And for those who do not wish to scan through the Google News results, I am myself firmly convinced of notabiity surpassing the WP:GNG by BBC News, Scotsman (1), Scotland on Sunday, Telegraph, Scotsman (2), Boston Globe, Industry Standard, RedOrbit, Net Imperative (1), Sourcewire, Market Wire, Net Imperative (2), New Media Age, Business Wire (1), Business Wire (2), Wireless News, Telephony, Sunday Herald, and literally dozens upon dozems of others. Perhaps the nom missed these. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up - Sourcewire, Marketwire, etc. are PRESS RELEASES and not independent sources. Fail our standards miserably. On top of that, looking at the titles of articles here, it looks like the many of the ones ostensibly in real publications are reprints of those press releases and each other with no editorial oversight or changes between those links. You've been voting on AFDs long enough that you should reognize such promotional links, or are you not trying very hard at all to wed them out? In fact I don't know if a single one of that long list is a real news story. Give this a bit while someone clearly not trying to rationalize a Keep vote no matter if it's valid or not sorts through them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In a very hasty search, some few turned out to be press release. They are not sourcing the article. HOWEVER, many others found ARE acceptable sources. Simply put, sources were and are available. Having looked, I found them. And now that I did so, and though I appreciate the exuberance with which you point out the flawed ones, wouldn't it perhaps better to use the good ones and help improve the article? WP:PRESERVE was not included in WP:Editing policy as some sort of joke. Building the encyclopedia is why we are here. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Another reason why BEFORE should become absolutely required with any AfD nom when relevant. It won;t prevent all bad noms, but it will stop at least such as this. The nom could best demonstrate a commitment to improving WP by withdrawing the nomination & helping put in the refs. DGG (talk) 03:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pshaw. It's up to the people who want there to be an article to prove it deserves one, not the other way around. And the nom was not bad. The fact that the standard people who vote Keep for every AFD they run across are pissed off doesn't mean we need to change policy to make them feel better about themselves. Most of the above links are not good ones at all -- lots of press releases and press release reprints, trivial passing mentions, etc. that fail our requirements for independent, reliable non-trivial sources demonstrating notability. I can best improve Wikipedia by removing such policy-violating edits when they are adding to articles, so if the above links were added I'll have to go through and provide a reality check on all of them. DreamGuy (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it is up to a nominator to follow the policy WP:PRESERVE and use the due diligence instructed by WP:AFD and WP:ATD before tossing something in the trash. And in remaining as polite as possible, I had not noted anywhere that WP:AGF had been marked historical. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, from going through them I'm not sure there's a single non-press release in there! Perhaps the editor who put these together would take the time to educate himself on what are real sources and what are not so as to not waste so much time for others. Maybe DDG should look through these things BEFORE he rants and raves about other people not making any effort. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I spent only a very few minutes... and not all of what I found were suitable, but I did find a number that did indeed meet Wikipedia's criteria. And so, to ask politely, what guideline mandated efforts did you yourself undertake to search for sources before nominating the artcle for deletion? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a brief Google book search, and found a book to use as a reference for information. When you see just how many millions of people use this thing, and how rapidly its growth is, how can you not believe it notable? You don't even need third party media references, as the suggestions in the guidelines recommend, when COMMON SENSE would indicate its clearly notable. Dream Focus 03:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- COMMON SENSE is a pretty poor guideline given its subjectivity and also the fact that common sense can often tell us mutually inconsistent things. I fear that if your views ever gained currency "I like it" would be enough to keep articles of no value. That said, as I note below, I think this article should be kept. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic comment: While the book reference is proper, an editors claim of "common sense" and supposed "poplarity" have not achieved anything close to community consensus as reasons to keep an article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no benefit whatsoever to the encyclopaedia from removing this article. Concerns about due process elucidated above are also relevant. Skomorokh 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple non-triv sources have been added. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:51, 27 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. Interpreted one keep argument as a reason to delete - AfD is not a vote, nor is it a place to debate our policies and guidelines. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral (US band)[edit]

Delete One album, group fails WP:MUSIC standards. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not have enough notability. Also, does not comply with articles on music requirements. Diana LeCrois : 16:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article gives no indication that this band passes WP:BAND -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is about a very notable classic and influential progressive rock band of the 1970's. Many independent reviews have been located on-line, and several of these have now been added into the article. The band has released two albums (not one as claimed by the nom). The fact that several independent reviews and articles can be found on-line for a band from 40 years ago (when all articles would have been in hard copy) speaks volumes about his band's influence. Notability is not temporary. If wikipedia is to be relevant, it should have articles created, and kept, on bands from the past as well as of current day. Varbas (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin The above user is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned editor. Please note that the !vote may be invalid. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I notice herethat User:DreamGuy removed all of the references and external links. Many of these links (such as the Allmusic.com review) are valid and independent references that go a long way to establish the band's notability. Varbas (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please educate yourself about our rules on reliable sources and external links. Thank you. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did this become an issue in a stub article? My dedication for contributing to Wikipedia has received a blow, perhaps a fatal blow, after this ridiculous vote. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not a lot of coverage online but enough to indicate a certain level of importance. --Michig (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This band doesn't meet WP:BAND. From those rules it is obvious that Wikipedia as a rule only wants to keep track of mainstream bands playing mainstream music. I think this is riduculous, as it would exclude fringe genres such as progressive rock almost entirely. They've released a record, it's got 15-20 reviews online even if the record was released 30 years ago - so why can't people read facts about them here? (Obviously, they've released another record two years ago). Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that the band doesn't meet WP:BAND, yet still voted keep. If you think the policy is wrong, take it up on the policy's talk page, not here.-- Darth Mike ^(talk) 19:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do that. Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you acknowledged that you are voting keep despite not having any reason to under our standards. If you don't like the rules don't vote keep until you get them changed... or don't vote at all. DreamGuy (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:BAND. Not notably notable. Verbal chat 19:41, 28 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. A7 Tone 19:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monika K. Adler[edit]

BLP unsourced, tagged as nonnotable for a while with no improvement, so, per tag, If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted. -- and even if the things said in the article can be sourced this person still would fail our notability requirements for an article. DreamGuy (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:32, 21 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. Stating that the individual is notable is not sufficient to demonstrate it. I did take into account the cleanup effort, but after weighing up the arguments in this discussion, the consensus is to delete. Since I know Michael has a track record of resurrecting articles such as these and making them shine for restoration to mainspace, I extend my usual invitation to him to request userfication Fritzpoll (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio D. Acosta[edit]

Essentially unsourced BLP (IMDB is only semi-independent source/link given, and as that can be edited by the public it is unreliable). Awards allegedly received sound trivial in the extreme. Filmography is a bunch of films without articles. Even if everything in article is true the person sounds like he fails our notability standards by a wide margin. DreamGuy (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I could find no significant coverage in reliable sources. Jfire (talk) 15:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With two films screened at the Cannes Film Festival, D. Acosta appears to possess at least minimal notability. I added more links. --Vejvančický (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources for that? If you can provide them, great. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le Keep Yes, this person has "performed" at an international level, so that is why I am suggesting we keep this article. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 20:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:CREATIVE. Subject is notable for his work on the award winning indie-films Runaways and Exploring Love. Varbas (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user has been identified as a sockpuppet of another editor as part of an investigation into a user banned for using sockpuppets to vote in AFDs. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the investifation found that User:Varbas was not guily of abusive sockpuppetry. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll need reliable sources to demonstrate that those films actually won awards. IMDB is not a reliable source for such matters, as the filmmaker himself could have added it. Please find sources that meet our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing references from an article does not mean that references do not exist. I easily located additional reliable references (just as you would have if you cared to look) confirming that his films "Runaways" and "Exploring Love" did indeed win such awards [34] [35][36] [37] [38], and I also found a further independent article on Sergio D. Acosta here. Varbas (talk) 22:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blps without any reliable sources that discuss the subject of the blp in any depth, the sort of things that might establish notability and allow for verification of claims made, are generally a minimum standards for biographical articles in this encyclopedia. And there are none.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep per a cursory search per WP:AFTER shows the subject as meeting inclusion criteria of WP:GNG through coverage in reliable sources, and (even easier) his film projects receiving awards. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Though IMDB is not accepted as "proof" of notability, it is NOT edited by the public. That's Wikipedia. IMDB does accept user submissions, including submissions from industry experts, but all such submissions, including those from their own editorial staff, are vetted before IMDB publishes. Though not accepted as a reliable, Wikipedia does encourage using IMDB as a starting point in conducting further research. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "vetting" there is almost nonexistent, especially for smaller films, which is exactly why it is not a reliable source. Your argument is the equivalent of "Oh, i admit it's not reliable, but let's pretend that it is anyway." DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vetting is actually more strict for small films. I granted that Wikipedia does not use IMDB as a reliable source and simply pointed out that your statement "can be edited by the public" is incorrect. Your adversarial posture is not helpful to this discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: The article has gone through significant WP:CLEANUP per WP:AFTER since it was nominated. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And is still no closer to showing notability for an article than it was in the beginning. DreamGuy (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False. He meets the WP:GNG. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An award winning film maker, who clearly meets all notability requirements. Is there any doubt of the information in the article? If so, a quick Google should tell you on the website of the Cannes film festival, who was there, and who won what. Dream Focus 01:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The accuracy of the info in the article is in doubt, and even if everything on the article is 100% correct it's a far cry from showing that the person is notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article of his own. And it gets tiring seeing the same highly aggressive editors vote Keep on every AFD they run across based upon claims that are completely at odds with our policies. DreamGuy (talk)

Incorrect. He meets the WP:GNG: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He's co-produced and had bit parts in two indie films, which both got some minor awards. I don't think he makes the cut. He might get there, but at the moment he's only had local press coverage. Fences and windows (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Local" coverage showing notability for several millions is just as worthy as notability for 300 million. Has it been a write-up in a school paper.... different story. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a few minor credits. Nothing to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:55, 26 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. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Castro[edit]

BLP with no reliable, independent sources (IMDB doesn't count, neither does an interview on some nothing site and the bio placed on his own website)Only claim to fame is Terror Toons, which also lacks sourcing for notability, but even if that were to somehow be deemed notable that wouldn't make this person notable in and of itself. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - I've been trying to improve this article after stumbling across it on an unsourced BLP session but after extensive googling those sources were the best I could find! I guess Mr Castro just doesn't receive much coverage. --Noosentaal^·talk· 17:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find this article which is a University newspaper. But that's all. IMDB doesn't list any awards for his work. From all this, I can only conclude he is a working speciial effects makeup artist, but not a notable one. -- Whpq (talk) 13:22, 25 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. Notability is not temporary, but consensus can change. It seems to have changed in this case Fritzpoll (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutist Games[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Nonnotable organization with no reliable sources at all. This was listed for AFD years back and kept with a small number of votes with no real rationale fitting Wikipedia notability standards given, and there's been no change to the lack of notability since then. DreamGuy (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This company easily passes WP:CREATIVE for the many successful and notable games that they created, including (most obviously) the game "Bubble Shooter". This article was kept as notable in 2006. Notability is not temporary. Varbas (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability via reliable sources—notability isn't inherited, either. If sources exist to show the notability of the company and not merely its games, they should be shown. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss this company in any fashion that might help establish notability for it.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:30, 22 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 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Monaco relations[edit]

one of the most completely random combinations I've ever seen. Monaco has very little relations with anyone except France and Italy. no coverage except mentions of F1 and tennis [39]. before tagging for rescue, is there really anything to rescue here? LibStar (talk) 14:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There simply isn't enough in-depth coverage of the relations between Hungary and Monaco in reliable sources to establish notability. Fails WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it might be useful to be reminded that "both countries are in europe" there seems to be nothing more to be said, given the absence of reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. CSD G1 (Nonsense) since there is no relationship. Well, it was worth a try! HJMitchell You rang? 21:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're correct, but forces work against doing that. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't appear these countries have diplomatic relations. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage of topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:58, 22 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atsuhisa Hiruyami[edit]

Wow does this person fail notability criteria. Even the unreliable source that is the sole source other than this guy's personal web page points out that the only thing he is at all known for by the couple of people who may know him is an unreleased project: "This soundtrack is classified as Works, meaning it is not released officially." DreamGuy (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? I don't understand a word you just said. Try speaking American, it's the only language I understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.146.29 (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand written American English, how is my speaking it going to help...? DreamGuy (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability criteria dismally. --DAJF (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No indication that either his album or himself meet WP:MUSIC = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of Wikipedia if you can't contribute what you found? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.146.29 (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely unsourced blp about a person for whom i can find no reliable sources that discuss him. The assertion of notability? That he privately released an album to some of his friends. Clear fail of BIO, MUSIC, CREATIVE.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:CREATIVE. Subject is a notable Japanese composer. Varbas (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assert this based on what evidence? Please share. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Varbas was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and actually a tactic used by that same banned editor, who pretended that User:Wordssuch was shown to not be a sockpuppet when all that was decided at that time ws it wasn;t worth looking into... when they did look he was a sock. DreamGuy (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that that the subject fails to meet the primary notability criterion nor is there any evidence that the subject meets the inclusion criteria for composers. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you guys should read this before deciding anything maybe:

http://vgmdb.net/forums/showpost.php?p=8286&postcount=12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.186.207 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems to confirm that he never released an album and thus he does not meet inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not yet notable, but making an afd into something personal doesn't help. DGG (talk) 04:36, 27 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. Discussion to merge should take place elsewhere. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ararat Cement[edit]

The 23 hits at Google news archive probably aren't enough to establish notability, but I prefer AfD to speedy on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Gagik Tsarukian as this is pure WP:SPAM. I am glad you did not speedy this one, as it is great entertainment: "Due to great volume investments done after the privitisation Ararat Cement was equiped with modern technologies." --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That would seem to be due to poor English rather than anything else. Smartse (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gagik Tsarukian, an undoubtably notable figure; this is a non-consumer business with a physical plant making hard goods, and as such most of the sources seem to relate either to the political connections of the proprietor or the environmental issues of Armenian industry generally. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will also go for a Merge to Gagik Tsarukian on this one, since there seems to be some notability. However, I would keep an eye on the promotional activity surrounding the contents. Diana LeCrois : 16:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage in books and news sources, and some interesting-looking scholarly articles. Many of those sources predate the current owner's era, so a redirect would be innappropriate. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely not spam - the editor who created the article has edited other Armenian articles: [40]. As Phil Bridger has pointed out there are sources that could be added. Just because the article is unsourced shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Smartse (talk) 16:11, 26 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 16:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argo (film)[edit]

Delete Another prod removed by a serial deprodder. Claims must be notable because the film allegedly won awards... the awards in question are not notable awards per our standards, strictly local ones of no known importance. Article was created by an account with a clear COI to promote the film and the writer/director. DreamGuy (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was the original prodder, and while I assume good faith on the the part of both the deprodder and creator, the fact remains that there are no independent, reliable sources to establish the notability of this film, or verify any of the information in the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A short film shown only at very small film festivals. Hairhorn (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an award winning short film is notable as evidenced by the awards won at several film festivals. I have found more independent links, reviews and references at [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] to establish the notability of this film and/or verify the information in the article.Varbas (talk) 04:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Link 2 is the personal webpage of the writer/director, while link 5 is the webpage of the writer/director's production company: both violate WP's prohibitions against self-published sources and non-independent sources. None of the other 4 links provide the level of significant coverage required to establish notability of the film. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been improved since nomination and is the award-winning directorial debut of Jordan Bayne in conjunction with award-winning Michael Knowles. As the debut of Bayne and in winning her recognition, it meets WP:NF per "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The person isn't really notable either (and if your argument is that this small film the "major part" of her career then she's clearly NOT notable), and the alleged awards do not appear to be significant in the slightest. You can't just make a circular argument that your unsupported assumption that one of the set is notable is proof of notability of the others and expect that to hold up here. That section of WP:NF was never intended to be used the way you are trying to abuse it. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circular argument? Thanks for for the good faith. I need not "prove" notability for the individual (as her notability is already accepted by her inclusion on Wikipedia). I need not "prove" notability for the film's awards, past citing the film itself receiving recognition meeting the WP:GNG. What I do is properly read guideline WP:NF and see that as her writing and directorial debut... as a major first in the career of a notable person, the film meets the inclusion criteria... and those criteria do not demand that she be an Academy Award winner in order to be notable. Her notable is already covered in WP:N and WP:PERSON. Further, your nomination has been made some interesting good faith choice of delete argumants...

"...serial deprodder..." acts to denigrate the deprodder, who might himself have fair reasons for his deprodding. Looking at the edit histories of User:Varbas, I see someone who is engaged in improving the project and following guideline. I see no sanctions against him.... no blocks as being disruptive...No ANIs or RfCs... WP:AGF in his actions is a worth keeping to heart.
"...the film allegedly won awards..." is provably not "alledged", as even the most minor of WP:AFTER searches show that it did indeed win multiple awards.
"...the awards in question are not notable awards per our standards..." runs directly contrary to guideline. WP:Notability (films) lists some awards, but specifically states that "standards have not yet been established to define a major award". Consensus must be gained and standards actually set before making such an assertion as if it were fact.
"...strictly local ones of no known importance...." also runs contrary to guideline and precedent which accepts that as long as we are not talking about a blue ribbon at a neighborhood bake sale, widespread local notability affecting a few hundred thousand or a few dozen million is as notable per guideline as something affecting 300 million. Last time I looked, Texas and Tacoma were not exactly local areas of no known importance. A minimal effort to search for the film festivals online shows they have received attention and web traffic at the various sites show hits in large numbers.
"...created by an account with a clear COI ..." is a statement that unfortunately colors proper neutral consideration of the article. Once ANY article is on wikipedia it belongs to wikipedia and not the author. It is also well worth pointing out that the author's first edit was in October 2007 and his last in March 2008. He has not touched Wikipedia for 14 months. Any possible concern for COI has been addrrssed through proper WP:CLEANUP and the interests of many other editors over the last 14 months. That he might be a Jordan Bayne fan? So what? She has lots of fans... and some of them also edit wikipedia and her article without shouts of COI. Again for emphasis, his last edits to the article were 14 months ago.... any "concerns" of COI have been long since removed by the multiple edits of the many other editors since he left then.

Thank you and happy editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, we've been disagreeing on several AFDs, especially since you seem to vote Keep on everything and put in sources that violate WP:RS to try to justify keep, but the fact of the matter is that Varbas has been shown to be using multiple accounts and is considered to be very possibly be a sock of a banned editor, and you have encouraged him to lie about those results. The COI on this article was clear, and certainly notable. The fact that you rallied a bunch of people who vote Keep on every article they see, including some new accounts made suspiciously at the same time User:Esasus was banned for suing sockpuppets for using socks to deprod articles without reason and for voting keep on AFDs doesn't mean that this article truly has passed notability requirements, just that you can, at best, tagteam to show a false consensus and, at worst, work with a team of sock accounts to get your way. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... sadly, we have been at opposing sides of arguments, but since I provably do not "vote keep on everything" and actually improve an occasional article (because I believe in preserve, potential, and improve), I ask that you refrain from making such blatantly false claims. Further, I find your statement that I have "rallied a bunch of people" and that I am "tag teaming" to be most unhelpful to a discussion about improving this article, as I actually DO try to improve them. Please go and re-read the POLICY WP:CIVIL and behavorial guideline WP:AGF. And how about not continually attempting to obfusccate merits of comments with repeated digression about USER:Varbas. Investigation found him worth a little good faith, even if you refuse to do so. Editors may read for themselves HERE, so as to not further derail this deletion discussion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards from the festivals seem to indicate notability. I say keep. Dream Focus 19:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say Keep on everything. DreamGuy (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything hasn't even been nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everything). Bongo matic 04:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raises a good point tho. What would happen if we deleted Everything? Would we all disappear? Would Jimbo be mad? --Buster7 (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability seems to be a given. Editor Schmidt makes excellent points and references. The spotlight may be on a smaller stage than a Hollywood Blockbuster Opening but, nonetheless, the film did receive some obvious level of notoriety and achieved awards. Would the Cannes Film Festival of 1939 have met WP:Notability awards standards?...(assuming, of course, that the Internet and WikiPedia were in existence 70 years ago) Guidelines are not etched in stone. Each case should be judged on its own merits. Notibility should not even be questioned in this case.--Buster7 (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per awards and improvements. Granite thump (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to attack me personally is not useful to this discussion, and please follow Wikipedia behavioral guideline Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Varbas (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I have removed the misleading SPA tag placed by nominator DreamGuy against editor Granite thump, as Granite thump has made NUMEROUS edits and contributions outside this topic. I'm sure it was simply an error. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not consider the awards important enough to make for notability. Nor is JB at the very exalted level where everything he does of did as a beginner is notable--such a level really amounts to famous. Not every work of a notable person is necessarily or even usually notable. I very much do not like attacks on people who remove prod tags from articles--anyone has the right to ask for a community decision. But nonetheless, that someone is unfairly attacked does not necessarily make all his views correct. This has become a conflict of personalities. DGG (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sign of being famous is recognition by just the use of your initials. MJ (Michael Jordan)for example. And now JB...--Buster7 (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, theoretically anyone can deprod for any reason, but it'd be nice if the ostensible reasoning provided for removing prods followed Wikipedia policies in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1) ~~The bold at the top, for the nomination, and the bold just above here makes it look to me like DreamGuy voted twice, although I doubt that was the intention.~~

2) I agree with UnitedStatesian that some of the sources above don't meet VERIFY.

3) Schmidt, I really don't think that calling someone's argument circular is any assumption of bad faith -- only of a poor argument.

4) In general, it looks like this discussion has gone from content-focused to editor-focused.

I'll abstain from voting entirely as I don't even know how to begin with determining the notability of this article, or whether the sources used in the article meet VERIFY (other than those linked above with a clear COI, as has already been pointed out). King of the Arverni (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG and I are two separate people, if your first point was suggesting that those two votes were from the same person. Those are two separate votes and should be treated as such. DreamGuy (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An error on my part. Redacted entirely. King of the Arverni (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- the handful of awards from minor festivals are not enough to establish notability in my view Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Appeared at film festival(s), lots of references, obvious keep. Geo Swan (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources indicate notability, and this article has a lot of those. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:07, 28 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. Some daft arguments on both side, if you don't mind me saying so. Sources from other languages are perfectly permissable, but WP:NOTPAPER specifically states that "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion...". The arguments for retention ultimately failed to demonstrate the significance of the coverage required by the general notability guideline, so this discussion tends to deletion. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Rapp[edit]

Delete BLP that has no reliable sources, and the best that can be said about the person is that he came in third place or worse than that in some poker tournaments (assuming the sources can even be trusted on that point). That's nothing at all like enough notability to have a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although he doesn't seem to be a particularly important poker player, he very easily passes general notability guidelines with extensive coverage in (non-English) reliable sources: see news search --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the English encyclopedia. Coverage is in other languages is not relevant. He may qualify for a German article, but that is not an issue here. 2005 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The language of coverage is irrelevant. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course it is. This is not a Swahili encyclopedia. He could be very famous in his hometown in Austria with the local paper covering his actions, but there are no verifiable English sources about this person. (And to state the obvious, most of those non-English links are about other people with his name, not him.) 2005 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is the English Wikipedia which means we write in English. Please show me the policy that sources must be in English because there are tens of thousands of articles violating this (non-existent) policy. Also, you are wrong about "most of those non-English links being about other people." At least 81/147 are about him because they also match on "poker". Considering that Mr. Rapp isn't an American it is not all surprising that many of the sources aren't in English. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:VUE. Non-english sources can be used, but the point of sourcing is "so that readers can easily verify the content of the article". The burden of reliability, and translation of what is stated on the page, is on the editor adding such. Just waving your arms at a bunch of archive news articles that are mostly either not about him, or not reliable sources, or not primarily focused on him just increases the lack of notability about the subject. If an editor familr with the various languages cites material, then others, even unfamiliar with the laguage, can evaluate whether it is reliable and an accurate tranlastion, etc. At this point there are zero indepedant sources in the article, zero English current news articles, zero independant sources in the top 100 of a google search, and zero non-English sources in the article. That's a lot of zeroes. If you think there are substantial, verifiable, independant sources exclusively devoted to the person, then add them and we would not be here. At this point, zero is zero. Among those 81, it appears one is in a reliable source talking about the person. The rest cover an event or just list him in a group of players. And what that one German Poker News article says is, well, until someone says what it says, and puts it in the article, how is anyone to know that it isn't talking about what he had for lunch that day. 2005 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability. Incidental news sources from google appear to be standard coverage of tournaments. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what else would you expect news articles about a poker player to be about? --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are not "about" the player. He has zero articles in Google News about him now, and also zero in the first 100 normal Google search results, except for the single article from the online cardroom sponsoring him. 2005 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: to say he has finished "came in third place or worse" (maybe) is very misleading and false. First of all, any individual tournament has a huge luck factor. The very best player in the entire world will come in "third or worse" 95%+ of the time in a tournament of any size. Second, he won the CAPT Veldon - a $125K tournament (this can be attested by multiple RS). Third, this much mentioned third place just happens to an event considered to be the European championship. A full list of significant finishes can be found at: http://www.pokerpages.com/players/profiles/50771/stefan-rapp.htm Now is Rapp the most important or well-known player ever? Certainly not, but I think there is more than sufficient coverage and accomplishment for an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And according to the page that you linked to, based upon his first place finish in the Velden, that propelled Rapp to the prestigious position of being ranked as 993rd top player on the poker pages professional rankings---993rd. That combined with the fact that there are no real meaningful coverage, with one exception, everything is about the tournament, not about the player. 993rd place... which is probably the highest he's ever been ranked.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I added a prod, and no third party sources have been added. He does not meet the Wiki Poker project's criteria for an article, and also fails WP:N. He gets no coverage except in passing mention. The article can be recreated if he ever does get significant coverage in third party sources. 2005 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he passes general notability guidelines as evidenced by independent and reliable coverage in sources as demonstrated by ThaddeusB. Varbas (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, which ones? Name three specifically. How about two? 2005 (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short list of coverage I went through the first 10-15 news stories and translated them and it is pretty clear there is "significant coverage" in "multiple reliable sources." This is just form the first couple pages, so there is definitely more like this out there. I am sure 2005 will write these off as "standard tournament coverage," but a news article doesn't have to be a bio to qualify as coverage. To say coverage of a poker player playing poker is worthless is like saying articles about an artist's art work don't count or article's about a scientist's break through discovery don't count because they aren't about the artist/scientist but rather his/her work. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bio@pokernews rough translation: [47]
I imagine this is the one source 2005 considers legit
article about his win at CAPT Velden rough translation: [48]
No other player is even mentioned
article about tourney where the goal is to knock hum + 1 other pro out rough translation: [49]
Having a tourney dedicated to beating you seems pretty notable to me (note: this was not an online event, which are common, but rather at a brick-and-mortar casino)
article about CAPT Baden where he gets non-trivial coverage rough translation: [50]
more extensive coverage of "first European championship" (the CAPT Baden) rough translation: [51]
Insignificant events don't get coverage like this - scroll through the pages and you will see Rapp mentioned many times

I have added a couple of these 3rd party sources to the article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you added meet the criteria of WP:N. Of those you mention above, only the Poker News article meets the criteria. The article about him winning a tournament would be a valid source, but not to establish notability, as it is WP:1E -- coverage about the event itself, not the interchangeable winner. Every poker tournament gets some coverage. Every poker player player has results/stats pages on several websites. The person likely will merit an article someday, having one other article like the Poker News one isn't much of a threshold, but at this point the sources are not there. 2005 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that your interpretation of policy is correct... I will leave it to the community to determine who is correct. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The CAPT Velden is a non-notable tournament. 1) Winning it does not in any way convey notability to the person. The reference cited by Thaddeus is not significant nor is it about him, it is a mere press release announcing the winner of a non-notable tournament (poker websites carry tons of these short briefs an 95% of them are not-notable and consist of the persons entire claim to fame. For the most part winning a single tournament does not make a person notable, this is true in most competitions with open events. While there are some events, where the winner is instantly notable, CAPT Velden is not one. This is true in ALL competitive venues and sports. Winning the Kentucky Derby makes one notable, winning a race at the Sam Houston Raceway does not. Winning at Wimbledon makes a tennis player notable, winning a state title does not. 2) Thaddeus also points to a tournament where the goal is to knock Rapp and another pro out of the tournament. Thaddeus then notes this was not an online event, which are common, but rather at a brick-and-mortar casino. The tournament was a publicity stunt for Full Tilt Poker Pro---it was sponsored by Full Tilt Poker and marketted as such. It was not marketted as "come play Stefan Rapp," but rather "knock out a Full Tilt Poker Pro" it could have been any of Full Tilt Poker's employees. In other words, the only difference between it and many of the online tournaments of the same type is that Full Tilt Poker got a casino to host it! Again, the coverage there is nominal not significant in coverage and more of a press release relating to the tournament than the incidental coverage of Rapp. 3) Trivial mentions such as these are common on poker cites, but do not make the person notable. 4) As for hand-by-hand or play by play coverage of various tournaments, Thaddeus makes a statement that is not true, "Insignificant events don't get coverage like this." Are you kidding me? Plenty of non-notable events get coverage like this all the time in many walks of life. But let's assume for a moment that this tournament is marginally notable---and let's go one step further and say that a case MIGHT be made that this tournament is worthy of a wikipedia article. The fact that the tournament MIGHT qualify does not impart notability to a tournament winner---notability is not inherented. Thaddeus then argues, "scroll through the pages and you will see Rapp mentioned many times" yes, you do, but that's because this is a play by play accounting of the events---it is coverage of the event. This is not significant coverage about Rapp, but rather about the tournament.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 07:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I don't think any one of these sources gives him notability by itself, but considered together there is enough coverage out there to meet the GNG. There is no one "smoking gun" that gives him automatic notability, just several small items considered together.

Additionally, Full Tilt (a major poker company) obviously picked him for some reason, not just because he was some random poker player... and they did so before he won the Valden & finished 3rd at the Baden. (Again, this by itself is not an argument for keep but considered with the sources adds a tiny bit more weight.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the bio, NONE of these articles are about Rapp, and in every case the coverage of Rapp is incidental. Are you proposing that every person who is covered in a play by play of an open buy in tournament is notable even if they have never been seen before? As for Full Tilt. Full Tilt has over 120 poker pros on its site. The other major poker sites have a similar number, and even the smaller sites have scores of "pros." So, in reality, being a poker pro simply means that you are one of about 500+ people the various poker sites have "signed" to be a poker pro. So what does it take to be a poker pro on a website? Well, the websites want to be able to claim the winners of the major tournaments (WSOP/EPT/WPT/Aussie Millions/etc) as part of their team. To this end, they try to sign as many "pros" as they can. The websites have agents at each of these tournaments who will sign any player they think has a chance of winning these events. Any player who makes the final table, leads in the chip count at the end of the day, or has caught the attention of the scouts will be signed by somebody. It doesn't matter if they are playing in their first tournament or playing the game of their lives, all it takes is one decent showing and they will get offers. Rapp did so in 2004 at the EPT in Barcelona where he won 9K euro in a 1K euro event. The similar guideline is used by many poker sites when writing bios. Of course, those poker sites have a narrower focus than WP and their notability requirements are not on par with WP's.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that technically they aren't about him, but then again an article saying Helio Castroneves won the Indy 500 yesterday isn't technically about him. To me, an article describing who won a tournament is certainly not "trivial coverage" of the person who won said event. Articles that aren't biographies can still be used to establish notability.

Additionally, you seem to be saying that there is no way 500 "poker pros" can all be notable. I agree that not every person signed as a pro is notable, however, the general idea that there couldn't possibly be 500 notable players is laughable. 500 is a very small number compared to most topics of a similar level of interest to the general public.

Finally, Wikipedia's guidelines are not very tight at all - all a person has to do is receive non-trivial coverage from "multiple" reliable source. Rapp may only have one RS writing a biography about him, but certainly he has received what I would call non-trivial coverage in more than 2 sources. Do I think he is notable in that he has contributed something significant to society? Certainly not. Do I think he has meet Wikipedia's definition of notable? Certainly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we are not talking about who won the Indianapolis 500 of Poker, we aren't even talking about the Denver Grand Prix, we are talking about a tournament several levels below that. To put this on par with sports, imagine a minor league sporting competition. The competition MIGHT be notable, but the person who wins the event would not be. The competition might release a press release and various trade magazines/websites covering that sport might publish the press release, but doing so does not make the person covered notable. For example, every month there are Martial Arts Tournaments around the country. There might be a few tournaments where the winner of the tournament is, by virtue of the prestige of the event, notable. Then there will be a decent number of tournaments that might be notable enough to warrant a wikipedia article, but are not that notable. The results of the various events at these tournaments might be covered in a martial arts magazine or website, but only because the article is covering the tournament, not because any particular player is notable. The CAPT is this type of tournament. None of the events that he has participated in make this guy notable. As for the notion that there "couldn't possibly be 500 notable players is laughable." I've not made that claim, but the mere fact that a website signed the person does not make them notable.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't feel any one source here makes Rapp automatically notable - it is the combination of the sources that does it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage of this player is more than incidental as the sources include a personal profile which demonstrates notability. The language of the sources is unimportant. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:N as it states such a profile must be independant of the subject. Obviously that is not the case of a profile either on his own site or that of the company he works for! 2005 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure Colonel Warden was referring the to pokernews bio mentioned above. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as that isn't being used as a source! If that single source was added, obviously the article would then have one independant source. Then the issue would be if exactly one non-english independant source establishes notability. The guideline says no, as it says "sources". If when one more appears someday, the dude could conceivably have an article if editors think the bare minimum plural of two is enough. 2005 (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all do respect, you are just playing semantic games now. AfD generally judges articles based on their potential, not their current state. A source doesn't have to have been actually used to make it a valid indication of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, you made the claim that he meant what he didn't say. He said sources. This person does not have the reliable sources to merit an article. Period. The fact that you don't simply admit that now is pretty strange. 2005 (talk) 00:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I "admit" what I don't believe to true? And yes, the word "source" does NOT imply "a referenced source currently used in the article." --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, User:ThaddeusB understands my comment correctly. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - From the above discussion, I believe that he meets the GNG. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the 993rd best poker pro is notable enough for an article? This basically will open the doors to every non-notable one time wonder who has made any final table in a major tournament! He won one semi-respectable tournament... but one that nobody really cares about.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTPAPER. Varbas (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That rating is almost completely meaningless. I am sure if Rapp was ranked 50th you'd be saying so yourself. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuval Bronshtein was a lot more notable, and his article was deleted, so no consensus here doesn't mean a bunch more junk like this can be created. It just means the AFD process is goofy. 2005 (talk) 07:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually,I would put Stefan ahead of Yuval. Yuval's only claim to any notoriety was 3 online tournaments, and winning two back to back. At least Stefan has won a tournament that is monitored by poker cites. It still is not a major tournament, but it is listed. FTOPS is not, so Yuval is purely a BIO1E.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:00, 28 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 deletion (G7). -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana Season 3 Concert[edit]

because i got a warning Britneyistoxic (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - obviously this user, who created the article, wants the page deleted, so let's DB it as per Criteria G7. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:15, 21 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 The result was speedy deletion. Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 15:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael D. Genseal[edit]

Non-notable personality. No references given to assert notability, nor can any be found. It should be noted that the lead paragraph is also a copyvio of http://www.linkedin.com/in/genseal. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; pure self-promotion with no indication of notability. The "Legends in Energy" awards appear to be handed out rather liberally; it is no more a distinction than being a Kentucky Colonel is. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search returns no results other than a couple listing 'Michael' as an executive. Additionally, we should delete this as it fails the "significant coverage", "reliable" and "independent of the subject" criteria of the notability guideline. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, JulieSpaulding said it better than I could. Non-notable, zero sources. Drawn Some (talk) 18:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and support those that work behind the scenes to make our county strong* Support members of small communities who support the larger good of the nation. Don't let our community be know for murder victims and sportscasters. By the way, Mr. Genseal has been a guest at the White House, and has advised several national leaders on energy policy. Clearly, the notable members of our community are not notable to you. We have removed the linkedin reference. We felt the external link would be helpful but never intended it to promote anyone or anything.

--RealReview (talk) 21:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE IN RESPONSE TO POTENTIAL DELETION* - <personal attack removed - Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Wikipedia should provide access to a world of information. Everyone's world. Even small town folks who have contributed to the betterment of our world. If you have suggestions for improving the article, share them. Sharing the accomplishments of a few noteworthy members of a community is the right thing to do and is consistent with Wikipedia's mission. We apologize for clearing the talk page. We were unaware that was an issue and felt the information posted by Dan was inflammatory. We would expect that this response will not be deleted. Our committee deeply regrets offending you! Don't delete our articles and leave our community represented only by reference to murder victims and sportscasters. We and our residents are much more than that and Wikipedia's users deserve to know that. --RealReview (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realreview (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete. No reliable sources. There is only one Google hit for this person. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep*~~ There are in fact over 100 google hits for Michael Genseal and other variations of that name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realreview (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one vote per user, please. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to parrot the "Ghits" line, but my (real) name had 1600 Google hits the last time I checked, all but one or two of them me, and there's no entry for me on Wikipedia, nor does there need to be. Gross number of hits means very little. Hairhorn (talk) 02:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... Sorry, I didn't read back far enough to get the context of the debate over hits. There are plenty of hits if you take his middle initial out. But the first hit is his LInkedIn page [52], which for me, shows that he's not notable. So he's been in senior management in a couple companies, so what? Hairhorn (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only get 49 Google hits for "Michael Genseal", none of them reliable. And the single Google news hit for that name is not .. um .. flattering. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please delete this informaiton from your website. I did not give permission to be listed. I am flattered that my fellow Escalonians feel I should be included, but I am not a famous person. Thank you, Michael Genseal --M Genseal (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author (Realreview) has replaced the content of the article with a request that it be deleted, so I tagged it db-G7. 66.57.4.17 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been speedied. But I hope someone will take up the issue of permission: Mr. Genseal seems to be under the impression that we need his permission to talk about him. Hairhorn (talk) 15:09, 25 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. One two three... 15:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Apan[edit]

This singer-songwriter appears to have received no significant coverage in reliable sources. See this all-dates Google news search and a web search. In addition, the primary editor of this article, whose username is the same as the subject's record label) appears to have a CoI, indicating less than objective article creation criteria in the first place. Bongo matic 13:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to comment below, here is an enumeration of currently listed sources:

Interview on RAYSREALM. Blog—not reliable source.
Whispers Want to Holler in Pittsburgh Post Gazette. No suggestion of significant coverage.
Celestial Voices. Blog—not reliable source.
Review on Eufonia Radio and Reviews. Appears to be a blog—not reliable source.
Music World Radio. User comment—not reliable source.
Ray's Realm Webzine Top 10 in 2008. Blog—not reliable source.
The Rising Sun Interview 2007. Blog/self-published—not reliable source.
Sea of Tranquility Webzine. Not reliable source.
Metal Maidens. Not reliable source.

All Music Guide. No suggestion of significant coverage (unable to find anything beyond directory listing of including overview, discography, and songs—no reviews, biography, charts, or awards).
Tiffany to appear with Rockabilly Hall of Fame artist, Chuck Owston on Blood and Thunder album. Trivial coverage (of specific sort not admissible for notability per WP:MUSIC) in non-reliable source.
Women in Music Interview with Shelia M. Goss. Not reliable source.
Poetry In Motion by Ray Dorsey. Blog—not reliable source.
Interview with the Music Freelancer. Blog—not reliable source.

Bongo matic 08:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable multi-talented entertainer, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Drawn Some (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First of all, PoetsLabyrinth is not the first record label to give an artist a Wikipedia page so I don't see what that has to do with anything. Second, the artist does have a growing fan following worldwide. The article is still new and there are still a good deal of articles that still have yet to go up. While I understand where the nominator is coming from (for example, the artist has not done anything like winning a grammy), there are a few other artists with similar articles and coverage to this artist on this site that have not been deleted or appear to be up for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoetsLabyrinth (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of articles that should be deleted, but haven't yet been noticed, or differ from the article you wrote on key points. Read up on WP:MUSIC and it should be easy to get the article up to scratch. Also, WP:COI, while not a reason for deletion, is still an issue that deserves your attention. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least until the nominator can explain why they don't consider the list of sources included in the article to be significant or reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks Mgm. I will look at that. There are plenty of artists that have reviews and such listed as sources. And as for the Music World Radio source, that was written by one of the station's DJs (DJ Grumpy) and not simply a 'user' on the stations site. Eufonia Radio APPEARS to be a blog? Well it either is or it isn't. Thanks again, Mgm. I will be looking into your suggestion. As I said, this article is still new and I will admit, does need revising. User;PoetsLabyrinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.202.136 (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As someone who is very new to Wikipedia, I'm still learning to use the services properly. Mgm gave me some suggestions and I'm open to any others. As for the sources, they are completely independant of the artist and her affiliates. They are NOT from the artist's personal blog or space. The articles were written by individuals who were strangers to the artist and those related to her personally and professionally nor are they endorsements. The ones I might agree might be a little questionable (as per the WP Guidlines) are the interviews and those can always be removed if not acceptable. As also per the guidlines (particularly for music)trivial sources seem to include things such as performance dates, release dates, contact info, and things of that nature. I don't think any of the sources so far that were called trivial have that in them. The Visions Magazine Online article involves the artist being SPOKEN OF by another artist with whom she is to work. The artist has also recieved rotation nationally and internationally on several radio stations and is starting to get tv rotation. She was also the subject 2 times on radio shows that have pretty big national and international followings. She has also appeared in films with several notables including a former daytime soap actress and former Twisted Sister frontman, Dee Snider. She does also have a growing fan following worldwide and is even up for a few awards. As I said before, I'm still tweaking the article, gathering sources, citations, and trying to make the notable parts not appear like an advertisement. I'm going to continue the revision. As I said, if anyone has any suggestions I'm more than willing to take them. Thanks. PoetsLabyrinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoetsLabyrinth (talk • contribs) 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — PoetsLabyrinth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as the lack of contributions go, it's because we are still new to Wikipedia. This account has only been active for barely a little over a month and we don't have time to spend all day on the computer. I have asked for help and pointers so we can not only make the articles we create turn out well but so we also make good contributions to the site. This is not the only article we plan to work on. We're still learning the ropes. Give us time and a chance, please.-PoetsLabyrinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoetsLabyrinth (talk • contribs) 02:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, the record of your contributions indicates that your presence in Wikipedia is solely to introduce promotional material into Wikipedia, material that you have an economic interest in, an activity discouraged by Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. In fact, your edit record shows that you have abundant time to spend making such edits to the encyclopedia. Bongo matic 02:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't prove anything except that the account is only a month old. Case in point, I'm a newcomer. As I stated before, this is not the only record label that has created a Wiki page for an artist. I can name a couple others, but I'm not out to throw people under the bus. How can you make a judgment based on only a month's worth of records? I can understand if the account was a few months old and this was still the only article we had done. I have actually visited other areas on Wikipedia and have been trying to read up on the guidlines. There are other musical artists', actors' (with whom we have no affiliation and are merely fans of), and topics' articles that I have paid quick visits to and plan to edit and add to but haven't had time yet seeing as I've had to try and fix this article as it was nominated for deletion. As a result, I pretty much had to spend more time fixing this article instead of contributing to the other articles I would like to. We are attempting to write this in accordance with Wikipedia guidlines. As for the abundance of time, well..once again, I sort of had to make more time seeing as the article was nominated for deletion. In a way, this kind of was a good thing because it kind of forced me to read up on Wiki guidelines and attempt to learn quicker. I was given some pointers by some other users that I have been trying to put to use. Like I said, please give us time and a chance.-PoetsLabyrinth

I didn't say "prove", I said "indicate" and "show". And the edit record (and the comment above) demonstrate that topics you have an economic tie to are your primary motives for editing. There is no rebuttal to the WP:COI point—even the use of the word "we" and the phrase "had to" indicate a corporate purpose. Bongo matic 03:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting this article was one of the reasons for joining Wikipedia, I'll admit but I also wanted to contribute to other articles I'm interested in too. The main reason for starting this article was because several of the artist's peers have Wikipedia pages (see some of the internal links in the article) and the artist has a growing fanbase who want to know more about her and I'm sure that's part of why some other labels began wiki pages about their artists as well. Advertisement had nothing to do with it. If I wanted to use this as a means to simply advertise the artist, I would have started this article alot sooner (ie when the debut full length album came out) as the artist has been around alot longer than the article has been and her debut album has been out for a little over a year, the EPs are about two years old, and some of the other projects are actually older than the EPs. Like I said, the account is only a month old so it doesn't indicate anything. Maybe if the article wasn't up for deletion, I could spend more time with other articles. I believe I'm doing what alot people would do if their article was up for deletion: trying to fix it so that it does meet Wikipedian guidlines. Maybe starting with this article wasn't the wisest move (and I'm clearly learning the hard way) but don't the guidlines also say that going in and accusing someone of such things also discouraged? Doesn't it also encourage welcoming a newcomer and helping them improve their articles? While there may not be a rebuttal to the COI, another experienced Wiki user stated above that while such a thing is cause for attention but not a reason for deletion. I've started editing other articles and hope to continue to do so and end this conversation. But I do thank you for actually helping me become a better editor:)-PoetsLabyrinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoetsLabyrinth (talk • contribs) 04:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with help from Bongomatic analysis the subject lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Radio rotation section lacks sourcing and there is no indication that any is nationally by any major radio network. Nothing else in wp:music appears to be satisfied. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I decided I just might erase the content and let the admins do the rest. I could argue this til we're all blue in the face, but it just isn't worth the headache. Thank you.--PoetsLabyrinth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.202.136 (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BUT, I will say that the wp:music is satisfied by appearing on compilation CDs including the Cats n Clawz compilation CD (which is sited) that is released through Fireworks Magazine, a long running and adequately popular music magazine in the United Kingdom that has interviewed bands such as Queensryche and The Darkness (see external link in the article). She also had a column written about her in Fireworks when she appeared on the Cats n Clawz comp CD. I also believe that recieving a half hour long or more worth of coverage on a nationally known radio show also satisfies wp:music. The artist was the subject of two nationally known radio shows. In December of 2006, she was the subject for an interview segment on Deadpit radio and in 2008, the Backseat Mogul Show (see external link). I'm still hunting for a citation for the latter; but if you visit Deadpit radio's wiki page and view their links and even just go to their website, you will see that Deadpit radio has a significany cult following, has interviewed many notables, and they have over 100,000 listeners. The Deadpit radio archives (which offer the dates of the artist's appearance and well as the appearance of her music) also prove that such events did take place. Now, if one is considering things likeRolling Stone as the only adequate sources, then these may not be acceptable. But, I do feel that these are notable sources as they all have significant followings, are notable in their field, and have gained access to interviews with several notables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PoetsLabyrinth (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MacMed^{talk to me!}_{what have i done?} 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. I'll give kudos to the article's author for keeping a level head (refreshing from the other two AFDs I've seen where people have gone full blown drama mode), and to Ms. Apan for appearing in a Troma film. =) Unfortunately, I hate to say it, but the nom is right, there aren't any reliable sources, regretfully. No prejudice to recreation once we find something. I'll note to PoetsLabyrinth, as well, that it's no big issue to recreate an article once we get those sources and/or we can prove notability, if the article is deleted - we either just create a new one (thus the userfy) or undelete it through WP:DRV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:46, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 05:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McConomy[edit]

This article has been tagged for 'notability concerns' since March, and these have not yet been addressed. I don't think a simple college professor qualifies as notable? JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One might think that he wouldn't be notable being an average-Joe professor but the professor-article people will check to see how often he's been cited or if he's published a book or two, depending on the field, and he'll be notable. There are special ways to search for citations to yield the correct results so you should wait until they report back before making any hasty conclusions. Drawn Some (talk) 10:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This search might be what you're refering to.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are no articles in the mainspace that have links to this article. JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Utterly ordinary resume for a university professor. Hairhorn (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks more like a cv than an encyclopedia article. I see no evidence in the article that he passes WP:PROF, and Google news and Google scholar searches didn't turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough substance for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I see that the article does list some journal publications, but none of them are in Web of Science according to the most liberal query: "Author=(McConomy B*)". It's possible that said journals are not widely distributed or recognized. However, taken with David Eppstein's findings that he's not in any of the Google resources either, a fairly strong case of non-notability on WP:PROF seems to have formed. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:00, 26 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. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loggepils[edit]

Was prodded as "neologism or inside joke", but the prod was removed without explanation. (The corresponding Norwegian article was speedily deleted on May 16th.) — the Sidhekin (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR/WP:NEO, not terribly amusing even. Drawn Some (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bull. Punkmorten (talk) 19:18, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NERD Magazine[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable publication. I've tried finding sources to prove notability but so far have only been able to come up with about 10 hits on Google. Ridernyc (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw no relevant news coverage at Google's news archives. Delete unless improved. Alexius08 (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy, I can't find anything for a reliable resource either. It's in English so language shouldn't be an issue. No doubt it will be notable within the year. Drawn Some (talk) 10:17, 21 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. Jamie^☆S93 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JLS Discography[edit]

Since I have already tried to do the diplomatic thing and redirect the first version of this article JLS_discography and the user has simply recreated this article I'm bring it here. There is no reason for a band with no albums and only one single to have a discography page. Ridernyc (talk) 07:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (for now, at least) - I wouldn't even call the single on there their own: they only did a part of it, as it featured all of the X-Factor finallists last year. But I agree - there's no point in a discography for an appearance on one song (regardless of where it made). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above comments. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 09:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the fact that it is not needed yet, have you seen how poorly this is written? Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 20:21, 21 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 00:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Behind Us[edit]

Whole article is nothing more than plot summary with no sources, no attempt to explain why anyone should care, etc. Should be deleted just like the recently deleted related article Days Gone Bye (AfD discussion here) Astronaut (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons given above:

Astronaut (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the contents just show that it is miles behind our standards. Alexius08 (talk) 09:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of them. Unreferenced WP:OR. I found this sentence amusing: "After having sex with Billy she goes outside and allows the captured zombie to bite her on the neck." so I searched for it and came up with the article posted as a description for the book on sale and the ending date of the sale listing was prior to the creation of the article so there is a chance these are all somehow a copyright violation. See here. Drawn Some (talk) 10:23, 21 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. Cirt (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spell-checking other languages[edit]

This is basically a review of the difficulties of spell checkers of non-English languages. It's very unencyclopedic and it violates the idea that Wikipedia is not a critical guide or a place for personal essays. It's also very POV. Just not a suitable Wikipedia article. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 05:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki? Clearly not an encyclopedic article, but it would be a pity to lose it. Would it fit somewhere else like Wikibooks, perhaps? (Even then, it would have to be heavily revised. For example, the claim that "house" in German means different things depending on the used gender is simply not true.) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cnilep (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia. It also appears to be original research: "In this article some language spell checkers are tested and their difficulties defined." I'm leaning toward deletion. Cnilep (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student essay. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is such a pity, but delete. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this person has worked very much to create this article, so what about just transfer this to another article where it fits better as complemnetary information. I think that spell checking page there would have place as there is a part with the same title.--88.15.217.36 (talk) 19:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger into spell-checking or userfication may be appropriate actions for the closing sysop. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well-written, but I've looked through this and I conclude that most of this is not actually about spell-checking. It's a very good article about the grammatical structure of the various languages-- English, Italian, French, Spanish and Basque-- and each of these would be a good addition to the individual articles about those languages. I don't want to drive away a new editor who has much to contibute, but I see a variety of problems with housing this info in an article about spell-checking of other languages, even though the essay-style writing could be upgraded to Wikipedia's encyclopedic style. Mandsford (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is not what you expect, but I think that deleting an article is not a solution, we can develop it until we turn it into a perfect article suitable for wikipedia. The research work we did was hard and I do think we do not deserve our urticle being deleted directly. I think we can contribute with wikipedia more for the following years but I will not if my articles are deleted. This is not a threat but I will be very disappointed. I ask for few weeks so we can improve it and I will thak the help of those wikipedia's fan who do know how to write it. --Gorka (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the solution is for us to help you to "userfy" this so that you can improve it as your schedule permits. I recognize that this is your first article submitted to Wikipedia, and it's a worthwhile topic. To "move it to user space", you would create an article called "User:Gorka lozano/Spell-checking other languages", and you would have virtually unlimited time (not just a few weeks) to improve it, then introduce it again when it is in the form that you want it to be. I'd add that you write very well. There are problems that we see in sourcing and in what is referred to, around here, as "original research", but these are fixable. If you want to know more about how to userfy, leave a note on my talk page, or the talk page of anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 16:24, 25 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Kiss[edit]

non-notable pornographic actress. First criteria of WP:PORNBIO is not satisfied as she didn't win nor have nominations in multiple years. Trivial coverage in American porn trade journals, AVN and XBIZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the first criteria supposed to mean that they must have won during multiple years or been nominated in multiple years? Or does it mean that they must have won just once or have been nominated in multiple years? To me, it could be read both ways and I was reading it the second way when I contested the prod. Dismas|^(talk) 11:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The second way. That award listed is just an award nomination. She has not won anything yet and I believe she's already retired. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She has a good head on her shoulders so maybe we should just let her slide. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any evidence of meeting either the GNG or PORNBIO. No usable coverage found, just passing mention in movie reviews.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:05, 25 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, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't have a bio without sources. Rd232 ^talk 00:13, 29 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 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland – United Arab Emirates relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. close to no coverage except again football relations [53] I did find that the Irish Prime Minister did visit earlier this year in a flying 2 day visit which included meeting the UAE leaders and visiting Irish jockeys. this one visit doesn't make for an article though. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of sufficient in-depth coverage of the foreign relations between Ireland and UAE to establish notability for this topic. Even the two countries don't think their relationship important enough to establish embassies or even consulates. The fact that Ireland has a visa facilitation office in Dubai yet no consulate shows that they deliberately did not want one there. If that visa office is significant it can be mentioned in other articles. Drawn Some (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Ireland and UAE respectively- the ocntent is worth keeping but it's certainly not enough for an article in its own right. HJMitchell You rang? 21:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Nominator's search shows that there's not much to speak of. If the information about offices (they go through the nations' respective embassies in Saudi Arabia and the UK) isn't already in the two articles referred to by HJM, mention it there before the seven day waiting period expires. Mandsford (talk) 01:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drawn Some said it all here. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no mutual embassies, Google searches don't bring up much. feydey (talk) 08:51, 23 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. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Recreation of deleted page. Still no (non-wiki type) WP:RS's to Verify the existance of this meaning. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I messed up the AFD templates, so here is the link to the Original AFD, that closed as a Speedy. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of water spirits in Bengali folklore. The irony is that whereas this is not a documented one, we actually don't cover the ones that are documented. Documented Bengali water spirits include Jate Buddi and Jakh (ISBN 9781406705959 page 76). We have very little coverage of this part of the world and its vast array of water spirits, gods, goblins, and ghosts, in fact. We don't have Nāga Era, a water spirit that lives in tanks and stagnant pools, and is believed by the Kols to be the embodiment of malaria, or Garha Era, a Kol river goddess (The Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India, W. Crooke), or anything about Shankhinies or Matas or Bāk (a Assamese water spirit of deserted tanks) or Dot (a water spirit of canals and tanks). We don't even have Kwaz (the Muslim pir of fishermen and water).
None of the sources that document these things make any mention of Maal, however. And the purported source in this article is an anonymously-written wiki. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~A recreated article can be speedy tagged with ((db-repost)).~~ --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Not applicable because the article was speedied the first time. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be deleted This article should not be deleted on the basis that it is not a "Bengali" legendary creature. The fact is it is,documented evidence is rare because it is specific to the rural areas of Sylhet where oral tradition is much more common. Ask Sylheti rural people about the maal, they will give you an answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NarlySai (talk • contribs) 19:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And therein lies the problem. Wikipedia cannot rely on an oral confirmation. Wikipedia needs to be able to point a reader towards Something as a confirmation of the information it provides to the general population. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:03, 24 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. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myzery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Poorly-constructed, unsourced, recreation of previously deleted article. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Some ties to a notable band and label, but his discography includes such highlights as discs given away in the audience at somone else's show, and discs sold out of the back of a van. (Don't make me say "put it out of its myzery"....) Hairhorn (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. cuntserver (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 28 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 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Tunisia relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies, no actual bilateral agreements [54]. Seems like their only relationship is on the football field. [55] LibStar (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random X-Y intersection article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based on nominator's search that has revealed nothing notable outside sport. Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Foreign relations of Croatia. What information there is can be copied to the merged article. Generally it is more constructive with these country pair stubs, and less time-consuming for other editors, to merge content and redirect than to nominate the stubs for deletion. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the topic at hand. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:49, 22 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 List of Hannah Montana characters. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Dolly[edit]

PROD deleted twice. PROD for "Not notable as a fictional character - only appears in 2 episodes. Dolly is covered in the article List of Hannah Montana characters." NrDg 02:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Notability of article was claimed to be because notable actress portrayed the character. Suggest redirect to character entry in List of Hannah Montana characters --NrDg 02:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hannah Montana characters. If Dolly gets her own article then we would need 20 others, just to be fair. Pigby (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hannah Montana characters. Very minor character, and no real-world notability as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect per the above reasons. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 06:08, 21 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 Withdrawing by nom same with the last nomination i was concerned about the sources but have been notified about them. Kyle1278 01:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

YouTube user(s) that dose not pass WP:notability or WP:web there are only 3 external references one leading to a MySpace page another to there YouTube Channel and to one of their video's no outside reliable sources are present to establish their notability. Kyle1278 02:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable per AfD #2 Sceptre ^(talk) 07:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- As Sceptre points out, sources were provided in the last AFD that conclusively prove notability. The fact that they're not in the article is not cause for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK thats good for me Withdrawing Nom but it think the sources should be added to prevent further nominations. Kyle1278 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 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 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International T-Shirt Day[edit]

Wikipedia is not the place to promote a marketing gimmick dreamed up by Spreadshirt. A search reveals it is only mentioned in sites affiliated with Spreadshirt, and the usual slew of blogs, forums and other unreliable sources. Can find no write up in reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. Astronaut (talk) 02:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable marketing gimmick. Doesn't have a place here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as a poorly-sourced article about a hardly-celebrated holiday. Alexius08 (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wp:coatrack. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 09:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as promotional spam. Worse that it pretends to be something else. Drawn Some (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it really is nothing more than spam. Racingfan1923 (talk) The only thing that matters is drag racing! 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11, unambiguous advertising. We might as well have an article about a summer sale at Penney's. Mandsford (talk) 01:25, 22 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 deleted. Non-admin closure. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 02:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rival Gaming[edit]

Non-notable company; speedy removed by an IP 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 02:10, 21 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. There isn't really a consensus between the target (Commercial off-the-shelf or Ready-to-wear), so I'll be WP:BOLD and create a disambiguation page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also moved the page to Off-the-shelf for consistency, by the way. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Off the shelf[edit]

Dicdef, can't be expanded beyond what this already says. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki ceranthor 23:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Commercial off-the-shelf, add a disambig to Ready to wear at the top of that page, and expand Wiktionary's entry using some of the content here. Fences and windows (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Commercial off-the-shelf and investigate relationship with prefabrication and/or fast moving consumer goods. Z a bM i l e n k o 13:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling "Off the shelf" reveals 5,380,000 results. The term is commonly used. Dream Focus 01:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ready-to-wear as is done with Off the rack; the article itself says that these terms are "equivalent". JJL (talk) 02:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ready-to-wear as JJL suggests-- this is a reasonable synonym. The non-fashion usages are merely dictionary definitions, while ready-to-wear is a meaningful category (market segment) of clothing. Avram (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it redirects to Ready-to-wear, there should be a "Off the shelf" redirects here, see also Commercial off-the-shelf notice. Fences and windows (talk) 18:05, 21 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. Tone 19:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Baywatch and Baywatch Nights cast members[edit]

All content is listed on the respective Article pages. No sorting or "Additional Info". All edits I would classify as Technical edits (including the Bot creation of this List), not editor contributions (but just enough to not be speedy IMO). With all due respect to WP:CLS, this list does not provide any more info than could be and are better provided by the inline "lists" that are currently on the Article pages (Baywatch & Baywatch Nights and even Cast of Baywatch) of which this list seems to be a simple 4th repetition of the same info. Not a very viable search term. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 14:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or convert list into category per nomination. There is already information in the three articles mentioned. --w^L^{<speak·check>} 15:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning as well as that of WikiLeon. Drawn Some (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whatever happens to the list, this is not eligible to be converted to a category per WP:OC#Performers by performance. Otto4711 (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Masochists & Speed-readers amongst us, the 116Kb debate that the original ":Cat to List" action User:RobotG followed direction from, is located at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_25#Category:Actors_by_series. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 21:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is valid. The format could be improved though. Baywatch Nights isn't listed elsewhere. And Cast of Baywatch, should be List of Baywatch cast members, to meet wikipedia naming standards. Dream Focus 21:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOT and actual notable cast is already covered in the main Baywatch Nights article, as is appropriate. Just throwing a list of minor cast into a list is neither useful nor a valid "split" from either it nor the existing main list. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a useful list, and as has been pointed out, the main casts are already listed in the relevant TV series articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Already covered. Redundant information. Diana LeCrois : 16:42, 21 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahbooballah[edit]

I cannot find a single reference for this saint using Google News and Google Books, for the saint's name nor for his birth name. Drmies (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 03:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try Mahboobullah instead of Mahbooballah and there are likely other spellings as well in the Roman alphabet. I can't really tell if he is notable or not, I am inclined to say that he is but references are not available in English to verify the entire article which is very informal in tone. Someone needs to search in appropriate languages. Drawn Some (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. Changing the spelling does not produce any sufi saints either, and that's where it ends for me. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per notability and verifiability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Sufi saint may well be genuine, but I could not locate a single reliable source that would confirm that, despite trying several spelling variations. Its likely that non-English sources exist, but we cannot simply presume that and retain the article. No objection to userification if someone wishes to spend more time looking for sources. Abecedare (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikireader41 (talk) 15:46, 24 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, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce McKay[edit]

as per Wikipedia:BLP1E#Articles_about_people_notable_only_for_one_event LibStar (talk) 00:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with nom. This is BLP1E. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:37, 21 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 Mage: The Ascension. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nephandi[edit]

This article tries to be a game guide and it contains no reliable sources that discuss this material from an out-of-universe perspective as required by WP:WAF. There has to be real-world relevance to aspects of fiction and my online searches can't find any significance of the subject of Nephandi apart from its parent game so the scope of the article fails WP:N. It also dives into much original research and speculation. In essence, this topic hasn't recieved the attention it needs to be the focus of an encyclopedic article that uses reliable sources and not original research, and since the merge tag hasn't been responded to in over a year the best course of action would be to delete this. Them From Space 07:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Them From Space 07:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mage: The Ascension. Edward321 (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki somewhere else. I'm not sure there'd be much to merge into the Mage article, but that could work too. Fundamentally, though this piece as it exists now belongs in some other wiki. Jclemens (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mage: The Ascension. If there's anything useful to merge, it can be recovered from the redirect's edit history. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:16, 21 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zine (weblog software)[edit]

Non-notable software. Fails WP:N, WP:WEB, and WP:RS. Google returns nothing of interest. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 15:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: "I don't feel like arguing". (Have a look a [56]). FranklinPiat (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments - (1) The word "zine" is popular in its own right, so any Google searches will be rife with noise-- more so if you search for "zine blog". (2) Looking at the official site, I'm a bit perplexed. It says it's written in Python, but it looks like a Wordpress clone of some sort. Not quite sure what to think. In any case, it probably doesn't meet our notability criteria. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Just drop the page (I suppose it could be reverted/rewritten if the software becomes popular) FranklinPiat (talk) 09:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the name makes it difficult to search for soruces but using Zine with a various qualifiers doesn't turn up any sourcing that indicates notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a useful reference to a useful piece of software. Vivelequebeclibre (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is this usefulness documented in reliable sources? -- Whpq (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The software doesn't seem to meet the notability guidelines. — Rankiri (talk) 16:20, 28 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, being bold. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weishaar[edit]

Delete unref'd oneliner about a surname, without any indication that it, among the millions, is notable in any way shape or form. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ray Weishaar. When/if we get any more Weishaars, it can become a dabpage. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 21 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Share icon[edit]

Does not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB, or WP:GNG. Coverage seems limited to blogs. decltype (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To *establish notability* in a case like a standardized icon project, greater weight should be placed on verifying actual adoption vs. raw media coverage (articles). Regardless, the icon has both. The icon has been adopted (published) by several sizable (not temporary) independent websites and applications, including princeton.edu, networkworld.com (owned by IDG, which also publishes PCWorld, MACWorld, etc), smugmug.com, shareaholic.com, etc. These sites can be visited by anyone to verify adoption/the evidence, and hence establish notability. To address Impact or historical significance per WP:WEB - this was part of the original wikipedia article, which was later deleted by another editor, and could be re-instated. -- Microchip911 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In which case one would think that coming up with non-trivial mentions of the project itself would be easy. I'm not saying they don't exist, but a fairly thorough search didn't reveal anything. auto / decltype (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to highlight a couple more references from Google - Mentioned and linked from Official GeoTag Icons site, Covered in Smashing Magazine, a premier resource for web designers, Coverage of website adopting the icon in a prominent technology blog, Blog post by the creator of the standardized Geotag Icons, SmugMug.com's announcement, Google Search - Microchip911 (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 05:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google searches seem to indicate that this is indeed in use by a number of high profile sites and is a very popular project. It also appears the original 'Share icon' is now under a free license so it might make sense to expand this article to include information about both the 'Share icon' and 'Open Share icon'. From what I see this is likely to become as commonplace as the RSS icon. Tothwolf (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - coverage is not substantial, and in some cases, not even from reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:05, 25 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. keep rationales refer to potential notability, which is insufficient Fritzpoll (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup[edit]

Not notable except as a new edition of Loose Change (film); possible inappropriate title for technical reasons — NRen2k5^(TALK), 02:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Slashes, as far as I can tell, are acceptable in article titles (e.g. Nip/Tuck). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While setting the AfD procedure in motion I saw some indications that the article was being listed as “11: An American Coup” rather than the correct “Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup”. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I fixed it for you, no idea why it messed up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure by the way it messed up that the forward slash is the immediate cause. Exactly why, I don’t know. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 08:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this article should be deleted; it's an entirely new film - budget, celebrity involvement, and distribution. This films budget is 3.5m as opposed to the 2,000 in the first two. It deserves its own article. — 68.116.136.15

I think this ongoing discussion is also relevant here. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 01:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a new film? which has not become notable? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Once notability is verifiable via reliable third party sources, we can then have an article. The article is currently referenced off press releases. Dlohcierekim 02:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per lankivel. Thanks, I'd not thought of NFF. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominated). Not notable beyond its association with the original Loose Change film, especially at this point in time. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 03:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, perhaps fails WP:NFF, and definitely fails WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when the film is released, if anyone notices. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, this is of sufficient interest - the previous version drew 100,000 viewers a day on the Internet, so this has the potential to become a massive blockbuster, given the amount of money they are spending on it compared to previous versions. Furthermore, links to future films are often listed on Wikipedia, and this one even has a confirmed release date. So keep. It's particularly relevant, Wikipedia being an online facility, and this film being so popular among the online community Tris2000 (talk) 14:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interest is not notability, though I dare say that has not been demonstrated. And just because there are other future-film articles on Wikipedia does not mean we should have this one. It has not shown to be notable via [[WP:RS|reliable 3rd party sources unconnected w/ the subject. Potential is not the same as notable. If it lives up to this potential, then perhaps it will then be notable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Just because something’s done with other subjects doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s acceptable. It could be unacceptable and someone just got away with it. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 20:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, It's a film with a budget surpassing most documentaries; it has celerity endorsement and worldwide distribution (unlike the previous films). Keep.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.115.6 (talk • contribs) Dlohcierekim 01:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show verifiable information from reliable sources supporting the the notability of the subject? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t quite understand the comparison between the cost of Loose Change AC and that of documentaries. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 07:48, 28 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 to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Colombo. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Theresa's Church Colombo[edit]

Non-notable church, no claims of notability. My db-org tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I don't have time right now to research this, this church looks historic, perhaps established in the Portuguese era (1517-1693), and seems particularly noteworthy for being a Catholic church in an overwhelmingly Buddhist and Hindu nation. --Oakshade (talk) 17:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see Talk:St_Theresa's_Church_Colombohang on till historic information is added --shalindar

Merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Colombo, nothing in the article or even the church website to indicate this is notable enough to have a stand-alone article. – Zedla (talk) 23:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Zedla. Dlohcierekim 02:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or as a second choice redirect per Zedla. I don't see any evidence that this parish was established in the Portuguese era, or at least there is no such claim on the parish's web site. Nor does the existence of a Catholic church in a mostly Buddhist country establish notability; there are 141 Catholic churches in Sri Lanka. [57] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:04, 21 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gentle Strength Quarterly[edit]

Non-notable art journal. A Google News Archive search returns no results. A Google search also returns no reliable sources to source this article. Cunard (talk) 01:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Published three issues only and the article makes no assertion of importance or significance for the journal. Drawn Some (talk) 05:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to establish notability via a Google search for significant coverage by reliable third party sources with verifiable information. This included Google News, Google Scholar, Google Books, and Google Web. As Drawnsome says above. Does the artlice not assert insignificance? Dlohcierekim 02:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability; possibly rd to David Kowalczyk. JJL (talk) 02:05, 21 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. Tone 19:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Cat BBS[edit]

Article prodded because "While it exists and is (or mainly was) in use, I could not find any reliable independent indepth sources about BCBBS. Fails WP:N." Contested without improvements because "predates web". Prod contesting does not require a good reason or any improvements, so here we are. Taking the exact name of the Wikipedia article, we have no Google News hits[58], one passing mention in Google Books[59], and 42 distinct Google hits[60], most of them porn sites, some of them passing 'or commercial) mentions in reliable sources like ZNet or Commodore World (I checked the last one[61], and it gets a mention in a long list of BBS's, nothing more.) When you change the search terms, you get many, many more results, but the vast majority of these seems utterly unrelated.[62]. So the article makes no claims to notability, and I couldn't find any either. Fram (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coming up empty handed after a fairly exhaustive search would seem to indicate that this software was not notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete; as above, fails notability criteria. Dialectric (talk) 13:49, 21 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.