< 24 May	26 May >

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York[edit]

The list is based on a census-designated place. CDPs do not have static boundaries unlike cities, towns, villages , townships, counties or states. The Census Bureau could redefine the boundaries of Amenia at any time for any reason, or even abolish the designation completely. As such, to use a CDP as a geographic limit is not wise. The list includes only 4 items, and given the CDP criterion for defining the list, it's overcategorized. Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator in that this is excessively unnecessary. Moreover, it should be demoted from featured status due to the implementation of WP:WIAFL #3b. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York/archive1. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been delisted. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary list per nom. Have we ever gone and entirely deleted a featured article or list before? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ - info is still useful. Should be merged into Amenia (CDP), New York. Geraldk (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Polaron merged the useful info.Geraldk (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I would hate to see a FL get deleted, this list covers four numbered roads in a CDP of 1,115 people. It is unnessecary for lists of highways to exist for every little community such as Amenia, they only need to exist for counties or larger cities. Dough4872 (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some (the history section perhaps?) into Amenia (CDP), New York, but not all of it or we'll overwhelm that article. Hate to do it because it is well-written, but the CDP isn't nearly large enough to justify a list like this. BryanG (talk) 04:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to straight-up delete. Polaron is right, there's really nothing further to merge at this point. BryanG (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't someone simply mention in the article about Anemia, New York, that U.S. 44, State highways 22 and 343, and county road 81 run through it? Mandsford (talk) 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from mentioning which roads run through the hamlet (already done), the rest of the content of the list (including the history section) is already mentioned in the individual highway articles. There is nothing left to merge. --Polaron | Talk 13:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All necessary information appears to have already been moved to Amenia (CDP), New York. just a little insignificant 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Polaron. This article is completely unnecessary. – TMF 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. How was this ever a featured status article? Amenia is a nice place, I've been there, but this is far too much trivia for such a small place. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per all reasons above. –CG 21:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. Also to note, cities don't have static boundaries either, see San Antonio's city limit changes over the years. --Holderca1^talk 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cities aren't static, but they are less arbitrary than the boundaries of a CDP. The process to change the boundaries of a city is more involved than a bureaucratic/statistical redefinition in a far-flung office someplace. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:17, 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 Speedily deleted A7 - no sources or assertion of notability. Mfield (Oi!) 00:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federalist National Party[edit]

This article does not appear to have any links or other third party sources to indicate notability Aardvark31 (talk) 23:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Admits non-notability through "Other than a Web site, the party has not been known via third-party sources to have attracted any sort of membership base." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:24, 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. Jamie^☆S93 21:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donor cycle[edit]

WP:NOTDIC Donorcycle entry [1] exists on Wiktionary, as it should. Not going to be expanded beyond stub. Dbratland (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced neologism. Barely suitable for wiktionary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evb and dbratland. No reliable sources to establish notability besides as a dictionary entry. tedder (talk) 01:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)`[reply]
Delete, probably not suitable for wiktionary either, a neologism of condescending slang: "Donor cycle" is a term used by persons in the emergency medical field as a nickname for a motorcycle. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a neologism -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decline of women in computer science in Canada[edit]

Procedural nom for IP editor: rationale from talk page :"This article should be deleted since it simply asserts that the number of women in computer science is decreasing, without given any numbers relating to this change--much less any citations. If it is true that this assertion is not supported by any evidence, of course it should be deleted. Otherwise, citations to the evidence or at least some un-cited statistics (showing a decline) should be given." I have no opinion at present. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Women in computing and give more of a world focus and less focus on Canada. this subject is notable and has as chance of being improved. There are some references there with some numbers as well. --RadioFan (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd article. In the first section, a number of statistics are given, and only one appears to show evidence of a decline; everything else shows evidence only of a gender imbalance, which is not really news to anyone. The references are an 11 year old article, a cache of a deleted UBC page, and a 12 year old article in "Communications of the ACM". I can't get the cached page to load, but neither of the other two articles make any mention of Canada. Finally, the last reference is a Statistics Canada publication, but it's about gender differences in learning new computer skills, not about school enrollment. Growing gender imbalance in computing is an interesting issue, which could be covered somewhere in Wikipedia. But not here: this is OR, and it's bad OR to boot. Hairhorn (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above or rename to something like Women in computing in Canada. The title is a little too essayish for my taste, and the writing is WAY to essayish for my taste, but there is some good material here which may be useful in fleshing out the Women in computing article OR in establishing a split-off article specific to Canada. It would need some more stuff for a split article. There would need to be LOTS of OR removed from this article in either case, but there does seem to be a skeleton of some stuff here, with some proper rewriting and renaming or merging. So keep the good stuff, and dump the rest. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay with weak and unrepresentative sourcing. The emphasis on the general background is explainable enough if it were copypasted from somewhere else. DGG (talk) 03:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although some parts of this might be salvageable as content for other articles, as written this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic subject and highly POV. Merge anything legitimate ASAP. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be poorly-referenced original research/synthesis rather than an encyclopaedic article. That's not to say an encyclopaedic article couldn't be written on the subject, but this isn't it. Robofish (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There are obviously more than enough sources now to show notability. (non-admin closure) Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Side Up (album)[edit]

Unreleased album, no notability asserted. Created by blocked sock puppet. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Album's release is less than a week away, and the artist is inexplicably popular. Plenty of reviews/coverage already easily found: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].--Michig (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for now - No rush to delete as it would only be recreated in a week once the album is released. If it is not released next week, it would then be an appropriate discussion to have as to whether the article should be deleted. Sources seem to be available for the album, so from that perspective too keeping, at least for now, seems appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes keep, Its released in 6 days anyway!!! --BEP66 (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: did you create the article? This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No i did not create this article. --BEP66 (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though it lacks substantial coverage in its current version, it is an official release from a notable musician, albeit a few days away. It has also received album reviews from reliable sources, as Michig noted above. Clearly passes WP:NALBUMS. — Σ xplicit 06:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. ↔NMajdan•talk 23:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the "lack of substantial coverage": these have appeared in the last few days, including several newspaper reviews and an STV feature: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This album is out now and the information is accurate. No point in deleting this page. Every album has its own Wikipedia page, so why aren't they flagged for deletion?! 13:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.143.198.191 (talk)
Keep Album now released, significant coverage in reliable sources provided establishing notability. Davewild (talk) 15:31, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Digital Gangster LP[edit]

no reliable sources to attest to its notability Theserialcomma (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, fails notability guidelines, most relevantly that for albums.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC, I can't find any reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 21:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect to YTCracker and protect since obviously anons think that their love of the album supersedes any policies. No evidence of notability, search on google turns up sales sites, the DG webpage, blogs, twitters and the like. No evidence of reviews in reliable, secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This "anon" doesn't love the album (never heard it), just thinks deletion policy should be followed instead of you bypassing this process and trying to redirect after a call for deletion discussion had already been requested. LOL at your talk of policy when you didn't want this deletion policy to even take place and tried to insert your will over WP. Us crazy DG lovin anons, wanting Wikipedia Policy to be followed! --208.38.59.163 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a blatant personal attack, and I demand that you refactor that above comment. I will place the appropriate warning on your talk. MuZemike 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I demand you learn what a personal attack is. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~ (Changed to redirect, still a pointy nomination)
Clear violation of WP:POINT with a lot of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the nom.
Per WP:NALBUMS: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia."
Theserialcomma's nominations of Nerdrap Entertainment System and The Digital Gangster LP for AfD are clearly intended to be disruptive and are a continuation of the disruption surrounding the YTCracker article. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#YTCracker
YTCracker's article survived AfD and has been rewritten to include plenty of sources despite Theserialcomma's attempts to gut the article. [15] [16] [17]
Theserialcomma continued to edit war over the YTCracker article even during the AfD [18] [19] [20]
--Tothwolf (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the word may in that sentence, as well as the first line of that section "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." - find sources that document coverage of the album and it will not be deleted. Your accusation against TSC is in bad faith, uncivil and ignores the five other editors who !voted to delete. To remain a separate page, it needs reliable, independent, secondary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly others also feel it passes the notability guidelines [21]
I made no "accusations" and I backed up what I've stated about Theserialcomma's behaviour regarding these articles with diffs. If you want to talk about failure to assume good faith, your comment above "... and protect since obviously anons think that their love of the album supersedes any policies" shows that you are doing just that. Tothwolf (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

either you are purposely lying, or you are mistaken. i nominated these articles for deletion long before another editor nominated YTCracker. check the log and apologize. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theserialcomma, I believe you are the one who is either mistaken or you are lying and attempting to mislead people here.

YTCracker was nominated for AfD on 03:04, 23 May 2009 [22]
Your edit warring on YTCracker took place 11:11-11:26, 25 May 2009 [23] [24] [25]
When you hit 3RR, you made a false report to AN/I in an attempt to get the other editors blocked: 11:29, 25 May 2009 [26]
You nominated The Digital Gangster LP for AfD at 20:25, 25 May 2009 [27]

--Tothwolf (talk) 22:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

learn2wiki. i never "hit" 3rr. 3rr means 4 reverts, and i reverted 3x. as for everything else you said, you're wrong again. i reported the user and he was indef'd. win! then he came back, we all made up, and we are all happy. win again! and, by the way, dr. wikipedia, check the history of the articles in question to see the first time i really nominated it with a prod delete (hint: it was may 23rd, not the 25th). thank you, watch the civility, and welcome to wikipedia. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always discovering new Wiki stuff, but thanks for the encouragement. Hitting 3RR means you made 3 reverts, violating 3RR would have been 4 or more reverts. Considering User:Ytcracker has since been unblocked [28] that would mean he was not indef'd. Thanks for the welcome, however I've been active on Wikipedia in one form or another since sometime around 2002. Yes, I remember Larry. Tothwolf (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as i said, learn2wiki. he was indef'd, period. that doesn't mean, in wikipedia terms, that it's forever. it just means he was indef'd. he was indeed unblocked, as i mentioned, and for this i am happy. furthermore, per WP:3RR "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period," which means to "hit" 3rr, you must perform 4 reverts. 3 reverts isn't "hitting" anything, so don't be fooled by the "3" in the 3RR. enjoy! Theserialcomma (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR#Not an entitlement also states: "The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring."
So yes, you edit warred, made a false AN/I report, and then initiated this AfD.
--Tothwolf (talk) 23:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to YTcracker. Otherwise, there is very little, if anything, for independent notability. MuZemike 15:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is better attributed to MC Lars because he is a lot more famous than me. also, lol WP:CRYSTAL, but reviews from altpress and the like are supposed to pop up next month, so whatever. Ytcracker (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to MC Lars per Ytcracker until the reviews are available. Tothwolf (talk) 12:56, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Reason[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, because there are no independent reviews of this song nor has it ever charted. Someone posted incorrect information about this song allegedly charting on the Billboard Hot 100, but my search on billboard.com yields that that info was false. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, didn't chart, will likely be undone if redirected. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Digital single by a notable artist. It has an accompanying music video and was released on a compilation album. Soprano90 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NSONGS. Not all works by a notable artist are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about redirecting: If this song is so non-notable it can't be even mentioned in the Lil Wayne article, where can we redirect it then? --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 22:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be redirected to the artist. I was just wary about doing that since song redirects tend to be undone very, very quickly and we'd just go through the same thing all over again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. It fails WP:NSONGS. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Courage Cup[edit]

A non-notable charity. Whilst there is perhaps some notability regarding a controversy I see absolutely no suggestion of the charity itself being notable. The article was very likely created by the President/Chairman as self-promotion. See COIN discussion here and another AfD for the article about the President/Chairman here. Smartse (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have spent way too much time cleaning up after this user. There's some random references to The Courage Cup on news pieces, most significantly the episode of funneling funds to a political campaign, but that part is already in Gregory R. Ball, so there's no need of a separate article and/or merging. --SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, likely conflict of interest. -Quartermaster (talk) 21:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that the coverage elsewhere is sufficient, and it's not like the controversy is up there with any of a number of fundraising scandals I've seen.Tyrenon (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article on a non-notable charity that may have been created by its chairman. It is hard to see that a misadventure involving fund-raising would the single most important thing about this organization. To show the importance of this group, I'd like to see reliable sources on the impact of its activities as a charity. There don't seem to be any. Anything important about the fundraising scandal is already at Gregory R. Ball. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Gregory R. Ball. Aside from the obvious COI issues (see here), this is not a notable enough charity organization to warrant its own article, the media coverage of it is mostly in regards to the scandal, not with regards to the actual charity itself. Ariel♥Gold 15:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gregory R. Ball where appropriate; the incident has already been described there, but it's worth checking to see if anything worth including here is not in that article. I agree with others who doubt the single controversy elevates the entire charity -- it's kind of the non-profit equivalent of WP:BLP1E, if that makes any sense. Also, there are obviously WP:COI issues with this and that section of the Ball article, which should be considered in the process. WWB (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only things of value here can be merged into Gregory R. Ball and Andrea Rogers (if the last passes its AfD, as it appears it will). --Orange Mike | Talk 13:27, 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. Editors may want to consider a redirect to aid navigation - this AfD result does not preclude the creation of such a redirect Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schizosaccharomyces cerevisiae[edit]

This species does not exist. Saccharomyces cerevisiae, a commonly studied budding yeast species of high commercial importance, is not in the same genus as Schizosaccharomyces pombe, the fission yeast, despite the similarity in genus names. Schizosaccharomyces already has a genus page with most of the information listed in this article, and both Schizosaccaromyces pombe and Saccharomyces cerevisiae already have species pages. Dcteas17 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Dcteas17 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What you are saying seems reasonable but then so does the original article. It sounds like this is an unintended hoax. You may need to round up some experts in yeast species to weigh in on this. Drawn Some (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think it's likely just a mixup because the names are so similar. I consider myself somewhat an expert in the topic given that I work with both species (Schizosaccharomyces pombe and Saccharomyces cerevisiae) in the lab. I'd invite any and all comments by anyone knowledgable, obviously. Dcteas17 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I wasn't implying that you aren't an expert, I meant that if it is to have a fair trial it needs a qualified jury and was excusing myself. The important thing was that you might have to actively seek them. Drawn Some (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, no offense was taken - I didn't think that's wha tyou meant. And you were right. Dcteas17 (talk) 05:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a slip that has only once appeared in a PubMed abstract, but more than 100 times in scientific articles as seen in a Google Scholar search. But typos don't create a species; it doesn't exist. Fences and windows (talk) 21:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. I'm a biologist. Fences and windows (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probably just a mix-up. Articles and books tend to abbrebriviate their names to S. cerevisiae and S. pombe (and they get mentioned together a lot) and someone might have thought that the "S" is the same genus.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have placed any info of value into the Saccharomyces cerevisiae page, so that no data will be lost if the page proposed for deletion is removed. I understand the literature trail and the historic mix up of the taxonomy. Plumpurple (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy enough mistake to make, but the species doesn't exist. Merge anything useful to Saccharomyces cerevisiae (which someone may have already done) then delete. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The phrase "Schizosaccharomyces cerevisiae" scores 30 hits on Google Books and 119 on Google Scholar. I'm no expert but can these really all be mistakes? Since Professor Plum understands the historic mixup, can he supply a reference? Groomtech (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that literally tens of thousands (possibly over one hundred thousand) of peer-reviewed articles have been written on these two species, and the close similarity of the genus names, it seems very likely that they are mistakes. Consider that combined, searches for "Schizosaccharomyces pombe" and "Saccharomyces cerevisiae" turn up over half a million hits on Google Scholar. And it looks like most of the hits on Google Scholar for "Schizosaccharomyces cerevisiae" are in references to other work - searching for those references directly reveals that the original paper contained the correct name "Schizosaccharomyces pombe" or "Saccharomyces cerevisiae", and the author of the paper citing the original simply mistranscribed the name. Dcteas17 (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Groomtech (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given that this is a repeated mistake, would it make sense to have a ((disambig)) page pointing out that it is a mistake and pointing to the Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Schizosaccharomyces pages? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kohei Doi[edit]

Article about footballer who has not yet played in fully-pro league. Article was dePRODed, but no evidence provided that article passes WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greenman (talk) 23:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable subject, as stated by nom. --Angelo (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and the account that deprodded the article was blocked as a sock of a banned user, making his actions invalid, so we never even should have had to go through an AFD n the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 20:31, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Arvind Palat[edit]

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Alleged books published are one that is just a conference publication (not a real book) and one without even an ISBN. Was prodded seven days ago by someone else with the rationale "no real notability shown, no independent references", prod was removed at end of that period by an account known for deprodded masses of articles without reason. DreamGuy (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable academic autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Weak keep, see below Only one significant books from an academic publisher; Capitalist restructuring ...; is in over 400 WorldCat libraries, I Pacific-asia ... however is just a conference proceedings volume edited by him, not written in over 200. WorldCat shows about 20 peer-reviewed articles as well. [29]. Probably not yet quite notable. DGG (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Per WP:Academic Criteria 5; he is the Sociology Department Chair at Binghamton Univ -SUNY. This should auto qualify even in the absence of the lack of references for the book? -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Middle management administrative position is not adequate for this category. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Agreed, chairing a department is not indicative of notability; the chair is rarely even the most notable member of the department. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- changed to Weak keep Actually, chair of a department at a research university is a position of prestige within a subject, and not a routine administrative position. I see he is now full professor there; the article is substantially out of date, as is the cv linked to from that article. I was judging from that when I made my previous comment. DGG (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Questions? is Binghamton University "a major institution of higher education and research."? What makes a "named/personal chair appointment"? Notability seems to hang on the answers to these questions which have probably been answered somewhere. Anyone know where? Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding prestige and chairs: chairing a department is a management position in a university, there is some prestige involved, but it is the same sort of prestige bestowed on anyone who rises management ranks in a corporation: (the path is roughtly professor -> chair -> dean -> principal/president.) But, this is not the same kind of prestige that's relevant here: being well known in your field, having many published works that are cited by others in your field and so on. The further along you are towards dean or principal, the further away you are from the research community in your field. Of the best known people in my field, almost none are chairs: being chair takes away time from research, and many people consider it a pain in the ass. (Also, don't confuse "research chair", which does have some academic prestige, with "department chair".) Hairhorn (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the above comments of Hairhorn as an accurate description of the academic world of research. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to be making the impact required to pass WP:PROF #1, and no evidence of passing the other criteria either. One edited volume, one book, and a bunch of papers, none of which appears to be particularly highly cited, adds up to an academic record that does not appear to be one of any great prominence. As Hairhorn and Xxanthippe aptly describe, chairing a department is also not unusual and explicitly not part of the WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taishi Endo[edit]

Article about footballer who has not yet played in fully-pro league. Article was dePRODed, but no evidence provided that article passes WP:N or WP:ATHLETE Jogurney (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Jogurney (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE since he has never played in a fully pro league. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable subject, as stated by nom. --Angelo (talk) 23:39, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mei-Yin Lloyd[edit]

Unsourced BLP. Was prodded by anotehr using, with the explanation "Non-notable. Unsourced article with none that meet WP:RS that I could find. IMDb just shows a few bit parts and Google News produced nothing." - but that prod was removed by an account that has a long history of deprodding things without any rationale that follows Wikipedia standards. Updated to add: And has since been blocked as a sock of a banned user. From the model's website under the sample the kind of things shown suggest very minor work. Other claims on page unsourced, and if they were true you'd think her own website would have that info at the ver least (not that that would meet our requirements for multiple independent sources etc. etc.) DreamGuy (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per DreamGuy's explanation of my prod. Also, neither Models.com nor the Fashion Model Directory return search results on Llyod. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 20:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with both editors' arguments. I can't find anything in my search either. For a contemporary, living actress, she must be very far from notability. Even people who are marginal with respect to notability usually have quite a number of at least tangential mentions that turn up in reliable sources. Cazort (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetery Junction (film)[edit]

Explicitly fails WP:NFF as the film is still in pre-production. No prejudice against recreation when reliable sources confirm that filming has commenced. PC78 (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)l[reply]
Delete as nominator reasons. In addition the text explicitly refers to a blog as the source of the information. That's a red flag. Drawn Some (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Projected release date is 2010. The article is just a tad premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:57, 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. Icewedge (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Wolf[edit]

This is an article for an obscure mayor of a town. It is only a few sentences long. It does not even have the mayor's date of birth. Unless it can be expanded, (which I doubt it can for someone so obscure), it should probably either merged, redirected, or deleted entirely. Bibbly Bob (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken AFD fixed by me, no one else noticed or cared. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She is a State Rep in MA. Lots of press coverage for her, over a 20 year period, here. It can definitely be expanded if someone is interested. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I forgot to mention that along with the comment. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spaceman7Spiff's find. She was both a mayor and state rep. I also did my own search and found an extensive amount of material. I think this is a classic case of a stub that could be easily expanded into a rich, tightly-sourced article. Some of the material seems to have national reach, i.e. this discussion of homosexuality in schools: [30]. As a state rep, she sponsored a lot of legislation, and has sustained media attention in this role. Cazort (talk) 22:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as above. Greenman (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as mayor of a notable city, (not town), and a a member of the state legislature. Regardless of the view about the mayoralty, that status of legislator is accepted as always justifying an article. DGG (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep State legislators are inherently notable per the guideline WP:POLITICIAN. If the person has verifiably been a state legislator, the deletion discussion is pointless and irrelevant. and should be closed as keep. If you do not agree then try and change the guideline. Edison (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm usually leery of posts that call for application of WP:SNOW but for this nomination I'll make an exception. Close as keep now. JamesMLane t c 22:34, 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 redirect to panel beater. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autobodyman[edit]

Declining speedy for db-nocontext. If the point of the article is to define the term "bodyman", that would fit better at Wiktionary. If not, then a merge is possible. I can't find a suitable "deletion discussion" category, so I'm notifying WP:CARS. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it's just a synonym for panel beater. I've redirected it. Stepho-wrs (talk) 21:46, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olivia Fialkow[edit]

Some coverage in Boston Magazine but lacks the significant coverage required to establish notability. RadioFan (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no clear notability. --Oscarthecat (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There are some sources here, but I don't think that a few people paying attention to her fashion would qualify as establishing notability. The last sentence, unsourced, says: "Olivia has used her blogging fame to raise awareness on issues such as eco-conscious consumerism and the ethical treatment of workers, both within and outside of the fashion industry." but no source is given. If a reliable source were given for that assertion (i.e. not a blog or self-published source) I might change my recommendation to a keep, because it would show that this person has actually done something and that it has been noted. Cazort (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, even a million trivial mentions of saving all of humanity from destruction by asteroid collision doesn't make someone notable under Wikipedia guidelines. The standard we use is significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. The Boston Magazine and Supermelon sources are the closest thing here to that, they both are fairly bloggy, especially Supermelon, certainly not a structured journalism environment with editors and fact-checkers, etc. Close but no banana. Fails WP:BIO due to lack of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, trivial, trivial - Vartanza (talk) 05:39, 30 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) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With All My Love[edit]

Declining WP:CSD#A9 speedy deletion and taking to AfD; there are some technical points about A9 and allmusic.com I'd like to discuss. The page University of North Florida Jazz Department exists; so does that mean, for the purposes of A9, that we should speedy or not, when the band is the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I"? Also, I see "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble" on allmusic.com, but the entry is very short; does that suggest we should have a page on the Jazz Ensemble in addition to the department? And finally, if I'm trying to make a call on A9, and there's no page on the band but I have reason to think we might want a page on the band, what do I do? Inquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the creator of speedy criterion A9, I agree with the nominator. University of North Florida Jazz Department is close enough, and I don't know why the "I" is there. The Jazz Department's article indicates that it's indeed by them, but there're no sources to be found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band is listed as the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because it is a specific group of musicians who are a part of the larger University of North Florida Jazz Department. There is a Jazz Ensemble II and III, as well as other groups like the UNF Guitar ensemble and UNF Wind Ensemble. The album "With All My Love" is listed as being by the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because they are the specific group on the recording. I have included a link to the UNF Jazz Ensemble I's page on the UNF website. I hope this clears up any problems at that this article is not deleted because it is an important accomplishment by the music department of the University of North Florida.
-The222

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 13:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A9 is indeed not applicable. Case of WP:MUSIC, this doesn't seem to hold to any of the criteria. Sure it's a good album, so I'm gonna have to give it a listen. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums I. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 11:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more outside sources to account for the album's notability. This article does meet the notability requirement, with four outside sources (even more are out there), as well as the Amazon page. I believe the article should remain. --The222 (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All those resources say is that the album is for sale. Doesn't really connote notability. Try this as a guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You do make a good point about all of the sources only detailing the album being for sale (one source does review the album though). I have added a few more outside sources, one from Yahoo music which shows that this is the fifth album released by the ensemble. I was unable to find many resources that did not try to sell to the album though. Maybe we should create an artist page for the UNF Jazz Ensemble I and merge the album information into the article, or we could expand the UNF Jazz Studies program article by creating a Jazz Ensemble I section. --The222 (talk) 21:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Sanchez[edit]

Unsourced BLP, created by COI account. Fails notability quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G11 per WP:VSCA, very ad-like. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons given by nominator and Ten Pound Hammer et al, I also endorse speedy deletion. It is entirely promotional, without asserting notability. I couldn't find any online sources indicating even potential notability, little hope for salvaging.Synchronism (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11. Looks like a furniture ad to me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find sources: [31] But I agree that this is written as an advertisement. Cazort (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a better search term, it looks like he has about seven substantial mentions in the same newspaper. There might be more. But they just show that he is a locally known artist. An article that used those references would meet the basic criteria for inclusion, but would not meet the more stringent criteria as laid out in WP:ARTIST. Synchronism (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - The references found are evidence that this article meets the basic criteria for inclusion as confirmed by Synchronism. That is all that is required for any article. Varbas (talk) 13:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation caught up with him... blocked as sock of banned user, vote invalid, all his edits may be undone on sight. DreamGuy (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Varbas was determined to have been using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user blocked for using multiple sockpuppets to disrupt AFDs and prods with faulty reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case can you provide a link? Or why isn't varbas blocked or topic banned? If he isn't topic banned/blocked, and there is a reason for that, then his voice continues to carry weight.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:29, 26 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. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that you are not addressing that to me?---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 06:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was addressed to me, and it's false. No "not guilty" finding was returned, or anything like it. They specifically said it was possible he was the same as the banned user, and it's still under investigation. The banned user is User:Azviz/User:Esasus etc. -- I believe the links at the top of the pages there would go to the main sockpuppet investigation page for those accounts, which currently includes Varbas. DreamGuy (talk) 19:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that he is notable enough to have an article. However, I see little salvageable about the current page. I think it needs to be either blanked or deleted. I'm indifferent about deletion--the only really issue is whether or not to preserve the page history. Preserving the page history would be interesting, to say the least, because it would document publicly the fact that this person was using wikipedia to promote himself. On the other hand, that's already going to be documented in this AfD. Cazort (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looks like a G11. -- Alexf^(talk) 22:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but this is NOT a G11 deletion eligible article. Some people are just too eager to speedy delete some articles. There MIGHT be something to this guy, if his claim to being the the prizes could be substtiated and shown to be meaningful.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, that this is hardly a clear-cut case and should not be speedily deleted, even though I totally agree that the promotional content needs to be deleted. Cazort (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after the article was despamed it is still advertising. (G11 removed). No real notabiltity shown. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOT notable.....or interesting. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kegel Male Trainer[edit]

Blatant spamvertising for a product that promises to make your dick harder, for longer. You know, "as seen on tv." Problem, no reliable independent sources cover this dubious product. I would like this to be speedy but the article asserts notability; it was written, apparently by a for-hire wikipedia article writer/promoter. A review of his prose will make it clear why he couldn't get a reputable writing gig. Bali ultimate (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that it appears this article was recreated out of process by the paid article writer per [32]. Date on that is april 26 complaining of the articles deletion. This current version was created by the same paid editor on May 24. So i think this should be a speedy now is a recreation out of process (unless there was a DRV I'm unaware of). Bali ultimate (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- No reliable independent media coverage.^[33] See also these other promotional articles: Al Dana, Security Footwear and Liz Glazowski as well as User talk:Petrosianii, User talk:Smkovalinsky and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Dana. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also may be related to User:Youhavealan and Braun Mincher (another paid-to-edit article?). See this re-write currently in progress.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No media coverage indeed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Product is not notable and primary author is a paid contributor. Plastikspork (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Mays here with another fine Delete vote from Wikipedia! WP:COI issues and this sounds like complete snake oil. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (who is not really Billy Mays; some restrictions apply, just pay shipping and processing)[reply]
Speedy delete - not all inventions are notable, and this is paid spam by a known spammer. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZombieMod: Source[edit]

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

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

The result was delete. The participants who favored keeping the article are apparently related and/or involved with meatpuppetry, with arguments that do not carry policy-based reasoning, such as proof of notability. Jamie^☆S93 17:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Tamagnone[edit]

For the benefit of the closing administrator, a large number of participants in the keep section appear to be friends (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uarrin). Thus I advise their reasoning be weighed with scrutiny in the close, and perhaps even consider the accounts listed as one entity, or discount them completely. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced BLP, no notability established, promotional in tone, etc. This person is an Italian and the Italian Wikipedia deleted the article about him, so why would we have one? DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has zero results on JSTOR, although that's a dabatase heavily weighted towards English. Still, zero results means no one writing in English is even citing his work, and a large majority of major philosophy journals are in English. Hairhorn (talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not in the itWP, which seemed curious; checking, it was speedy deleted from there a few days ago. [34]. I will assume they know what they are doing. Only one of his books has more than one US/Canda library holding :Ateismo filosofico nel mondo antico -- which has 11. Nothing in google Scholar. No evidence of any academic position. DGG (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also deleted from French Wikipedia after a long discussion. See: [35]. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the edit histories for the various foreign language wiki's look suspicious, per the .fr and .it [36] AFD discussions . In light of his publications (all within the last 8 years) I was going to suggest a merge to Atheist existentialism but with that article's own history and a lack of reliable secondary coverage (google.it searches all come up primary with nothing on scholar or news) I'd have to agree with the nom. – Zedla (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a lack of results in JSTOR is a pretty serious problem for any claim that this man is a notable philosopher. I note the article doesn't state that he has been employed by any university philosophy departments, or been published in any philosophy journals; his books could well be self-published, for all the information about them that's given here. The fact that he's already been deleted on the French and Italian WPs is also a bad sign (although we don't have exactly the same inclusion policies as them). If anyone can provide clear, objective evidence of this man's notability, I'd be prepared to keep, but at the moment it simply isn't there. Robofish (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see that several of us are referring to the italian deletion. The problem is if it is reliable also “outside Italy”. Well, I think that it is not at all. Italy is a very strange country and I think that we must not to do so, for at least two reasons. The 1rst: it is dominated (like all the others Italian institutions) by the Catholics; the 2nd: in Italy no atheist thinker has the minimal possibility to keep an univeritary chair, being the universities, all, in the hands of Catholics. Not enough, in Italy there are university directly managed by the Vatican and other from institutions to it connected, as the “Catholic” in Milan, Rome and other places. No great publisher would never publish philosophy works of a contemporary atheist, therefore only brave little pubblishers ones make it. Anyway Tamagnone was invited by Radio Vaticana in the November of 2005 to represent the atheists thought versus the christian one; this means that he is considered by the italian atheists the only representative atheist philosopher living and in the same time that Radio Vaticana has agreed to consider it such. I add that in Italy the atheists are hidden, but estimated in 15% of the population, therefore, approximately, 9 million people. Yet, university teacher atheists are 0%, pubblishers hosting atheist essays <1%. Besides, catholic university teachers are about 90% and catholic pubblishers (subordinated to Vatican, CEI, Dioceses, Communion and Liberation, Catholic Action, etc) are at least 70%. The French wikipedia was whrong deleting the article referring the Italian one. We will do it also hier? I hope not. --Uarrin (talk) 06:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaaa? Are you arguing that he's notable because the reason we can't find any evidence of notability is that he might have been suppressed or ignored? What? You can use the same sort of argument to prove that there are ghosts in your house. Hairhorn (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uarrin‎, which involves Uarrin, Skeppyrron and Gioj50 from this page and others. DreamGuy (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second and recent Italian wikipedia AFD discussion [37] – Zedla (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? H'm! Ghost? But for whom? I suspect that there is a "Catholic workshop which manufactures ghosts" of who are to become invisible! Can we exclude that philosophers atheists in Italy "must be ghosts?" I do not trust. --Skeppyrron (talk) 06:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Skeppyrron (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- more than half of this editor's less than 20 edits have been adding blank lines to articles (with rest being to add questionable see also links and to promote this author). DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Very fine story that of a ghost representing nine million people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gioj50 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thank'you! I confirm KEEP --Gioj50 (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Gioj50 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - user has almost 60 edits, but more than half of them have been to add blank lines to articles/move things around on pages, 25 have been to add See also links of questionable value/fix his own spellings on those see alsos and the rest have been to promote this author. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to think there are ghosts in my house, but ghosts are hard to see, and they might hide while I'm awake. Therefore there are probably ghosts in my house... (do I need to spell it out? Lack of evidence isn't evidence.) Hairhorn (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi, DreamGuy, I did too hasty contributed in last time, because assumed that after the French deletion would starts the English one. The same IPs is because we are friends and working often together. If you will see carefully, you’ll verify that we contributed not only pro-Tamagnone but pro-atheist philosophy in general. Therefore we contributed also pro Onfray and Comte-Sponville, but they are Frenchmen and “not Italians”. So they have a completely different situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A157247 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin User:A157247 was already part of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uarrin‎ inquiry before it posted here.
Yes, I think you're right! --93.38.68.105 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 93.38.68.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the problem is: keep the article entirely or to riduce it a little ? It is IMHO too long and complicated. --94.81.38.80 (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)--94.81.38.80 (talk) 10:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 94.81.38.80 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the fans of this fellow acted in a questionable and broken manner, but would not say wrong or illegal. It seems to me that they contributed in a way that can dislike to those ones who not think like them. But why delete the item? We have articles quite much worse, while this one has at least the worth of give some service to the culture. Bob78 --79.14.145.184 (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 79.14.145.184 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. DreamGuy (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still no notability established despite the slightly ridiculous arguments above. J Milburn (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends and not sockpuppets. DreamGuy continues to use the provocative word sockpuppet and also ran a Sockpuppet investigation about me. He did so probably because saw that some of us wrote on pcs connected to the same server. I invite him to remember that can be hundreds of thousands of pc connected to a single server. This would mean (according to his point of view) that in some companies or public administrations would be hundreds of thousands of sockpuppets. This manner of inventing sockpuppets where there are not is primarily improper and secondly very offensive addressed to some persons which think each one with its own head and not with a single head. We're not clones but real persons! --Uarrin (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is way off topic. You could post this at the sockpuppet page instead, the space reserved for your comments there is still blank. Hairhorn (talk) 21:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t want accuse of "bad faith", but surely my accuser acted without know what is a server, that can connect hundreds of thousands of single pcs in great companies or in public administrations. In our case we are associated in little clubs with ten-fifteen computers, but the users can be hundreds . Secondly: my accuser thinks that many people cannot contribute on Wikipedia expressing themeselves in the same spirit of thought: in our case the atheism. Thirdly: evidently he does not appreciate our point of view and then fights them. That is legitimate, but…with correctness. --Athex50 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin User:Athex50 was already part of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uarrin‎ inquiry before that account posted here. The claims above about suppose trying to repress atheism or whatever is a violation of WP:AGF and completely false. The info presented on the sockpuppet page shows more commonalities in specific edit patterns than one would expect from mere friends, and a gang of friends voting together is meatpuppetry anyway, which is almost as bad. DreamGuy (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith indeed? Are you sure? I'm not. --151.21.90.32 (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No established English notability. Perhaps his works can help strength historical contexts of atheism, but an individual article is not required.R.Vinson (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Niteshift36 (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability Mayalld (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Mawkes[edit]

Subject of the article doesn't meet WP:BIO. A single appearance on a television show in 2007 doesn't confer substantial notability or provide enough references for a useful biographical article. Nathan^T 16:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BIO shirulashem (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He was a high ranking cop and was relevant to a few other articles I wrote at the time. I won't cry into my soup if people want to scrap it. --rakkar (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many high ranking police officers are on TV at some point during their career. Now if he created a major controversy with his words, that might be notable, but as the article stands now, delete.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy Nom withdrawn. as promised. Users found to establish notability. StarM 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Tulio[edit]

The team that he allegedly plays for (unsourced) is "Greek professional football club based in Piraeus, currently competing in Beta Ethniki, the Greek second division" which doesn't sound like the highest professional level. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ATHLETE and while there are a metric ton of ghits but it appears to be a popular name since most refer to artists, not athletes even w clarification. So no evidence he passes WP:GNG. Will withdraw if someone can find what I can't. StarM 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 16:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've added references which show he has played in the Hungarian top flight (which I believe to be fully-pro) as well as the Greek second level (which I also understand to be fully-pro). He has also played in the Bolivian top flight, although I don't have any references which show he actually made the first squad. Overall, the article appears to pass WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jogurney's research and improvement. Giant Snowman 22:32, 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. As Dank said, G4 does not apply here because the previously-deleted version was different. Non-admins can't see this, but the most recent revision was certainly an improvement, more context and several references (rather than just 1 ref to IMDb). Jamie^☆S93 17:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Turner[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable actor/singer. Appears to have only one role of any note, and that's just in a single London production. Most references are basically stubs or agent listings. Not enough experience to merit his own article yet. If and when he gets more fame, then we'll rvisit this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It appears this article has been deleted through AfD before. Marked for speedy delete. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the speedy deletion; the previous article had no independent sources and didn't go into detail; this article is an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter! It was deleted via AfD. By Wikipedia policy, it stays deleted unless the AfD is reversed by deletion review. You cannot single-handedly overturn the AfD! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you're referring to says: "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical (bolding mine) to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." As I pointed out, the old version was rejected for having no sources, and the new version has sources, so it's not a G4. I personally follow a 1RR policy, so I'd appreciate it if someone else would remove the tag. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not disputing your word, but could you show links to these to show the differences? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By Wikipedia policy, it stays deleted unless the AfD is reversed by deletion review. And what policy exactly contains this language? WP:DELETE#Deletion review on the contrary states "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content (this applies to most speedy deletions) and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review over an unsourced stub when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." WP:DRV is mostly for overturning deletions to restore a deleted version. A recreation of a different article under the same name doesn't mandate DRV. MLauba (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is whether or not this version is substantially different from the one previously cconsidered and deleted via AfD. I've recreated articles that were AfD-deleted before, but always gone through DRV first. Even so, this current version still desrves deletion, no matter what the first version was. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but not a speedy deletion. MLauba (talk) 20:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's just forget the speedy thing and proceed with the AfD instead. I think I'm getting caught up in semantics here anyway. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Still fails WP:ENTERTAINER by a considerable margin. Best claims to notability so far are as a supporting actor in a West End stage production of a notable film, and an unspecified credit in a notable film, which is a long way off the requirement of "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions." If someone does find enough claims to warrant notability, the promotional language, subjective phrases such as "a natural academic" and name-dropping will have to go. (Also, although this does not directly affect the AfD outcome, the article author only seems to write articles about people with the surname of "Turner" which makes me suspect family COI issues.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not familiar with the first version that was deleted but this version fails WP:ENTERTAINER. No indication of significant roles or any substantive contributions to his field. Lots of references but they dont add up to notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Sources don't pass the reliable sources policy and hence cannot establish how the subject passes WP:ENTERTAINER. MLauba (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even close to WP:ENTERTAINER - Vartanza (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:57, 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, a lack of sources independent of the subject that discuss this person as their subject. No notability as an athlete and little as a blogger. Statements that he is a celebrity are unconvincing without reliable sources that attest to this celebrity. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Titus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Per WP:BIO#Athletes, an athlete is notable if they have competed professionally or participated in something like the Olympics or World Championships. Titus has not done either, and none of the sources establish notability from a reliable, third-party source. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mark Titus is noteworthy for much more than his (minimal) athletic accomplishes. The reason he is famous is his blog, which has been featured on yahoo and ESPN. Club Trillion (his blog) has become a must-read for fan's of the Big Ten and has made him a celebrity in the mid-west. He deserves to have a Wikipedia page, so please consider his overall contributions to society. Thanks! --Jhigh 43 (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the moment, the references do not reflect notability per WP:NOTE. It would be a good start to actually have links from reliable sources covering his blog, like an ESPN story. As the article stands, however, I find no evidence of these, only self-published sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added information regarding an interview between him and ESPN's Bill Simmons. (an ESPN story)--Jhigh 43 (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability; neither a professional or top-level amateur. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, he is not on Wikipedia as a result of his athleticism. He should be on here because of the impact his blog has had on the college basketball scene, in particular the Big 10. An article about him has been on Yahoo!'s home page, and he was interviewed by a top-level journalist/talk-show host at ESPN. In all honesty, he's relatively horrible at basketball, but he keep's making news as a blogger and his name has become household among fans of the Big 10. --Jhigh 43 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident of his applying to the draft certainly received some semblance of coverage from reliable sources (Google News of the past month) including the New York Times (brief mention), Wall Street Journal (short paragraph) and CBS Sports (longer article). Previous to the incident there does appear to have been some coverage for example this short paragraph on ESPN and this from Yahoo. Whether the recent coverage counts as anything more that just a typical news story, I'm not sure. Guest9999 (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - His notability isn't just because he was told he had to take his name out of the draft. His blog has received over 1.3 million hits in a little over 6 months, which is remarkable considering he is the only one who writes on it and he only posts new material once a week. This article should not be reviewed based on Mark Titus the athlete but instead Mark Titus the internet figure. Clearly, he has a worldwide following and is therefore notable. The article needs many revisions, but Mark Titus is definitely notable and should have an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GarthFan1962 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.-- Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mark Titus has become somewhat of a cult phenomenon within the Big 10 as well as for any avid follower of ESPN's Bill Simmons. He has appeared on Simmons' pod-cast The BS Report at least twice and as you can see via Google trends interest in Mark (http://www.google.com/trends?q=mark+titus) as well as Club Trillion (http://www.google.com/trends?q=club+trillion&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0) have spiked in 2009. You can also see that he is actually more popular than the Buckeyes best player Evan Turner (http://www.google.com/trends?q=club+trillion,+mark+titus,+evan+turner&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0)

Comment - The amount of times that he has been searched for does not make him notable. See WP:NOTE. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Might I add that Evan Turner has a wikipedia page, despite Titus being more popular than him.--70.100.83.43 (talk) 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.--Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For those of you naysayers who keep deleting Mark Titus from wikipedia, his legend has only grown in the past few months. With one of his most recent blog posts where he declared for the NBA draft, the story was covered by none other than: Rivals/Yahoo, CBS sports, Fox sports and even USA Today

Mark's twitter is also followed by nearly 3000 people including celebrities like Mark Cuban, Shaquille O'Neal, Taylor Swift, John Mayor and ESPN's Bill Simmons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.145.83 (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability...and the socks and meats aren't helping to convince me otherwise. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Helpful One 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Seems to (barely) meet the general notability guidelines. More sources would be nice though. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has a lot of words, but none of them even assert that the subject is notable. The article states that various sporting achievements occurred ("made each of his two free throw attempts"), and that a blog was started. Per WP:BIO, subjects should be discussed in secondary sources that indicate notability. Johnuniq (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is now well sourced and notability is ascerned by sources. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable for being a not very good player, and publicizing it widely? We need not add to his publicity. DGG (talk) 03:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever deleted all of the information regarding Titus' senior season/Club Trillion; quit trying to disprove Mark Titus' relevance by erasing it from the the article in order to promote your agenda. Thank you! --74.36.12.112 (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per DGG. This article deserves to be put out of its misery. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... unless I see an article that establishes the notability through the blog. In other words, show me a WP:RS that indicates the blog is influential at all. I'm sympathetic here... it won't take much. But I don't see what that would be from the sources right now. Shadowjams (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG. Hobartimus (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, A7. The article was substantively the same as a version that was speedied earlier today. Author blocked as a spam/promotion-only account. Blueboy 96 22:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Essam Al Mojalid[edit]

Bio of non-notable businessman. Oscarthecat (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see anything that supports notability (I have pointed the author towards WP:N). TigerShark (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Hello. I just wanted to know if you could just leave the page up until I can get a little bit more information from Mr. Essam Al Mojalid. I wanted to get the proper information before I posted it online. I know that he has had some Television interviews, a commercial, as well as a few newspaper articles written about him. I do believe that he is a significant person because he is a very sought after business man. Many companies are eager to hire him. He is also a greatly admired role model. He has lectured in several universities. Many of his students have gone on to lead productive lives, and have attributed some of their success to Mr. Essam Al Mojalid. The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 25 May 2009 — The Egyptian Liberal (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

If this is true, please show us sources to back up these rather bold claims. The claims you are making sound quite promotional. Cazort (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. Passportguy (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 17:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a CV (resumé). Part of it is in the first person, even. Nothing there to meet notability standards. He's probably a nice chap. and doing his job well. Unfortunately, that's not enough for here. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Editors are getting tired of reverting this editors removal of AFD tags and blanking of the AFD discussion as well.--RadioFan (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of the article has not given any sources to the bold, promotional claim. I did a search and was unable to find any material on this man, I can't even verify that he exists! Cazort (talk) 22:26, 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. One two three... 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finland–Syria relations[edit]

only Finland has a resident embassy in Syria. I could find very little coverage of bilateral relations, most of it was in multilateral context. [38]. most relations are in a Syria-EU context. LibStar (talk) 12:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's this and it's not that much (Finnish M.P. stops in Damascus and the Syrian Vice-President meets him). Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge either into yet to be created Syria-EU relations or into the respective "Diplomatic relations of..." articles. There is some value to the information, but not in its own article. HJMitchell You rang? 23:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, random X-Y intersection article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Helpful One 15:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone above. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:07, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmslow Road bus corridor frequency[edit]

Random unencyclopaedic trivia, does not deserve an article of its own, nor more than a passing mention in the parent article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 15:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wilmslow Road bus corridor. Absolutely meaningless outside of the context. Wikipedia is not a bus schedule. Drawn Some (talk) 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What notability does Wilmslow Road bus corridor? That it is claimed to be Europe's busiest bus corridor. What evidence is there of this? That's why I created this article, to highlight its claims without cluttering the original article. Happy to merge into the main article if that's what consensus says. Divy (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging may be the best option, but still, it is too detailed - we are not a bus timetable. Divy, there's evidence in the form of published books that describe the route as the busiest in Europe (by the UK government, for example). We don't prove our claims on Wikipedia - that's original research. We prove through the use of sources. Majorly talk 15:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is too detailed. It's a summary table of frequency for the different services, on an article for a bus route claimed to be the busiest corridor in Europe. Not original research – just a case of arranging the information in a way to back-up what the sources claim. Something like Southern Vectis route 1 reads far more like a bus timetable: it even states when the first and last bus are! Divy (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing is fine for an article on the individual route. The corridor article is intended to describe all the routes, so it shouldn't go into a lot of detail - sub articles could be made for that sort of thing. I was going to create one on the 42 route but couldn't find enough sources. Majorly talk 15:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily agree with the creation of individual articles for particular bus routes, so I can't agree that this first/last bus info is appropriate material for an article about an individual route. In fact, it's pretty much the opposite: because Wilmslow Road really *does* have notability (rather than individual routes on it) that I've been bold and created this table to highlight its claim. Divy (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO, not merge - no way is this sort of detail encyclopedic, apart from the fact that it would be out of date within a year. The main article already contains the (unsourced) claim about being the busiest, and an indication of frequencies. JohnCD (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced? Incorrect: it's sourced to House of Commons Transport Committee, Great Britain (2006). Bus Services Across the UK. The Stationery Office. ISBN 0-215-03092-3., if you'd look at the article. There are more books and publications that back up the claim. This article appeared on the Main Page with that claim as the hook. It's not a light thing to publish an "unsourced" claim on the main page - which never did happen, because the claim is clear sourced. Majorly talk 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I did look at the main article, which says "reputed to be". I missed that there was a source, though it's not clear if the source says that it is the busiest or just that it is reputed to be. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's partly this question of being reputed that led me to create the table in the first place! At least with this table in the article, we have a basis for comparison. Divy (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't necessarily be out of date within a year, as service frequencies need not change that often - though I see your concern. I don't share it though: we don't disclude information on the basis that it may change in the future though, we simply keep on top of it. Besides, there is the disclaimer of an "as of" date just in front of the table. Divy (talk) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live, the bus timetables change about twice a year; yes, you have an "as of" date, which is good, but my main point is WP:IINFO. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to my reading of WP:IINFO, you believe this fails because it is a long list of statistics. Now that this is merged back into the main article, it seems that there is a proper context to it, plus it is in a table to enhance readability. I've suggested a couple of ways on the main article talk page in which to simplify the table. Divy (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not so much that it's a long list of statistics, it's the difficult, and subjective, question of what is encyclopedic. Nobody would disagree that there is a level of detail which is not - e.g. the full bus timetable with times for every stop, or the full London telephone directory. The question is, where does one draw the line? I think my test is to try imagining who might actually need to look this up in WP, or find it interesting if he stumbled across it. But I won't pursue it back to the main article, I'll leave it to editors there to decide how much to include. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment somebody please be bold and merge with parent article and continue the discussion on that talk page. Much of the present discussion is beyond the scope of AfD. Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been bold. Divy (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand how you feel a deletion discussion is beyond the scope of an AfD? It is hardly suitable for a merge, the information isn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I specifically said "much of the present discussion" meaning most but not all. I don't believe anyone is going to successfully argue that this should be a standalone article nor will there be a successful argument that none of the information should be included in the parent article. If the parent article is about the busiest bus corridor in Europe then some discussion of the actual bus traffic is necessary. A grid listing each bus may or may not be inappropriate within the article but at least some of the information (bus companies for examples) would be appropriate. That is why I suggest going ahead and merging and then settling the arguments there: it won't stand alone as an article and at least some will remain in the primary article. The real issue here should is about what should be included in the parent article. Can't we all just get along and not fight about some bus schedules? Drawn Some (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The operators are already listed in the parent article. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divy, since you created this, do you honestly believe that this qualifies as a standalone article? Or is this really a dispute about what goes in the main article? Spinning this out is not a solution to the problem of what goes in the parent article. So I say again, merge the article and take the discussion there and hash it out. Wrong battleground here for the fight. No way is this going to survive standalone. Drawn Some (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion still needs to run as a deletion discussion for the original article which still remains. Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, it was probably a mistake to create a standalone article. Having merged the info into the main article now, I'll argue my case for its inclusion there. Could an admin delete, please? Sorry for spoiling anyone's afternoon :) Divy (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per not a bus service directory. In seriousness, bus schedules change all the time and we should be actively discouraging anyone from seeking to turn to an encyclopedia to figure out when the buses run. We won't have the most up to date info on it, so people will be misled. And in terms of our mission, well, encyclopedia's aren't directorys.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Bali ultimate's comments that because schedules change, keeping an article like this creates a problem of maintaining things. And I see no way people would possibly type this search term into the box, so I would not want to create a redirect. Personally, I find public transit articles very interesting and I generally favor creating and expanding them, even when esoteric--and even some discussion of frequency is relevant on public transit pages. However, tables of detailed information are not. Any information needs to be presented as prose and integrated into a narrative on the relevant pages. Cazort (talk) 22:30, 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. Jamie^☆S93 17:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lakishar Baba Ashram Chulkana Dhaam[edit]

I've just declined the speedy on this as I'm not certain that A7 covers a religious place of worship. Is a church a club/organisation in that context? Perhaps, perhaps not, so bringing here for wider opinion. If consensus heads to A7 speedy delete, then I'm not going to disagree. Ged UK 15:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the one who tagged the page speedy delete, I maintain my opinion that the article's subject is an organization and is therefore subject to A7. May I ask why it would not? ~EdGl ★ 15:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you are correct that an ashram is an organization, in the same category as churches and monasteries. It is also a place just like a church is also a place. I don't see any in-depth coverage in reliable resources in non-Indian languages. In fact, it looks like someone is attempting to put the name in as many places as possible. I would recommend someone check in the appropriate Indian language, though, to avoid cultural discrimination. This might be a giant ashram with many books written about it for all I know. Drawn Some (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless reliable sources can be found to show it is notable, or even exists. Priyanath ^talk 06:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly, without prejudice. Currently, there's nothing to show that this ashram is more notable than any other place of worship. Web searches in the Roman alphabet may be an inadequate way to find if sources could be added. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Hekerui (talk) 02:07, 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. Jamie^☆S93 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Malta relations[edit]

another completely random combination with non resident embassies. the only coverage I could find is on the football field and Eurovision [39]. I would also oppose redirect because there is no relation of note to redirect. LibStar (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as another skeleton bilateral article with non-resident embassies. Tavix | Talk 15:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another shell of an article with no secondary sources to back up claims of notability not made. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article with non-notable subject due to lack of significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources. No hope of ever having content unless Belarus and Malta begin real relations. Malta has the population of a small city and they can't all be employed in diplomacy and sent off around the world because there would be no one at home to answer the telephone. Drawn Some (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No prospect of useful content. Johnuniq (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another one of these X-Y relations pages. No of them are notable Angria77 ^{Banter, Edits} 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of multiple reliable sources that discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth beyond the trivial.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources adress these relationships in the detail required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. This is just another random country-country relations article with no claim to notability. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weston G. Wetzel[edit]

Acting student that has done lighting work for a series of amateur college plays. Non-notable Passportguy (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Facebook, check. Twitter, check. Absinthedrinkrecipes.com, check. Wikipedia, check. Drawn Some (talk) 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability (and it seems to be autobiography). Sorry, Weston, but have a look at WP:CREATIVE and WP:ENTERTAINER to get an idea of the notability standards in your field. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's not easy for a person to achieve notability as a lighting designer for theater. One would probably have to get nominated for a Tony Award or something at a similar level before achieving notability as a lighting designer. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as searches find verification of his career, but nothing at all that shows it as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lighting designer with little to no coverage in reliable sources is nowhere near notable. This easily fails WP:BIO. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 00:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G12 by Dank. (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Taylor[edit]

I've decided to AFD this instead of A7, as something of a test case. This lady is a newsreader for Naked News. As far as I can tell, that's her only claim to notability. So, the question is, is that enough to pass the notability threshold. I do not believe so. There are some other Naked News readers with articles and no other claims to notability. So depending on the outcome of this debate, those others may or may not also be AFDed soon after. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Add to the dubious claim for notability the prose of the article, which reads suspiciously like public relations text lifted from somewhere else. JNW (talk) 14:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, it's a copyvio from her Myspace page. Google "Valentina has always had a taste for glamor". Who knew what some people consider glamor. Anyway, there are no news stories about her. If anyone has significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources and the article is completely re-written to remove the copyright violation I will reconsider. Not notable. Fails WP:BIO including WP:PORNBIO if it applies which I don't think it really does. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have any notability as a newsreader, nothing in Google News; a bit in Google, but her exposure (joke) seems to come from taking her clothes off, which I guess makes WP:PORNBIO the relevant standard. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. Word-for-word copyvio. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 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. Jamie^☆S93 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainers That Care[edit]

Non-notable organization. Sources given are iffy, google turns up with nothing beyond their official website and an entry on myspace. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 14:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Included references are a press release and a blog. None of the non-trivial occurrences on the internet appear to be reliable independent sources. Non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was hesitant to speedy this, but yeah, it's pretty much not meeting V or N. Jclemens (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I'm hesitant to delete speedily, because there are big names associated with this foundation, and some are sources available (see [40]), but on the other hand, it's sort of weak. It passes WP:V based on sheer number of Ghits, but not necessarily WP:N or WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghits by themselves cannot be used to satisfy WP:V. V is satisfied by the sources themselves (either from google or otherwise), not the number of hits. In many cases, only one percent or less of results returned by google have anything remotely to do with the subject. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 21:47, 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 speedy delete (G11) by Dank. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 01:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHRONIC-les[edit]

Non-notable iPhone application, borderline db-club Passportguy (talk) 14:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22CHRONIC-les%22%20iphone shows no indications of notability or importance. — Rankiri (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no assertions of notability, spam. TJ Spyke 23:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied. I am generally uncomfortable with doing a speedy in the middle of an AfD except for special cases, but promotional campaigns of any kind (more or less: "Use our app to contact Obama right now!") are one of the special cases. Fortunately, AfD pages don't get picked up by search engines, so I put the text on the talk page of this AfD (which I'll delete after the AfD closes) ... I'll be happy to restore the article if you guys want me to. - Dank (push to talk) 00:51, 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 merge to Benito Mussolini. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benito Mussolini's religious beliefs[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Benito Mussolini's religious beliefs

Content fork that can be more than adequately covered in the Benito Mussolini article. Prod removed without comment by article creator. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Benito Mussolini article. Although we have something similar in the form of Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs, articles about a famous person's religion are rare. In some cases, as with Hitler, the person's beliefs had a profound effect upon society, rather than the other way around. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but honestly, why did you add the deletion tag? Its the wrong tag. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 15:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy."? Since it appears that this article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy, it looks like the right tag to me. What tag would you have put on there if you had been nominating it for deletion? Mandsford (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Koshoes meant that a proposed merger would have been better than deletion, not that the tag itself is inaccurate. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a merge, but this is a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". When I've proposed a merge on these kinds of stubs (and there's not much to merge that isn't already in the article), people complain that it will leave a redirect that shouldn't exist and that I should have sent to AfD. If I send to AfD, people complain it should have just been merged and not sent to AfD. I flipped a coin on this, and it came up AfD.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge since it contains more information on his religion than the main article does but not enough to necessitate a separate article, and I don't see any sources indicating it's a 'big' enough topic on its own to need one. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Benito Mussolini and cut some of the specifics that are too detailed. Cheers. I'^mperator 18:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Benito Mussolini and keep those specifics that aren't. knoodelhed (talk) 19:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge useful information with Benito Mussolini as this is a POV fork. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is something wrong here: anyone who thinks that the material is adequately covered in the article on Mussolini should read that article and try to find the scattered bits of information--not that it's covered well in this stub of an article either. For that matter, it isn't covered fully in the itWP There are a number of good sources--see [[41] just in GScholar. DGG (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stay Far from being an unimportant person Mussolini both ruled Italy and created Fascism an ideology that continues to dog the world. His relationship with religion is also there for of interest especially since it hasn't gotten nearly as much attention as Hitler's. It is also important to note that the article is a stub and should be much better in a month or so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbulle (talk • contribs) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Existing content of the article is insufficient for maintaining a separate article. If content is sufficiently developed later to make recreating as a separate article desirable, that would be different, but that is not the current situation. John Carter (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This is the only subarticle on Mussolini: we do not need this kind of thing forked off. That only becomes useful if the article becomes enormous, but that does not apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The whole thing is original research. The basic information should be included in his main article, if it is not already. However there is no way for anyone to know what his beliefs really were. We can only give the facts of what he said and did in his life, not read his mind to know his beliefs. BTW Benito Mussolini needs a lot of work. It would be better to improve that article rather than start a new one on a sub-topic. Borock (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and then consider merge with Benito Mussolini through proper merge discussion. AfD should not be used in lieu of a merge discussion, and the nomination appears to endorse a merge. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, and a redirect is fine. I am not of the opinion that stubs should be written with the hope that a month later there will be sources added, miraculously perhaps, that will establish the truth and verifiability of the statements made in said article. Whatever can be brought in to verify these claims should be brought into the main article. Rbulle, you keep adding information--what are the sources for these statements? Drmies (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Flybridge Capital Partners. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stay in MA[edit]

Single source is the organization and also indirectly through a press release from the organization republished in the Boston Globe. Originally was a cut and paste from the organization's website. After adding a warning, the original author made a few changes to paraphrase. Further attempts to communicate with the author have been unproductive/ignored. Logo was also deleted on Commons due to lack of verification by the same author as to his/her claim of ownership over the organization's logo. Additionally, I am uncertain about the notability of this organization given its lack of 3rd-party press. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 13:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent article Flybridge Capital Partners which may or may not be notable itself. Not notable per WP:NOTE. Wikipedia is not a directory of scholarships. Drawn Some (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The program is already mentioned in the Flybridge Capital Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. I'm not sure how much, if any, of the additional detail is really necessary or helpful. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also noticed that both articles were written by Yifanz (talk · contribs), who was protective of edits in the Flybridge article that removed links to company blogs, Facebook and Twitter profiles, etc. (even reverting the removals at least once). There is apparent COI there, not that it should affect the decision about notability or copy/paste article creation issues with this article. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flybridge Capital Partners, where it's already covered. FCP is questionably notable and could possibly pass WP:ORG, less so for this, which has no evidence of notability StarM 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (((R with possibilities)) perhaps?) is fine with me, though outright deletion doesn't seem a bad option either. Either way, I don't see much point in merging. The program is already mentioned on that page, and much of the current article is a slightly modified copy and paste of the program's website. Nothing really original to merge. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 08:36, 30 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 17:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cozzen Publications[edit]

Recreation of previously deleted material after coi warning (User:Cozzpublications created article Cozzen Publication). No indication through a Google search company is notable. Greedyhalibut (talk) 13:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not understand why this is not a speedy delete by at least 3 criteria : COL/spam, non-notable company or recreation Porturology (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think i understand now what DGG meant byn commenting we need to enforce the CSD policy more. That article seems to fall under none of the three mentioned CSD categories. It is by no means blatant advertising - the initial version didn't even have the website linked. A7 is only valid with articles that don't have a claim to notability, yet "published numerous books" is a pretty good claim to notability. And last, recreation? The logs don't list any deletion under this title, and a quick check didn't reveal an AFD removal of a similar titled page before. Was there any AFD related removal under another name? Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete No sources found to indicate notability. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, without prejudice for recreation if sourceable later, as Excirial, lack of reliable sources to support article for now. Completely object to WP:BITE violations in the way this was handled though. Fully endorse rationale that no CSD criteria apply. --MLauba (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete actually as written I think it it might fall under C7 for companies, as it gives no indication that it might be notable. Nonetheless it isn't a safe speedy, for the question is whether there is more to say, and whether there are sources. looking at its web page & Google, the answer is no and no. DGG (talk) 01:56, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BMW Riders Association[edit]

This article has been tagged for lack of notability since April 2008 yet from what I can see in the history no attempt has been made to expand the article, nor to add references. It is a club for a single make of motorcycle that exists in a single country - and like the other article (BMW Motorcycle Owners of America) I believe it is about an unremarkable organisation and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR As per my comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMW Motorcycle Owners of America, start fresh with a new article (not a merge) that is focused on the topic which the bulk of the media coverage and public interest is on, which is the large motorcycle rallies conducted by this type of club.--Dbratland (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable, cannot find reliable sources to establish WP:NOTE (though I do believe BMWMOA should be kept). tedder (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BMW Motorcycle Owners of America[edit]

This article has been tagged for lack of notability since April 2008 yet from what I can see in the history no attempt has been made to expand the article, nor to add references. It is a club for a single make of motorcycle based in a single country . I believe it is about an unremarkable organisation and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I reinstated this as it looks like I may not have created it correctly in the first place. Apologies for any finger trouble on my part. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a worldwide organization, not a single country . It is the largest single-marque motorcycle club in the world not run by a manufacturer (unlike HOG). Its data is substantiated. BMW MOA's notability is beyond question. My only suspicion here is that "Biker Biker" does not like the brand that is the subject of this association and therefore seeks its deletion. In contrast, he does not seek the deletion of HOG, which is full of completely undocumented claims, and therefore would be a better target for his attention. R69S (talk) 13:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Although the article is not a perfect article, I see no reason to delete it. Sitethief (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments for or against deletion should probably speak to WP:ORG. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources is what is usually needed. Drawn Some (talk) 23:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They run a notable annual rally--see Google News archive and publish a magazine that's in Ulrich's. It's perfectly reasonable that the principle club for this brand would be notable. DGG (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTDIR The media coverage is mostly about the impact of the large rallies carried out by this group, not this group itself, when and where it was founded, the names and photos of the founders, their headquarters location and what they publish. This is phone book/who's who-type directory data. A list of dates and places of rallies belongs in a directory. An encyclopedic topic would be to describe the importance of the rally events, and would include comparison/contrast with other rallies by such groups as BMW Riders Association (which should also be deleted). I don't support a merge. Delete and start fresh with a new approach to the subject. --Dbratland (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is sufficient coverage found in news, as well as in books (amazon, google) to meet WP:ORG and/or WP:PSTS. tedder (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Why focus on this association? It is substantially more significant than nearly all of those Wiki-listed groups listed in the List of motorcycle clubs or here: List of outlaw motorcycle clubs. All of these groups should be deleted if BMW MOA is deleted. R69S (talk) 23:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC) *Additional comments are welcome but please only one bolded !vote per discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment while I agree with you on the keep, note "what about article x?" or "other stuff exists" are logical fallacies on Wikipedia.. tedder (talk) 23:54, 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 keep as no one is suggesting delete anymore. Tavix | Talk 21:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Lewis (actor IV)[edit]

Contested prod with the saying "non-notable actor, his only roles were minor and not noteworthy." An IP removed the tag 4 days later and failed at trying to expand the article... I still stand by my original prod rationale. Tavix | Talk 07:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- decltype (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article in December of 2006 so it has been around for a while and I believe this is the first time it has be nominated for deletion. This actor is credited as being involved in 98 projects by IMDb. There are 14 links from the main name space. I don't see how he can be considered not notable and I cannot see how deleting this article would improve Wikipedia. The fact that his name needs disambiguation should have nothing to do when considering notability. --droll [chat] 23:48, 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasile Gliga[edit]

Deletion proposed. The article is spam.Galassi (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be notable as per this. Salih (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. He was elected to the Romanian parliament in 2008.[42] That article also describes him as the most important musical instrument maker in Romania. If anthing in the article is considered promotional that is a matter for editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the original author, I dispute this is spam. I have no connection with Gliga or his company other than to own one of his violins. He is a significant luthier - in terms of numbers of instruments made (both handmade and factory made), perhaps not quality of instruments. In any event, as per WP:POLITICIAN he is significant according to Wikipedia guidelines irrespective of this violin making. Paul (talk) 04:40, 30 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete comments DGG (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COPE (film)[edit]

Fails WP:NF OlEnglish ^(Talk) 11:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:NF by having in-depth reviews in multiple genre-specific sources (including non-English). The film has been repeatedly panned by reviewers... but they have devoted significant in doing so. I guess even a crapper of a film gets press... if its bad enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice rescue. Enough for me to withdraw my nom. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 05:26, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evile / Untitled Album[edit]

Another for the WP:HAMMER. No title, no confirmed release date, only one track named. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smash per WP:HAMMER, no sources, no title. Why is everyone always in such a big damn hurry to get articles out on upcoming albums and songs? You never see that kind of slobbering fanboy-ism in country music, where articles can remain untouched for months, even years, leaving me to do everything myself... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 19:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely unsourced and unnotable. No title whatsoever. M C 10 | Sign here! 20:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP!!.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:35, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin D. Skelton[edit]

This article has many problems:

It is orphaned; no articles link to it.
It has weak sources. The first source apparently just describes his education, and the second seems to be a self-source.
It is a possible autobiography. The primary author is User:Voxaeterna; note that the article says, "He is artistic director of the musical collective Vox Æterna, which he founded in 1999". Several other edits were made anonymously by IP addresses in the range 87.65.xxx.xxx, which suggests they might all have been the same person. All remaining edits are tag-adding, category-adding, or bot edits.
There is no strong assertion of notability. This article reads like a resume; it lists Mr. Skelton's education, the various ensembles he has performed with, the various positions he has held, and a bit about his teaching, but I'm not sure I understand why he is especially notable. Looking through the list of notability criteria for musicians and ensembles, I see that a musician is notable if he "has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles"—Mr. Skelton might meet this one, perhaps.
There has been no significant work done on this article since 2007.

This article might be keepable if these issues are cleared up; I'm listing it here to try to get something done, since it's been stagnant for two years. —Bkell (talk) 10:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being an orphan has nothing to do with valid deletion reasons. A salient indicator, perhaps, but nothing to worry about. After all, it can only be fixed through editing something else while the article remains unchanged. NVO (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. I listed that fact because it suggests that Mr. Skelton is not notable enough to be mentioned or linked elsewhere in Wikipedia. It in itself is not reason for deletion, but it complements my other bullet points, which should be taken as a whole. —Bkell (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seems to be a talented working musician and scholar. As such, it would not be surprising to find sufficient evidence to satisfy notability, but I do not see it so far. Perhaps others more informed about his specialty can search for additional sources and comment. Any reviews? Edison (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand/improve. And add autobiography tag for now. - Vartanza (talk) 12:47, 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)} 03:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, being an orphan and possible autobiography and not having been worked on recently have no relevance to a deletion discussion. Including those in the nomination can only serve to distract from the real issues of notability and sources. There seem to be two claims of possible notability in the article. First that the subject has "had great success internationally in numerous festivals and competitions". For that to hold water we need to know which festivals and competitions - even his own web site doesn't list them, and I can find no reports of any such success from Google News archive searches for "Kevin D. Skelton"[43] or "Kevin Skelton".[44]. Only five of those hits mention this Kevin Skelton, and in no case is there even a sentence about him - they are simply mentions in cast lists.[45][46][47][48][49] The other claim of notability is as a published scholar. He appears not to have held any position at an academic intitution, and, of the two published articles listed, one is known to Google Scholar,[50] with just three citations listed. This is nowhere near the level of WP:PROF. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:57, 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 a bold redirect to Consciousness#Merkwelt per author's implicit request. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merkwelt[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable term: [51], possibly original research -- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The level of references clearly indicates there is enough use of the term to merit its inclusion, while it is a technical concept, it is a widely used one. Google searches are not a criteria for Wikipedia inclusion. How is this original research if it is referenced? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete this and remove the tag when it specifically say Do Not Remove This Tag Until The Discussion Is Closed?Drew Smith What I've done 09:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for doing that, but this process infuriates me when I have references to back its inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having reviewed the references now added, I am not at all convinced the term is notable. Many of the referenced articles do not even include the term at all. There is nothing in the article that can't be included in articles on AI, perception etc.. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could I then include the information in the AI article then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine just delete it then, I have added the content to the consciousness article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danrules2 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of the peoples of the British Islands[edit]

The consensus on the talk page to date is to delete this article.[52] PBS (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that people do not have to repeat what has already been said, here is a copy of the conversation from the talk page:

Delete this article

I see no merit in this article as it is currently constituted, let me know if this article is put up for an AfD. --PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I kinda like that option. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could turn it into Wikipedia:Set index if it goes back to its original name of British military history --PBS (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no problem with that. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British military history should redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom if this article is deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, just delete it. it makes no sense at all as it currently stands.~~ LevenBoy (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put it up for AfD then... --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, that would solve your problem as well, wouldn't it?~~ MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above comment withdrawn. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only one with a problem is you. At least I'm consistent in my approach which is in line with the WP:BISLES work and not a knee-jerk reactionist who gets in a tizzy if anyone suggests that the term isn't applicable in some circumstances. You have no allowance for any objections under any circumstances, and your childish name-calling is tiring. Grow up. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article title is just fine. What's wrong with British Islands? It's a perfectly good name, and used by the British government, and in British laws etc etc etc. British Islands would include all the islands belonging to the United Kingdom, even the Channel Islands, and exclude the Faroe Islands. Leave it as is. Saying that, I would have no objection for it going back to the pre-Setanta747 edit, if that's what other editors want. Otherwise 'leave it be'. Purple ☏ 02:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, anything so long as "British Isles" is not included in the title. No, the current title is nothing short of laughable and we have it only because you moved the page without agreement. Failing a move back then I vote for deletion. I think we may have a consensus for this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented no argument, only the statement that British Islands is laughable. Appeal to Ridicule. Purple ☏ 12:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We see the current title as a joke which is why people laugh at it. The intro to British islands: The term British Islands is used in the law of the United Kingdom to refer collectively to the following four states. The content of this article does not reflect your chosen title. History of the people of Britain would of made sense, but not doing one about the "peoples" of the British islands". Purple Arrow, lets just agree to delete this article and the problem goes away. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Delete it.MITH 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current title is totally pathetic and Purple Arrow its amazing you can even try to defend such a silly title. I agree with others, lets just delete this article because there is not going to be agreement when certain editors are running around wikipedia trying to delete anything that mentions British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really is a 'good title', but if other editors like yourself BW appear to IDONTLIKE, then I will accommodate that view, unlike your inflexible stance of last week where you couldn't even concede any understanding that the move to the BI title could indeed be a POV move. It is also untrue for you to claim that there are editors "running around WP trying to delete anything that mentions British Isles". Get a grip, that's a false claim, or back it up with some reasoned examples. That has become a kind of mantra amongst a certain section, of about 4 or 5 editors, and the "claim" has worn extremely thin indeed. Purple ☏ 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm i thought my original stance on this matter was fairly neutral. I said i can understand the reasons for wanting this to be British Isles and theres an article on military history of Europe, British Isles is a location just like Europe so i cant see why it shouldnt have one too.

But i also said i was ok with this being renamed to British military history and i opposed the rename to Military history of the United Kingdom because a better article already exists at that location. Thats why im supporting deleting this article and not replacing it with anything as its simply not needed and any content of such an article is going to be heavily disputed. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I concede you were more flexable than I inferred, and apologies for that~~, MidnightBlueMan was looming a bit, for whatever reason. Purple ☏ 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"running around WP trying to delete anything that mentions British Isles" (BW quote). I can think of three editors who are, or have been, doing precisely that. More accurately they are briefing against the term, to use a political analogy, and are opportunistically removing it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there is a campaign being waged by several editors against the British Isles sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.

Sadly, your response is totally negative to an overall consensus. Who are these several editors, are they in your imagination? You have lost credibility with me on issue. Your crowd just lie, lie ,lie, and I'm full to the teeth with you lot. These are some articles that I may write Military history of Britain and France, Military history of Britain and Portugal, Military history of Britain and Germany, Military history of France and Germany, depending. Wikipedia must be balanced , and conform to general format. Purple ☏ 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the suggestion that this article has no potential. There is room for an overview of the military history of the British Isles as a particular element of the history of the British Isles. However whether that was my view or not the decision to prod it was rather swift - accepting consensus on the basis of a few opinions. Given the controversy already shown over this article, Afd should have been the correct process. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can unPROD it if you want, simply by removing the template. There's still a problem with the current name though. I agree with you that an article detailing the Military history of the British Isles has a place in Wikipedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme why pick an arbitrary unit of the British Isles (particularly given some Irish Nationalistic sentiments) why not make it a the Military history of the peoples of Western Europe or the Military history of the peoples of the World. It seems to me that a Military history of Britain (include/exclude Great take your pick) as Wikipedia:Set index article, but to try to make one of the British Isles is just opening up a can of worms, for no real benefit. The other option is to rename it the Military history of Great Britain and Ireland but as I said before why that arbitrary mix and not one for Western Europe? -- PBS (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one don't consider it a particular arbitrary unit since there is a lot of interlinked history behind it. Many history books cover the area, though not always evenly in content. The topic can be tackled in a less Anglocentric fashion (consider Norman Davies The Isles - his choice of a title for the area avoiding the use of British). But notwithstanding my opinion, my addition was chiefly about the use of Prod which was added a scant 24 hours after the first suggestion of a deletion (and that was through the AfD process), and that consensus seems to have been assumed, and my difference of opinion noted at the time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surly there is just as much interlinked military history between the England, Scotland and France as there is between England, Scotland and Ireland. --PBS (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the deletion of this article --T*85 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Arrow - have you actually read British Islands? It does not mean what you think it means. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete Articels about military history would normally relate to the last existent political entity --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete The subject matter is already well covered by other articles. Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--PBS (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was created originally as "British military history" and is clearly dealing with that topic and not the military history of the British Isles. Furthermore, the term "British Isles" was used as a political term to refer to the United Kingdom from early 1700s to early 1900s, so if an article of this title is to be (re)created, it should redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom --HighKing (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems a viable topic and Military history of the United Kingdom doesn't cover the same ground as the residents of the British isles were fighting wars long before any of the component parts of the UK came into being. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using your own argument, the term "British Isles" (and "British Islands" too, it must be said) was only invented by the British as a political term to refer to islands under their control, and the residents of Great Britain and Ireland were fighting wars long before then. --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And using your argument we wouldn't have any articles that use the phrase "Ancient Greece", because that is not what the ancient Greeks called themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "British military history" makes far more sense. Nobody uses "British Islands" in real life. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they do use British Isles, which was the name of the article before its name was recently changed without consensus. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the move to British Isles was a highly confrontational move, also done out of process and without consensus. It's pretty two-faced to claim that what's OK for a title that *you* like, is not OK for a title you disagree with. Chose a different argument. --HighKing (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete or~~ Keep and rename to Military history of the British Isles - An article on the Military history of the British Isles makes sense however there will never be consensus on such an article because certain editors are on a campaign to remove "British Isles" from wikipedia. For that reason the article should be deleted as all the content it covers is available on other articles anyway and but the current title (that was changed to with no consensus) is incorrect and pointless. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: It really needs to be established what this article is about: Either it is a military history of Great Britain, in which case it should be Military history of Great Britain, or it is a military history of the British Isles (i.e. Britain, Ireland and the smaller islands) in which case it should be Military history of the British Isles. I can see a case for both articles to exist within Wikipedia but this is an editorial decision for the article and cannot be solved via Afd (the article clearly has the potential to be notable).--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my point above about using "British Isles" in this context. --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it, but I don't understand it: as long as the article about the geographical British Isles is at the title British Isles then that is the name that should be used for all articles relating to the British Isles, such as this one. If there was an alternative title than British Isles for the article British Isles then this article could be at it, but there isn't. Until an alternative to British Isles is found that represents majority usage in the English speaking world, British Isles is what Wikipedia does and should use wherever the term is required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is agreed that this term should *only* be used in a georgaphical context. A military article is political. The term "British Isles" has a political history. So by creating an article about a historically political subject (military) for a geographical region (British Isles) but using a title with political history (British Isles), are you still using the term in a geographical context? I think not. It's for the same reason that you won't find articles entitles Kings of the British Isles, but you will find Kings of the Britons, Kings of Ireland, Kings of England, Kings of Scotland, etc. --HighKing (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you will find History of the British Isles, of which military history of the islands is a part; a big enough part for a spearate article. And just where does it say (dictate) that the term should "only" be used in a geographical context? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible however that an article with the title Military history of the British Isles can be about military history within the easily defined geographical boundaries of the British Isles. If this article fails to do so then that is an editorial problem, not one for Afd.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except the "British Isles" also has a military history separate to that of the geographic region. It's one thing to use "British Isles" in a geographic sense, it quite another to use it misleadingly to imply that the military unit that was the "British Isles" spans a much larger period of time. --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I somehow missed your reply. You've just said above that "British isles" should only be used in a geographic context, a statement that I agree with. I suggest a geographic use of the term (i.e. military history of the islands to the north of the continent of Europe, known almost universally, including on Wikipedia, as the British Isles) and you change tack and insist that it is suddenly a political term. Either British Isles is a purely descriptive geographical term or it is a historical political term, and this discussion must be guided by the main article British Isles, which is a geographical article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to be a candidate for imporvement or a merge not deletion. --neon white talk 11:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think British Islands means? As the other British Islands rely on the UK for their defence, why do you think this is a "candidate for improvement"? If it is to be merged what content should be merged into what? --PBS (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable subject. Currently this looks more like a portal than an article but with some cleanup (perhaps organize into a timeline/flowchart?) this has some great potential separate from the Military history of the United Kingdom. This already has several sources and here's another potential source. Them From Space 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why the arbitrary "Military history of the British Isles", If we are going to have an arbitrary title why not why not "Military history of North Western Europe" or "Military history of England and Denmark" (they were once ruled by the same king) or the "Military history of England and France" (they were once ruled by the same king) and have a very long military history? Why Group Ireland in with England Wales and Scotland but ignore France? --PBS (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Military History of the British Isles. I recently added some material to this article (prior to its renaming) to make it more inclusive of the British Isles as a whole, but the material was deleted. This material should be re-added. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there won't be consensus for anything else.MITH 17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material is already covered in other articles --Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge British Islands has a limited legal meaning. It is unsuitable for a topic like this. All of the battles and wars listed involved England (I cannot see any that relate to the military history of Scotland or Ireland, except where those countries at war - usally defending themselves - against England). It should be merged with Military history of England. --rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Split this article. The second option would have Military history of Great Britain & Military history of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article name should be Miltary history of the British Isles, not the garbled Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. The British Isles is not some arbitrary grouping as PBS suggests, it is a well-established grouping of islands off NW Europe. Ah, I see the problem - it is trying to be about too many things. The Military history of the United Kingdom already covers the wars fought by the UK. This article should focus on wars fought in the British Isles, so all the relatively modern overseas adventures can be excised. Fences and windows (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Military history of the British Isles, as it is not about British Islands (i.e., islands owned by the UK) but the military history of the British Isles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Split this article. The second option would have Military history of Great Britain & Military history of Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Split to Military history of Great Britain & Military history of Ireland. Military History of Ireland has makings of very interesting unique article. Pleanty of worthy sources, amazing it hasn't been done yet, but WP is a work-in-progress. Purple ☏ 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or History of English/British Army Irish recruits--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and should be called Miltary history of the British Isles--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep List of military encounters of the British Islands, or something of that sort, might be a better name. Honestly now. This is perfectly encyclopedic material. If you wanted to know about every military encounter that nation ever dealt with, this would be the place to find it. Dream Focus 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles has never been a nation, its a geographical area which was more or less synonymous with a political entity for a hundred years or so --Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and let the MilHist Wikiproject sort it out. AfD is not clean-up or merge/split etc. also nom's pointy poisoning the well - consensus on the talk page to date is to delete - isn't helpful. Subject is notable and sourcable. AfD is the wrong venue for this content issue. -- Banjeboi 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which "well" are you talking about? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The well would be this AfD, putting "The consensus on the talk page to date is to delete this article" at the top of this page would seem to poison this well. -- Banjeboi 09:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One might as well call it a treacle well did you bother to read the previous discussion. It seems to me that all but one was in favour of deleting. Please explain why you think in it notable. --PBS (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/rename/split – there is undoubtedly valuable, verifiable content here; let those in the know parcel off and package it as appropriate. Deletion is a last resort for unsalvagable articles. Skomorokh 18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename back to Briotish Isles. CottonGrass (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename back to British Isles. Regardless of the heated debate on the modern usage of the word am sure with work editors would be able to turn this into a good article on the military events that have happened all over these isles.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the advantage of "British Isles" over "North Western Europe"? -PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because North West Europe includes, from my perspective at least, France, Germany etc The military history of purely the British Isles would be able to show how the various kingdoms that have inhabited these Isles have interacted with one another.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can one begin to understand the history of the military interaction of England and Scotland without simultaniously including a history of the military interatction between England and France? This was a war triangle that lasted centuries (up and beyond the unification of Scotland and England (the fifteen and the fortyfive). So what is the advantage of an article about the geographic entity called the British Isles? If one goes back further then for much of the saxon period an article about England and Denmark makes more sense than an article about the British Isles. If one is looking at west cost of Scotland then the reliationship was for many centuries one between Ireland, Scoltand and Scandinavia, with little or no reliationship with the rest of the British Isles. So I don't see why there can be a focus on "inhabited these Isles have interacted with one another" which islands would that be, and what is the advantage such an article over an article on North West Europe? --PBS (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because if you go down that route you might as well just leave it as just the Military history of Europe considering how related all these things can be. Am not going give you the dictonary definition of what the British Isles are, you can easily find that out yourself. I think people could look at certain cut off points i.e. not having to detail Romes conquest of Gaul to finally get to there conquest of Albion or detail the migration of the Germanic tribes etc to finally get to them landing in England etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have other articles already military history of England, military history of Scotland, military history of the United Kingdom, military history of France, (all named after states) what is the advantage to one named after the name of an area for which there is a political dispute over the name (IONA)? Why Ireland, Scotland and England together and leave out France when most of the dynamics of the wars in and between Ireland, Scotland and England are tightly bound to wars between England and France? --PBS (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to its original title of British Isles. I cannot say more than what has already been said. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss the name elsewhere. Good job of an outline. To delete because of a naming dispute is remarkably unconstructive DGG (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the advantage of "British Isles" over "North Western Europe"? As before the development of the United Kingdom, When England attacked France Scotland attacked England, so an article that does not include France, is not a balanced article, as the dynamics within of conflicts within the British Isles are usually meaningless unless one in includes France and Spain/low countries. Why is it that you wish to have an article that geographically only covers part of the theatre of war? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- (1) Arguments that there is no such thing as the "British Isles" are ill-informed. I do not think this is a distinct topic from military history of the UK is really open to question. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Usually one is more interested in the dynmics between nations and states rather than a geographical entity. Why cover a graphic area that only covers part of the theatre? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the flaw in this line of devils advocate is that in several thousands years of warfare in Europe calling the British Isles only part of a theatre of war is ambiguous and erroneous depending on the context. For example were the British Isles only a portion of this North West/Western European theatre of war when discussing the Roman invasion, the English invasion of Scotland or conquest of Wales, the Norman invasion, the war of the three kingdoms etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article was unilaterally renamed to include the term "British Isles" in it. "British Isles" was never in the original title contrary to many misinformed people above. This change to "British Isles" was done by a self-declared British loyalist from the northeast of Ireland. The same person has renamed several articles simply to make this specific political point. This article under this title is a political statment, no more and no less. I guarantee if you gather the political views of all the people who want to impose this name on this article you will find that they are eurosceptic flag-waving British nationalistic types to the last man. Absurd that this irredentist carry-on is still going on in 2009, decades after free education was introduced into Britain. Dunlavin Green (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

``political statment`` laughable from a staunch flag-waving nationalist type.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Military History of the British Isles. This is a potentially useful article. It should not be deleted because of a dislike for the the term British Isles by a minority of editors. LevenBoy (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There doesn't appear to be a consensus to delete - the consensus is that there is valuable content in this list article and that it should be kept. The question appears to be revolving around what the title should be. I propose to close this AfD and reopen the title topic on the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the valuable content? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back to British military history. This AfD is just a veiled Wikipedia:POINT. Fornadan (t) 21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British military history would imply the history of Great Britain, and as such redirects to Military history of the United Kingdom. Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which leads us back to the central question: what is the purpose of this article? It seems to serve no practical purpose as the Military history of the United Kingdom article covers that very comprehensively. Thus there is going to be much duplication if this article is kept. I can see that some people just want to have the name on wikipedia, but what will this article actually add to this encyclopedia? 86.44.44.218 (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the wars fought on the British Isles is a pretty useful addition to this encyclopedia. The UK is not the same as the British Isles, and it's only been around for the past 300 years. Fences and windows (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed one on the British Isles would be useful. There is an attempt at TALK:Military history of the peoples of the British Islands#Options page now to decide where the article belongs. Everyone who has voted for this article to be kept should go there and try to help resolve what it should be renamed as. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, by the same argument the "British Isles" has only been around for 400 years, since the term was coined by John Dee and used historically to describe a political entity, that being the islands united by a single British monarch. If an article is to be written on the military history of the British Isles, then it should only span that time period.

It's also a bit pointy that other articles (e.g. Military history of Germany) describe military history from the point of view of a current political entity, regardless of how the territory waxed and waned over time. The military history of the UK article is a content fork and should be contained with a military history of Britain article. And finally, despite the "fixes" being applied in an attempt to keep this pointy article in it's current place, can someone now explain to be why British military history now points to Military history of the United Kingdom??? Or have the British editors forgot their reasoning for the UK article in the first place? --HighKing (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The military history of the UK article is a content fork and should be contained with a military history of Britain article." If it is a content fork then what definition of "Britain" are you using? --PBS (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, British Isles is an established way of referring to the islands off the NW of Europe, and is now geographical not political. You say this article is "pointy". Exactly what point is being made? Fences and windows (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article seems to have much merit and should be built on per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the merit of the current article? -- PBS (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is educational and so well satisfies our core mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any merit in the current content. It is largely a list, but assembled without any real objective in mind. If it is supposed to relate to events in the geographical area, most of the list will have to be deleted, because it lists everything from the Third Crusade to the Sierra Leone civil war. I can't see the point in a list of wars and battles in which people living in a geographical area have participated; the military history of political entities makes more sensee, but that is covered comprehensively by other articles, with the possibleecxeption of military history of Ireland. Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such issues of scope do not warrant deletion as they can be addressed by ordinary content editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Military history of the peoples of the British Islands" how does a title such as this educate anyone? What do you think it British Islands means? --PBS (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, the current title is silly and makes no sense at all which is why we ended up here. But this was a title given to it by one editor a few weeks ago without consensus simply because he doesnt like British Isles and we have not been allowed to restore it to its previous title (which lasted over 7 months). For that 7+ months the article was titled Military history of the peoples of the British Isles. That title allowed us to cover all conflicts in the history of the the British Isles, unlike an article such as Military history of the United Kingdom which is restricted to just over 300 years since the birth of the sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not suggest changing the name in your initial statement. Why do you think that a military history about a geographic entity has merit? We already have articles on the Military history of Scotland, Military history of England and Military history of the United Kingdom, as it is impossible to understand the most of the dynamics of military history between England, Scotland and Ireland after 1066 without including France, what is the advantage of such an article? Before 1169 there was next to no military contact between England and Ireland so again what is the advantage of this article over creating one for the military history of Ireland which can include the relationships between Ireland and Scotland and the relationships Ireland had with the Scandinavian countries, long before they had much contact with what is now England. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only started to get involved with this article after the name change took place on the 20th of May, the title is totally crazy so i wanted it moved back or atleast changed. Because of the ongoing dispute about "British Isles" i thought it very unlikely that an agreement would be reached to rename so i supported the suggestion of just deleting the article (which is better than an article with an incorrect title). Anyway after i saw there was alot of opposition to deleting i supported the change back to British Isles which ive always prefered and seen the use for.

Its true that there are many articles on conflicts involving these nations. Military history of England is currently just a list but i think at some stage it would be better if it was laid out as Military history of Scotland is. Military history of the United Kingdom can only start at 1707.

I can see the sense in having a Military history of Britain and Military history of Ireland and i dont strongly oppose that, the trouble is when people look for Military history of Britain they are likely looking for the article on British military history not about the island going back to Roman times so i feel that should redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom. Also at some stage someone may want a military history on the sovereign state Ireland, considering theres the ongoing naming dispute i would think Military history of Ireland is where theyd want the sovereign states military history, not the island. Its true that in the early years theres very little military conflict between Britain and Ireland, but the vast majority of things listed are conflicts after the 12th century and there would be alot of content repeated if the article got split in two (especially as theres many other articles already as you mentioned)

For that reason i think it makes sense to have one article on the military history of the British Isles and it was stable for 7+ months until two weeks ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irredeemable and utterly useless listcruft in its present form, bad enough to justify ripping it up and starting again. Although the article has existed since 2003, I very much doubt it was ever the centrepiece for the topic, it has the look of a neglected backwater about it, while the really usefull content is no doubt duplicated in other better focused articles, the ones with the words and pictures and references and all that jazz. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move, preferably to Military history of the British Isles —ras52 (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep where it is - nonsense to move it to Military history of the British Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was good faith nomination withdrawn. No arguments for delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WDXR[edit]

This is a non notable radio show with no information on hosts or what it broadcrasts. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 09:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for years there has been consistent precedent that government-licensed broadcast radio stations such as this one are presumed notable. They are part of their town's infrastructure. There is basic information on this stub article (including what it broadcasts). --RadioFan (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You would say that though, you are the author of the article. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Author or no, that is the current standard of notability for radio stations. The standard may in fact set the bar too low. Instead of picking off stations one by one, I think a better process would be to debate the standard itself, wherever the forum for that sort of thing is. Hairhorn (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per all previous precedent that all licensed radio stations are notable, no matter their popularity. Nate • (chatter) 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The notability of this government-licensed radio station is easily verified. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It's actually a radio station, not a radio show, and includes information on its format (and more added since nomination). It doesn't include information on its hosts, as that's generally information not considered necessary in an article. More to the point, lots of precedent that licensed radio stations are generally held to be notable, especially so for full-power stations. Mlaffs (talk) 00:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep A FCC licensed commercial radio station for many decades, heard over a wide area. I expect that it also satisfies WP:N besides that, with numerous articles in newspapers in its region over those decades about the station. Edison (talk) 01:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as this is a radio station not a "show" and FCC-licensed broadcast radio stations are generally held as notable, as are small towns and major highways. Plus, this article does have references that go towards notability in any case. - Dravecky (talk) 01:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have just significantly expanded the WDXR article, adding history and references to give readers a deeper understanding of this notable radio station. - Dravecky (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speediest Keep - All radio station that have or have had a FCC license are notable. Period. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh the weather outside is frightful ....--RadioFan (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed it is...LOL. If you listen close enough, you might hear Santa. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have seen all this, I am changing my status to speedy keep and am withdrawing my nom. Let it just be said, I did not know any of this before Neutralhomer told me. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 08:54, 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 Keep: nom changed his mind, all other opinions are keeps with one neutral, so there is no one left arguing for a deletion. Fram (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of nu metal bands[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Simply an un-manageable list. IPs constantly edit warring over each other's opinion as to which band is and which band isn't "Nu metal". Also constant addition of non-notable bands. This isn't a fan-list or "my local band's promotional tool" but unfortunately it's treated as such. It's been tagged as needing sources for over a year now and still none are present. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as nom. Sometimes, all it takes is a little push... Delete as nom. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being the victim of edit wars isn't a valid reason for deletion. I'd recommend that you get the article semi-protected to avoid this. Lugnuts (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral~~Delete~~ as an indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that there is edit warring going on regarding the definition of "nu metal" solidifies this concern. This is also devoid of sourcing and all of these entities would have to be verified without a doubt as being nu metal bands. Them From Space 11:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to neutral after sourcing/cleanup job. Them From Space 23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in agreement with User:Lugnuts, certainly is not indiscriminate and is a valid navigational list in line with guidelines and all the other similar lists. It just needs sources. Suggest the nom. reviews Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --neon white talk 11:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- "its been the subject of edit wars" is not and has never been valid reason for deletion, neither is being unsourced (being unsourceable is, unsourced is not, and yes there's a difference). The ony thing those arguments support are more careful monitoring and maintenance. Aside from that, the list is maintainable, assuming people are willing to spend the effort.Umbralcorax (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - edit warring by IPs is not a valid deletion argument, and has a simple solution (semi-protection). Addition of Non-notable content is also not a valid deletion argument- just remove the non-notable additions, and sanction the editors who add them if they are doing so in a disruptive manner. NoCal100 (talk) 14:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the many editors that watch the list keep it one of the best maintained on WP, despite no protection. Limiting it to bands with WP articles solves the sourcing issue completely; would that every WP list followed the same approach. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IPs edit-warring is no reason for deletion. Keeping the list to notable bands makes sense and is consistent with the various other "List of X metal bands". Needs sourcing though, and the bolding and "ealy material" comments need removing as that's a POV minefield. Some form of comment at the top of the article about it being a list of bands described as "nu metal" by a professional journalist at some point in the career should be added (or words to that effect; reliable sources, not webzines, blogs or forums, in other words). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've started trying to address the problem of sourcing by adding a reliable source for each band on the last (I've got as far as "D") and removing everything I couldn't immediately find one for. If other sources come to light, brilliant (as a starting point I used the Tommy Udo book, MusicMight and Allmusic) but a good rule of thumb would be: Don't add anything to the list without a reliable source. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking much better. Tagged for a year as having no sources, it took this to get someone who cared off their duff. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Literally every band on the list is now referenced. Better sourcing can almost certainly be found, but (whilst it's not an article or genre that I particularly care about) as a point of principle, it's incredibly easy to source stuff like this. AfD is not supposed to be used as a way of getting editors "off their arse" to sort sourcing problems. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. It worked. It's a troublesome list that I've been watching for several months now. Back and forth, back and forth.. notable bands, some local band the drummer thinks is nu metal so should be on the list.. bold, remove bold.. over and over.. with sourcing in place, future additions can be removed immediately if they do not provide a source. Ground rules needed to be set, which Afd is most certainly appropriate for. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 03:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:13, 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 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erictric.com[edit]

Blog site. Previously up for speedy db-web, but does appear to have some notability+sources, so AfD raised to get further opinion.Oscarthecat (talk) 08:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources are no good. Two are from the site itself, and one is a blog. My own search didn't turn up anything any better. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the fact that the only contributor to the article has a conflict of interest. --t'shael mindmeld 08:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched on Google for this before I CSD A-7d, no hits except to the site, no news or any references. Google is the gold standard for websites! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: being 29,515,116th on Alexa's list won't assure this one a spot at Wikipedia. Alexius08 (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe the sources are sufficient. If you disagree, that is fine. Another source has been added. Also, Alexa's statistics are not reliable, they only retrieve information from users with the Alexa toolbar installed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictric (talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that the sources are not reliable by Wikipedia standards. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is not so "Free" after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictric (talk • contribs) 22:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free as in it doesn't cost any money, not free as in a free-for-all where anything goes. The basic principles are outlined at the five pillars and verifiability is one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only cheering is coming from a user whose name happens to be the same as the website in question. In addition to a lack of sources, I sense a conflict of interest in here.Tyrenon (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your jobs and remove the content if it is not held up to your almighty standards instead of poking the dead horse with a stick. I can tell you enjoy doing this type of thing, and you do it often. Your reasoning is understood. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.33.97 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC) — 24.63.33.97 (talk) 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Rodgers[edit]

Non-notable blogger; may have been written by the subject herself, an act of COI. Blake Gripling (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had posted an incident report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:AskMissA. The COI goes beyond this page, the user also created The Courage Cup with positive hooks into her and then edited Late Night Shots and Gregory R. Ball with some subjective and unreferenced text and now has added herself to notable alumni of Salem Academy and in the See also section of Justine Ezarik with no connection established. This is more than a case of COI, it borders on vandalism. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already had her blocked due to username violation, as well as for obvious reasons. Blake Gripling (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Speedy delete requested for The Courage Cup and declined. Now at AfD too here. Smartse (talk) 19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP doesn't pass WP:CREATIVE (standard for Blogger?), in addition to the COI autobiography status of the article -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable, vanity article. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Annoyed Keep -- despite the blatant conflict of interest in the article's origin, the falsehoods she's now putting into her blog about our ethical standards and COI rules, and the repeated personal attacks on me in said blog, the case has now been established that she is sufficiently notable in some circles. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable and a blatant piece of self promotion. Smartse (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject wrote on Twitter that she stayed up all night adding herself to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poligal (talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self promotion with no particular notability. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, likely conflict of interest. -Quartermaster (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above.Tyrenon (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite there being some news coverage about the person (some of the references only have the person mentioned in passing, and are not about her), there are the auto-biographical issues (the creator/main contributor most definitely is the subject), COI issues, and non-notability to consider. Also, in trying to clean the article up from its many, many WP:WTA and WP:NPOV issues, I noticed new usernames being created solely to edit this article (see history), some to insert insulting comments [53], and others to continue to add peacock words/make the subject seem more important than she is. I believe heading this off at the pass by deleting it now would be of best interest with regards to WP:BLP issues, as well as the issues noted above. Ariel♥Gold 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not believe this page should be deleted. According to WP:BLP, page deletion should normally be the last resort. In keeping with this, I have removed non-notable, un-sourced, self-serving, and vague references. Per WP:BLPEDIT, this is not vandalism. A living person can be notable even if they create their original entry. And a page can be made neutral even if it was originally created as non-neutral. I believe this person is notable because she has been recognized by peers as a reputable relationship advice blogger and the controversy between herself and the upcoming reality show "Blonde Charity Mafia" which airs this July. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitmikazuki (talk • contribs) 15:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not believe this page should be deleted. Subject is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.179.129 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[Note: See update below] Weak keep on the contingency that the article be radically revised to remove all unsouced material, bring in line with WP:BLP and uses only non-blog citations. Undoubtedly there is much in this article that violates WP:YOURSELF and WP:PROMOTION. However, I believe the subject may still pass WP:BIO based on the following sources:

OnTap, a Washington-area magazine with an editorial team, conducted an interview with her.
PBS MediaShift's Mark Glaser included her among four subjects of a reported column that also featured video blogger Cali Lewis and Twitter's Biz Stone.
Washington Post's Reliable Source column also reported on her charitable activities (and related media attention) last year.

In short, I think this article can be saved. It won't look anything like what its subject wanted in the first place, but if someone had come along with these sources and written something cautious and conservative, this deletion debate probably would never have come up. If nobody else will volunteer to make these cuts, I can try to do this by tomorrow afternoon (Wednesday) EDT. WWB (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep After working with this article, it is clear the subject easily passes the general notability guideline, with multiple dedicated stories in the periodicals listed above, as well secondary coverage in CNN, the Washington Times and regional newspapers. Much of the sourcing actually meets WP:RS, even the first-party citations, it was just hard to tell given the original self-promotional tone and non-encyclopedic details. Perhaps this article began life as a vanity article, but that's not a reason to delete it per se. I've now improved it, and I will continue working to improve it, but this article now deserves to stay. I don't get involved in deletion debates often, but if one can move to close in favor of keeping an article, I'd like to do so now. WWB (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is now well referenced from independent sources. Good work in starting to clean up this article. It now passes the basic notability guidelines. Varbas (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This gets weirder by the day: Reference to this AfD on the subject's blog -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- follow-up - it's getting worse: she's getting bad advice, "“Actually, there is no policy against paying someone to be your ‘wiki-representative’– I do this kind of work professionally. However, Wikipedia does not make this obvious to people, and I suppose it’s been in their interest to maintain this impression. After all, who wants a flood of PR professionals trying to game the system? That said, I think this will eventually change, and more people will be doing what I do. ”" and relaying it to her readers as The Suppressed Truth about Wikipedia; and making repeated personal attacks on me and other members of the "Wiki gestapo" in that blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've no idea how much contact with 'real life' OrangeMike has (or has had), but I certainly have had plenty - at all sorts of levels from the real peerage to 'working class' burglars - and lower. And I still consider this article to be a load of puff. By 'wiki-representatives', does she mean those would-be advertising agencies that put spam pages up here (and whose work usually gets speedily deleted...)? Or are there admins for sale to block deletions? Whichever, is there a WikiGestapo? How does one join it? Invitation or application? Peridon (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Management is a service offered by companies like New Media Strategies (first entry on the search) who say on their site "NMS also offers a Wikipedia Audit service, in which we identify problems and opportunities with the pre-existing Wikipedia articles that can be addressed by NMS’ established Wikipedians." This isn't the first time I'm coming across this service, many PR agencies do it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "bad advice" OrangeMike refers to is mine, so naturally I disagree with his characterization. As a matter of fact, I also work for New Media Strategies (NMS) and crafted the language on our website that is quoted above. Please note from my comment to Ms. Rodgers that I am also concerned about WP:SPAM.

Some background: I've been a Wikipedia contributor for my own enjoyment and (hopefully) others' edification since mid-2006. I first worked with an uninvolved editor to create the article about NMS in late 2007. I started researching this area more closely, and in early 2008 I created a separate, disclosed account for NMS-related work. That user page explains how I make certain to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines -- especially WP:COI -- and includes a list of articles to which I have contributed from that account. Recent work I am proud of includes cleaning up some WP:BLP and related issues on John Ashcroft's article (see discussion on his talk page beginning here).

I think it is important that the subjects covered by Wikipedia articles be able to join the discussion about what is contained in those articles. Even organizations have interests and concerns that are similar to BLP, although not identical. I do realize that there are some here who may be very skeptical of this kind of work. However, as Spaceman7Spiff notes, it's inevitable that people will try. I submit that it's better to encourage those who are willing to do so openly and honestly, working through the community. I don't think there is anything in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines against this, and I think it would be a serious problem if there was. Perhaps an existing problem is that there is no policy that specifically addresses this subject.

For what it's worth, Ms. Rodgers is neither a client of mine nor of New Media Strategies. She happens to be the Twitter acquaintance of a colleague who had mentioned her activity to me. As my first comment above makes clear, I thought it was a badly flawed article -- and it still is flawed -- but I also could see that it met WP:BIO. I was sympathetic; I'm very cognizant of how non-obvious many of our principles can be to outsiders and how steep the learning curve is. I saw this a chance to help teach someone else about how Wikipedia works, rather than to WP:BITE a potential newbie.

Anyway, I guess those are my key points. Obviously this discussion will close soon, so I'd like to invite anyone who has disagreements or concerns back to my talk page to discuss them. It's a subject I am very much invested in, and the more discussion the better. Cheers, WWB (talk) 03:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Actually OrangeMike is right, your disagreement is misplaced. Refer WP:COI#Financial, "If you fit either of these descriptions: 1. you are receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia as a representative of an organization (whether directly as an employee or contractor of that organization, or indirectly as an employee or contractor of a firm hired by that organization for public relations purposes); ....then we very strongly encourage you to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest". While it isn't illegal to edit in such circumstances, what any PR agency does by editing client articles is clearly in violation of the spirit of the entire collaborative and neutral aspect of Wikipedia. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the basic issue is that my e-mail to Ms. Rodgers didn't properly convey the nuances of following COI, then that is a fair point. I concede that it wasn't as carefully explained as I've attempted here; she had previously written that Wikipedia policy expressly forbid such a thing, and I simply wanted to correct that. As for WP:COI#Financial, it has been very influential on my activity as a representative of NMS and I think it's a sound policy although, as previously stated, I think it may be incomplete. I also take to heart bold-faced clause from the top of COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I support this whole-heartedly, and I recognize that I cannot always discern where the line is, so where I suspect an intended edit may be controversial -- or I want to create a new article (see here, for example) -- that's where I seek input from neutral editors first. And when I make direct edits without prior discussion, they tend to be of the Non-controversial variety. For an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit," I think these are reasonable and guideline-supported precautions for ensuring compliance with COI. Just as importantly, I believe they are very much in the spirit of Wikipedia's principles of collaboration and neutrality. WWB (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

: DELETE - Allowing articles such as this to be included in Wikipedia will dilute its value and credibility. The subject notes she is a socialite, philanthropist, and blogger. On no account are her achievements particularly noteworthy. A check on alex for web traffic to her blog notes that is ranked 500,000+ most trafficked site. Site statistics. Further, a philanthropist is generally one who endows causes with their own wealth whereas subject appears to be an event promoter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.245.145 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even with these improvements to the article, she's still not notable - Vartanza (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - The fact that this article has survived this long is concerning to me... Wikipedia's sharp eyes are either overworked or growing indifferent. Justification for deletion is the simple fact that the article's subject has not done any of sufficient notability other than, it appears, to try to be notable. Subject's noted self-creation of the article (according to her own blog) is immediate and irrefutable grounds to kill the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.199.83.101 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have a blog, do I get an article too? Sheesh Niteshift36 (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of these additional votes for deletion address the fact that the subject of the article has more than enough news coverage, from a variety of news sources, to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Remaining objections here appear to be solely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds. WWB (talk) 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editor WWB appears to be a paid agent specializing in electronic marketing and exploiting Wikipedia for commercial promotional purposes. WWB's opinion on matter is not objective and potential appears that there may be a conflict with New Media Strategies and article's subject Andrea Rodgers. WWB is the lone voice advocating for a Save of article while practically all others are delete, with exception of one weak keep. Bottom line, media sources name Rodgers in articles but they are not ABOUT her. None of her purported accomplishments rise to the level worthy of recognition and maintenance on Wikipedia. Again, just delete this thing, it is not even worth the discussion. If WWB or some other person can note on achievement worthy of note on the subject, please present it. Further, appears previous Save attempt and other keep comments were by sock-puppet/bogus accounts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.197.97.70 (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR. WP:GNG does not apply. We have stricter guidelines for biographies, particularly those of living individuals. لenna vecia 05:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Janna Nickerson[edit]

Non-notable writer. KuroiShiroi (contribs) 02:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published author. Hairhorn (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though this author may be barely notable, she passes WP:BIO. Being self-published is not a valid reason for deletion if sources are available. According to this Google News Archive search, several sources exist that establish this writer's notability. Here is an article from KCBY and two articles from Grand Forks Herald. A possible argument for deletion could be "only has local notability" but I disagree with that. I agree with Iridescent (talk · contribs), who said in another AfD debate that ""Only local importance" doesn't wash as a deletion reason; many if not most of our articles (in some cases like transportation and geography, close to 100%) are on topics of only local importance." Cunard (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article from The World Link and this article from the Ravalli Republic. Notability is fully established by the substantial coverage from four reliable news organizations. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published author, and all seven of those sources--four from the same local newspaper--only establish her existence, really, not any real notability. The transport and geographical articles, being about fixed items, are inherently local for the most part; a writer or creative person's notability should not be, and this particular subject appears to be barely known even within her home-town. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The keep argument above contains sources from a publication from North Dakota/Minnesota while the kid is from Oregon. "Only local notability" is a clearly invalid reason whether you agree with the underlying idea of such a concept or not. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete authors of self published books need exceptionally strong evidence, as almost none of them are even remotely notable. I don;'t know why a local newspaper in Oregon chose to cover it when she was making a tour of local middle school libraries to promote the book, but it doesn't matter. such RSs do not show notability for such a book. Serious substantial coverage from national sources is necessary. The name of the book publisher [54] is interesting: Hidden Talent Press. When the talent is widely recognized, there can be an article. This is the sort of human interest story to which BLP applies; it is not encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard. The requirement is to pass either GNG or additional. While she doesn't meet the latter, she does have enough coverage to pass general in the cited references. She's even been covered in multiple areas, which invalidates the local interest only complaint, even if that were a valid procedural reason for deletion. Not claiming she's spectacularly notable or accomplished, but she does meet the bare minimum standard of notability.Horrorshowj (talk) 05:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generally speaking if an author is notable then they don't need vanity/self publishing. May be for the first book, but for an author to have a series of books all self-published then that points to their lack of notability. --WebHamster 01:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being self-published doesn't mean that she is non-notable. You are disregarding the ample sources that attest to her notability. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja²⁴⁷ 06:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete coverage of her is too local to satisy the notability criteria. Being self-published doesn't mean one is inherintly non-notable, Nietzsche for example published some of his books himself. One has to meet WP:N or WP:BIO independantly of the self-published works and this subject's notability isn't widespread enough for WP:N. Them From Space 11:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per cunard. It doesn't matter if an author is self-published, but instead whether they meet the criteria which this author apparently does.Smallman12q (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:CREATIVE she doesn't. --Web Hamster 13:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she fails WP:CREATIVE, but that doesn't mean her article should be deleted if she passes WP:GNG. The sources provided above show that GNG is easily met. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's minor local coverage, but the books are not well-known, she's not a published author. She's not got enough recognition yet to pass the threshold. Fences and windows (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not "local". See Mgm's keep vote. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The local coverage just isn't enough to cut it for an author with less than 5,000 copies of their books sold. She might be borderline, but I really don't feel she quite makes it to the criteria listed as she's entirely self-published.Tyrenon (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is not "local". See Mgm's keep vote. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while it's impressive that a young woman from Montana went on a multi-state book tour which got coverage in Oregon, I don't see that these articles establish her notability as a writer. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only minor local coverage - not enough to establish notability Hipocrite (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)repli[reply]

The coverage is not just local. See Mgm's comment above that some of the sources are from publications in "North Dakota/Minnesota while the kid is from Oregon". Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets the requirements for a biography. She has mentions in newspapers, mostly about her young age. Dream Focus 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep She may be a writer but she she isn't a publicist. She went on a thirteen state tour and this is all the publicity she has? And she only sold 4000 books? I suggest a stay of execution but if we don't see a marked improvement showing more and varied sourcing and some noatbility this article will likely be back at AfD. -- Banjeboi 17:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per our N and BIO standards for authors. Eusebeus (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree she fails WP:AUTHOR, but the article should be kept because the sources show that she passes WP:GNG. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since it doesn't even appear that her self-published books pass our notability standards, but she definitely fails our BLP standards since there are insufficient reliable sources that treat this subject -- her life, her loves, her losses! -- in any depth at all. Generally, sources are needed for BLPs.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided in the sources are enough to make the article look the way it is now. This article isn't a stub; it's a decent start-class article. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There appear to be sufficient sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you name 2? How bout 1? I find O.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sources in my keep comment above are reliable sources. I count 5 sufficient sources. Cunard (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sales don't show notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:42, 30 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 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Sweden relations[edit]

a random combination with non resident embassies. close to no third party coverage [55] except football coverage and this and this, which both don't make an article. LibStar (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another empty boiler-plate 'article'. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hmm, the only relation I could find was AySel and Arash. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 08:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought we'd seen the end of this silly series.Knobbly (talk) 11:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only a few thousand to go. No content, and we will be better served by single country lists. Collect (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PUTEFFORT and lack of any possible content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No prospect of any useful content. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no sources to meet WP:N Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of reliable, independent sources that discuss this mooted relationship in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adding 3rd party references. A growing relationship built on trade and business contacts dating back over a century to when Alfred Nobel's brothers Robert and Ludvig began extracting oil in Baku in Azerbaijan 1874.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cdogsimmons. Also these two countries are members of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). According to Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations#Bilateral relations, if two countries are in an alliance, the relations between them are notable. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 18:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of the rather lame sources added discuss the bilateral relationship at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to well established precedent and knowledge of third party coverage, if two countries are in an alliance, the relations between them are not necessarily notable. they may be, may not be but inventing a criterion to save an article is going to work. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the topic of the article meets the General Notability Guidelines: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources mention these relations in the depth required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Educare India[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability hasn't been established. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within the article: Reference 1 doesn't work, but on searching for it on the newspaper site, it is a mention of an exhibition held by this company, in the city pages of the newspaper. Reference 2, is a statement of someone connected to this company on the website of a University (which may or may not have notability issues). Reference 3 is the company website. Reference 4 is company website in the EU, under construction. There are six mentions in city pages of local newspapers through this Google India news search. Doesn't pass WP:ORG -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I had to do a second nomination since the first one got red-linked and I wasn't able to access it after trying to go through. If someone in the know could merge the two, it be great. Thx -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"delete" no evidence of notability presented and I can't find any a quick scout around the web. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep for now - ExpressIndia currently seems to have database issues, which prevents us from accessing potential sources. Google news has 3 articles which may or may not be useful. Google Search also provides some material. Whether this will amount to sufficient reliable sources to keep is hard to evaluate, however, doubt should benefit the article. Last but not least there is a risk of systemic bias against this kind of organization, I suggest making sure this is flagged for attention with WP:INDIA to see if they can help improve the article. Long story short: reasonable doubt as potential news sources cannot be immediately evaluated amounts to default keep until proved otherwise. MLauba (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found a number of newspaper articles like this one, where its work is mentioned. though the article needs proper referencing, this could help - Google news here. Just because it is not a conglomerate which would readily get reported in media, there is no need to display such eagerness to deleted it. And that would only show a long term myopia. This one should be allowed to grow by also informing its creators etc. Above all, relax! I would assume Good faith and wait a while...--Ekabhishek (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through the news links before I put it up for AfD. A majority of them are related to other organizations with "Educare" in their name including a school for Dyslexics, a tutorial college in Mumbai and so on. And as I mentioned in my AfD note, they are city page listings except for the Tribune article. The same user (and their now banned Socks) also created similar and "hooking" pages : International Internship in India, EduCARE India, Baljinder, , i.e.india (Internship in EduCARE India), Ruraldevse. Given all this and the lack of anything proving notability other than the one Tribune article about the joint symposium and other city page calendar events, the lack of good faith, and my AfD. Should have made it more clear initially. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:08, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tha Down Low[edit]

Non-notable compilation —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search results were mostly retail listings with occasional forum or blog posts. Don't see anything that could possibly establish notability.ReverendWayne (talk) 21:30, 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 delete. A7 Tone 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reshmee Doolub[edit]

Notability not asserted or evident; possible hoax Kiwikibble (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No google hits other than the wiki article. poss hoax. Kiwikibble (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly qualifies for A7 - Person. Cast list on IMDB - Kaun Hai Jo Sapno Mein Aaya? doesn't list her, and that's the mainstay of the article. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:01, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Allen Burrell[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced, apparent self promotion/blog. Hate to waste time at AFD but it asserts notability (critically acclaimed architecture), however any admin wandering by feel free to CSD. 7 ^{talk | Δ |} 05:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Kiwikibble (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two hits of Google Search result refers to Wikipedia and to MySpace page of another person. CSD candidate. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like vanity, merely a venue for the author to promote himself. Note that the creator of the page both only ever has edited this page, and is the only editor to make significant changes to the article text. JIP | Talk 06:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. This is Wikipedia, not a place to copy your MySpace page. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, sources not available to establish notability. Plus, I feel a weird suffocation when reading it. Drawn Some (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable self-promotion/advertising page. --Midnightdreary (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Zablocki[edit]

A fellow new page patroller declined to speedy this, and I'm respecting that. PROD unsurprisingly contested by the author, who had not edited prior to creating this article (and is also pretty clearly the subject). A pittance of ghits, but most are social networking sites. Does not seem to satisfy the GNG. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 04:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough in third party sources. Kiwikibble (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources would those be? The two links to his campaign website, or the article that quotes him (once) in a story on another matter? Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is about the only non-trivial hit I can find. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think the office he was running for was notable, but apparently it is. WP:POLITICIAN states that being a candidate or even being elected to public office does not by itself confer notability, though. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 05:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are five news pieces about him, all related to his candidacy - , Google News. However, the article itself is an exact copy of this page, so it might be a copy vio. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As user Nosleep mentioned, simply being a candidate for office does not meet criteria for notability. They need something else notable about them, and this page seems like a promotional press release. Anybody can sign up to be a candidate for office. If he wins, he's notable. If he does something notable, then he's notable. For now he's just a staffer running in an election he will probably lose. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah looks like self-promotion indeed. The main editor on the page is User:Alexforpa... Alex for Public Advocate, I presume. I appreciate that he isn't trying to hide it. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Looks like self (or family) promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina (American singer)[edit]

Non-notable singer with only an internet-release single. Fails both general notability requirements at WP:BIO as well as WP:MUSIC. The article was extremely promotional and has been cleaned up but she still is not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Marginally notable person. The coverage is sufficient, however. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be mistaking articles about the Greek, Portuguese, or Italian singers that also go by the single name "Sabrina" for articles about this particular Sabrina. Drawn Some (talk) 07:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the links I've added refers to the topic of this AfD. It was a bit confusing, I admit. Check the article, please. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Associated Content nor PRLog are reliable sources. As you noted, the PRLog article is a press release and anyone can submit articles to Associated Content, they pay per 1,000 views. Drawn Some (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, none of them are reliable nor significant. --neon white talk 12:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. --neon white talk 12:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only claim of notability is featuring on a single by a grammy nominated artist. Whilst grammy nominated artists are notable (Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles) I don't think that featuring on one single with them is enough for inclusion. The other references just detail that she has interviewed various people - nothing else meets the criteria linked at wp:music. The main contributor may also have a conflict of interest (discussed here) which would explain why this article has been created in the first place. Smartse (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient sources, no chart singles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - you are apparently right, people.... I'm always trying to save the articles, but this is not encyclopedic, I agree. When I'm looking at a nice photo, I'm sometimes not encyclopedic :) ayayay... ( Sorry for wasting your time). --Vejvančický (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you've changed your mind, you should probably change your vote above so as to not potentially confuse the closing admin. DreamGuy (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's good not to have universal agreement or there is no true discussion and things can be overlooked. I have secretly played devil's advocate in a few of these discussions. Drawn Some (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She does not conventionally meet the criteria at WP:MUSIC. For example, she's just about to release her first CD, while WP:MUSIC wants multiple CDs on a major label. No national tours or awards. EdJohnston (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find more information on her and I added it to the article. I believe she is notable enough to qualify for WP:MUSIC. --Jklein212 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added information about a promo single, that doesn't make her notable. The source is not reliable, either. Drawn Some (talk) 05:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet criteria at WP:MUSIC, no significant coverage in reliable sources.Crateescape101 (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kinds of claims made on page even if accurate don't make her notable. The sources on the article fail WP:RS quite dramatically (Associated Content = any person off the street can upload any article with no editorial oversight, promotional/marketing site, press release is not an independent source, etc.). DreamGuy (talk) 15:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC - no significant coverage in reliable sources ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 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 00:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Latvia relations[edit]

another random combination. all coverage seems to be a multilateral not bilateral context [56] not even sure if their football sides have even played each other (which usually comes up in these searches). LibStar (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete State visits make the news but don't do much to support a notability claim to relations between countries compare to any other random two. No coverage of the article topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article does not show a depth of coverage in reliable sources to indicate that it meets inclusion criteria spelled out in WP:N. No statement on the general class of these articles, but this one article does not rate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. It already contains state visits. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as shown in many deleted bilateral articles, state visits alone do not make for notable relations. LibStar (talk) 08:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it is important, the fact that "Iceland was the first country to recognise the independence of Latvia in August 1991" should be mentioned in Latvia. There is no prospect of any other useful content. There are more than 40,000 pairs of countries, and leaders from X often visit Y for lots of non-notable reasons. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If 40,000 articles are needed, so be it. This is highly useful for those interested in diplomacy - Vartanza (talk) 05:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

above comment is not valid per WP:ITSUSEFUL and makes no attempt to say how the article meets WP:N. LibStar (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since no reliable sources treat this supposed relationship in any depth at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added information about countries' bilateral agreement with relation to Tourism and Iceland's support of Latvia's entrance to NATO. A developing relationship but an established one. Meets notability requirements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 40,000 pairs would be ridiculous, but 200 countries means under 20,000 articles (remember to divide by two as we don't need both an Iceland-Latvia article as well as a Latvia-Iceland one). Above and beyond any presumption of inherent notability for such articles, the sources now present in the article satisfy the Wikipedia notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there are only 3 references, 2 of which are primary sources. LibStar (talk) 08:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources adress these relation at all. State visits are not relations. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 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 Keep. The combined sources are sufficient to satisfy notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hajnal Ban[edit]

This is about a minor local government politician and unsuccessful candidate for federal parliament. Does not appear to be sufficiently notable at present. Grahame (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Her only Ghit is mainly about trying to become taller [57]. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her surgery, book and political campaign are together sufficient to achieve notability. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. This politician has gained national and international media attention for her cosmetic surgery and written two books about it (one is yet unpublished). As reported on nine news the original book was a 'best seller', but was pulled from the market after the first edition run. References will be added, but I can't work out how to add them correctly yet. This entry took an enormous amount of research and time to collate to put on the site. Hajnal Ban has the same level of notability as Nicole Cornes and has room to move in her career. Please don't remove yet as sources and added information including the launch of her book in several weeks will add to her notability.--Propertysouth (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I support keeping this page for the reasons stated above. This politician, while not at the first sub-national level of government, has gained sufficient national & international notoriety to have a Wiki at least in the short-medium term. Murphmeister (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added two references. The coverage of the lengthening surgery makes her notable, even if her political work doesn't. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Notable political figure in her own right, plenty of verifiable sources. Rebecca (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my comment above I quote the following sections of the policy on notability - Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. - Hajnal ban has, under the spirit and basis of this entry been written about in the following magazines; Who, That's Life, Cleo and Woman's Day. These stories have been syndicated to the United Kingdom. She story has appeared on Today Tonight, Sunrise and general broadcast news. She has appeared in a Japanese magazine, CNN, on radio through the United Kingdom, Hungarian news, Jewish papers, Russian news outlets and Belgium News. He story is widely broadcast.--Propertysouth (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOT TABLOID. unless of course she becomes elected to something significant, which is presumably the purpose of the article. See the section "future ambitions", or the coy home page at http://www.hajnalban.com/ 2RS=N only if it's about something notable. DGG (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
further comment I submit the following response to the entry titled 'not tabloid' above;
Hajnal Ban has not only received attention from Tabloid outlets. She has been quoted and sourced in various different types of media outlets. Today she appeared on 7,9, and 10 news and 4BC radio about the Qantas 'tall tax'. Her comments were sought by the media as 1) a barrister who has worked in the field of discrimination and 2) because of her notoriety.
The media outlets also referred to her contributions to the advancement on the issue discrimination via her work as an author. I refer to the following criteria of notable; ... authors .. and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
If the above criteria re tabloid were applied, then Nicole Cornes and many others on Wiki would have to be removed because their work is Tabloid form. Many of the celebrities mentioned on Wiki are purley of tabliod notearity, making the above argument an actual point to keep this entry, not delete it (because the entry points out that Hajnal Ban is a 'tabloid' notable). Tabloid or not, tabliod is not a reason to exclude someone from a Wiki entry. Further I ask (I may have not read and am happy to stand corrected) if Wiki criteria actually excludes tabloid coverage as a basis to exclude a person from Wiki. Unless it does then the above entry, with due respect and honor to its author, has no basis in policy.
As the author of the section on future ambitions I can say i have no direct connection to Hajnal Ban, and that section was to highlight her refusal to stand at the state seat of Beaudesert as quoted in the Courier Mail. This entry is not to launch a further bid, but to provide information on a current notable Australian.
Finally I argue the very fact there is considerable debate here on Ban is evidence that this is a notable person --Propertysouth (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of news coverage of this person. She was pretty notorious even before the leg-lengthening thing as a serial candidate and for being a young woman in a political party more associated with old farmers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, seems to have several separate claims to moderate notability... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lankiveil describes why she's received so much coverage (plus the fact that she was born in Israel). I'm not sure if she'd have as much media coverage, or a Wikipedia entry, if she were a fat old bloke who'd just had his stomach stapled. This kind of disturbs me. Are we about the public interest, or what interests the public? As an aside, I usually advocate deleting past or present candidates for parliament to avoid Wikipedia becoming an election soapbox, but that isn't as much an issue here. Andjam (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "a fat old bloke who'd just had his stomach stapled". Mikey Robins has an article too. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Non-notable Local Government politician and failed state parliamentary candidate. The article is verging on promotional (it certainly reads like it came out of LNP headquarters -"her passionate opposition to the State's decision ...") and the only significant coverage involves her cosmetic surgery. Being in the medical story-of-the-week in the Sunday paper doesn't mean an article is warranted. Mikey Robbins was at least notable before his stomach stapling. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ban has received much more coverage then just the 'Sunday papers' as shown. Saying that it is just Sunday papers that Ban appears in sounds like an unsubstantiated line from ALP headquaters. The delete case must come up with real data or policy violations to hold credability in this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.94.253 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced and encyclopedic article worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject and well-sourced article. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No landslide, but the weight of argument (User:Peter cohen's analysis is particularly convincing) and consensus favors deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Bamping[edit]

Insufficient notability. Previous afds have established that members of orchestras (which in themselves may be notable) are not necessarily appropriate subjects, unless they perform regularly as soloists as established by independent reviews. Richard Bamping appears in some local Hong Kong publicity media, but I can't find anything substantial. I'd be happy to change my opinion if bona fide reviews can be found and the article improved to push this over the bar. Klein zach 02:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the points raised by Kleinzach. Eusebeus (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:MUSICBIO, criterion 6 - HKPO is a notable orchestra and has certainly had notable conductors. ukexpat (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Bamping performs as a soloist with HKPO, his name appears also in the programs of chamber recitals and he has performed in Northern America, Japan and Europe. I didn't find any detailed reviews of his playing, any recordings, I admit. However, I think that Wikipedia article may be useful for the readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My vote annuled per discussion here --Vejvančický (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The problem is that he doesn't appear to meet any of the Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Item 1 is the relevant section here, which specifically excludes "reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble". --Klein zach 23:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the interview in HK Magazine, which is an independent general-interest publication, not "publicity media" (by which I assume the nominator means press release reprints?) and ukexpat's comment. cab (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Do correct me if I am wrong, but I think the HK Magazine is a free handout classified mag available in HK bars etc. In any case, Criteria 1 (see above) states that the person should be the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" (my emphasis). --Klein zach 00:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point for WP:RS and WP:N is editorial oversight, not cover price or venue of distribution. Normally I'd agree with you and put a plain old "Delete" for a guy with only one non-trivial source about him, but given that he also may marginally meet one subcriterion of a subject-specific notability guideline, it tips the balance, at least for me. Cheers, cab (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would expect a notable contemporary classical musician to have a recording legacy that would be reviewed in Gramophone (magazine). I've searched their reviews database and archive and found no mention of him. Similarly, I would expect to see a live performance record that mentions notable venues by name and that features reviews in more than local magazines but in the mainstream press. I see no indication of such notability.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not quite there yet; insufficient evidence of solo works or pieces. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamicrazy[edit]

The article claims notability but there are no sources for verification. I looked for some news coverage ([58][59]) but can't find any articles to back up the claims made in the article. The only inclusion guideline I can think of that would pertain to this article (besides the general notability guideline) is WP:PRODUCT which it fails. OlYeller^Talktome 01:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From http://www.google.com/search?q=KamiCrazy+Review :

http://www.destructoid.com/destructoid-review-kamicrazy-116888.phtml

http://www.appversity.com/games/kamicrazy/

http://www.iphoneappreviews.net/2009/01/29/kamicrazy/

http://www.appvee.com/t/kamicrazy

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/review.asp?c=11614&sec=7

...And at least a dozen of similar search results that are quite sufficient to satisfy the verifiability and notability guidelines. The article is already tagged with ((Unreferenced)) and I'm also tagging it with ((videogame-stub)). Feel free to remove any unverifiable claims you encounter but I just don't see any reason in deleting the entire page. — Rankiri (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are any of those reliable sources per WP:RS. I guess the problem I see with using websites whose purpose is to review iPhone apps to establish notability is that they'll review anything. I just can't agree that, because there's a review out there (however many), that the subject is notable. This would also mean that any iPhone app ever approved by Apple is notable as they'll all be reviewed, no matter how good or bad they are. I think the line has to be drawn somewhere and my opinion is that a iPhone app review website can't be used to establish notability. Just my opinion though. OlYeller^Talktome 03:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a more general article. OlYeller21 is correct, you cannot use directories of games as source for notability, not one has any particular reputation. It would need reviews on reputable sites such as IGN or 1up.com.--neon white talk 12:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on neon white and OlYeller's observations. Judging from my experience, "reputable" (read, "long-standing") websites such as IGN or 1up.com generally don't pay much attention to such relatively minor platforms in mobile gaming. Additionally, none of the provided links lead to mere "directories of games" like the Apple Store. None of the sources seem to be affiliated with the game or its authors and and most of them seem to provide in-depth, nontrivial coverage—including quite incontrovertible video reviews—that come pretty much to the same key conclusions about the title in question. Again, considering the plethora of independent sources available, I still have to disagree with the validity of this AfD nomination.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=kamicrazy%20review

http://wireless.ign.com/objects/143/14309128.html

http://www.iphonegamenetwork.com/kamicrazy-quick-review

http://www.nebusiness.co.uk/business-news/science-and-technology/2009/01/08/kamicrazy-a-hit-with-mobile-users-51140-22638674/

http://issuu.com/intentmedia/docs/me47_pdf/27 — Rankiri (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1up ([60]) and IGN ([61]) both review mobile games as do many reputable game sites. Unless the sites has a reputation they are simply unreliable. --neon white talk 21:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the game is not reviewed by the websites of your choosing has no bearing on the quality of the discussed sources. Sites like Destructoid and Nebusiness (which, according to this, makes it a point of conforming to a professional journalist Code of Practice outlined by the PCC) certainly seem to provide more than enough of neutral perspective and editorial oversight to satisfy the WP:V guidelines. Considering that a general consensus among the reviewers is reached and no exceptional claims are being made, I can't see any problems with the issue of verification whatsoever. Do you have any specific objections to each of the sources? — Rankiri (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be more strict on the interpretation of WP:R. I consider reliable sources to be notable in their own right (for instance IGN, CNN, BBC, etc. are notable by Wiki standards). Notability generally means that the source itself has been reviewed by peers. Regardless, I find that sources like IGN will review just about any kind of video game that comes out. My interpretation tells me that the sources in the article aren't reliable for notability and my gut tells me that not ever game reviewed by the largest of video game websites are notable. Either way, I think this is coming down to our interpretation of WP:R and I also think that it's fairly obvious that no one in this discussion (so far) will change their mind about what a reliable source is based on this discussion. Agree to disagree I guess? OlYeller^Talktome 19:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm happy with the coverage by the websites linked-to above. Marasmusine (talk) 11:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 00:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Mexico relations[edit]

another random combination. almost all coverage is in a multilateral not bilateral context [62], although I'm sure their football sides have played each other. Cypriot foreign ministry lists a number of minor agreements including the vaguest "Memorandum of Understanding for the Establishment of a Mechanism of Consultations on Matters of Mutual Interest". LibStar (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One more such article. Same reasoning. Collect (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet again, no coverage of the notability of the topic itself, just a shell of trivial facts. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing notable even asserted about the relationship between Cyprus and Mexico. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the absence of discussion of this relationship in reliable sources is indicative that a bilateral relationship barely exists in this instance.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable secondary sources adress these relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 20:04, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satanic holidays[edit]

Not WP:Notable. The article itself says that there is no reliable information on the topic. If the Satanists have not cared to inform the public about their holidays why should WP have an article on the subject? Borock (talk) 01:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Your decisions are hasty and your investigations prior to nominating for deletion are superficial. A number of hits on Gbooks and GScholar, I picked the low hanging fruits and added three "good" references to the article. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those do not look very reliable to me. One was an article on how to treat "Satanic ritual abuse".Borock (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (??) It's not an article but a book - a perspective from clinical psychiatry where a notable shrink reports how he treats people with a possible history of Satanic ritual abuse. Some of his patients were in extra utmost agony at certain dates, which made no sense to the guy until he found out they correlated with Satanic holidays. That is why the Satanic holidays are mentioned in that book. I have no clue as to why this source does "not look very reliable" to you? Power.corrupts (talk) 06:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because "Satanic ritual abuse" itself is considered to be, well, not a serious topic by the mainstream. (Its own article calls it a "Moral panic.") I would have nothing against an article on Satanic holidays if it were sourced to an official source of the Church of Satan (or whatever) by Satanists saying, "These are our holidays." The article as it is now is just guesses and rumors.Borock (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You should concentrate on the merits of the specific article. The core policy here is WP:V and multiple independent WP:RS reliable sources. I dug some of those up. I have no idea if Church of Satan exists or not, but if so, they would not be independent, and I doubt, reliable. So what exactly could convince you? :-) Power.corrupts (talk) 15:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nothing is this article is verifiable or reliable, as the article says so itself. Something from an official Satanic source would be a worthwhile addition to the article, but it would not establish notability -- as you also pointed out. Borock (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment blah blah, afd is not for clean up, nor is it one religion's duty to work on tangential articles. If you think an article is cr*p then fix it. The SH's are not for satanists to fix up, a lot of lists of them are part of books by people who believe in Satanic Ritual Abuse, and describe these as numerous days when Satanists, they believe, were murdering, enslaving, and having orgies. I for one would be far too lazzzzzzzy and boring to do such things. This article, in some of its incarnations, would be a merge to the SRA article, as they are the only people for whom the long list of hols has any relevance. Satanists themselves only celebrate a few days, except in as much as every day is a celebration, and we should all be out doing Something less boring instead. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.:) Borock- the reason satanists have not added to the article much is because it is largely an irrelevant myth and we only tend to celebrate a few hols which aren't worth their own article that's genuinely about solely them. You have got the crux of it with your comment about SRA, that doesn't necessarily mean it fails WP:NOTE though, as a fair few evangelicals have invented, sorry, written, about the subject of imaginary evil holidays. Anyway, I for one have a life I should be living, as Satan intends me to do, rather than spending my time on the internets.:) Byeeeeezzzzz:) Sticky Parkin 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep- just bothered to read the nice short article.:) It is factual and informative in it's current form, explaining the role of fundies and the true satanic holidays. It will dispell the myths while explaining about them. Thank you to those who cited etc the article and bothered to actually google themselves before nominating for afd. Sticky Parkin 16:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Delete. I really don't see this meeting the notability guidelines, even with a few sources. As it stands, the article primarily consists of claims of holidays but offers no documentation of any actual celebrations. The article even goes to the point of noting apparent unfamiliarity with Satanism. Therefore, if the article itself is saying that the sources are unreliable and there's not substantial notability to be had (and following the link provided in there I see a substantial amount of disagreement on when most holidays occur, or even on occasion whether they occur or not), I think that deletion is in order. At most, this should be moved in with the main articles on Satanism.Tyrenon (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Satan is the spirit of rebellion I am not surprised that Satanists do not agree with each other about what holidays to celebrate. :-) Borock (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Doing this causes GFDL messiness and is best avoided. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge based on how large the article is after all non-verifiable information is stripped away. There appears to be enough sourcing to keep a redirect and an edit history, though. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The section on Grand High Climax needs to go really as that appears to be WP:OR Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept I will at least trim out the uncited part of that. BTW the 3 legitimate "Satanic holidays" (Walpurgisnacht, Halloween, and one's birthday) are celebrated also by millions of non-Satanists, and were probably not invented by Satanists. (I say with some confidence. :-) ) Borock (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. We don't delete articles because they need improvement or expansion, per WP:BEFORE. We delete articles if they have no potential for improvement. The results of my Gbooks search proves that this concept is mainstream, passing WP:GNG, and certainly WP:V - therefore Wikipedia can have an article on what WP:RS refer are such holidays. Somebody with an interest in the topic can improve it, but it certainly won't be me. I believe the AfD nomination confuses notability with importance or relevance. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case at least the title should be changed to Real holidays celebrated by Satanists and fictional holidays made up by non-Satanists and said to be celebrated by Satanists. :-) Borock (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Handevidt[edit]

PROD was contested, so I am relisting this as an AfD. No individual notablity established per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, more specifically the last line: "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 01:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He seems notable enough. Even I, not a rock and roll fan, have heard of some of the bands he has been in. Article is not well written but no reason to delete.Borock (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he passes the letter of the rule in that he has been a member of two notable bands Megadeth & Kublai Khan (band). Now one could argue that he didn't actually contribute to Megadeth since he quit before they released there first album. I could buy into that maybe, but then again I doubt many would argue Pete Best isn't notable. (Or more to the point Eric Griffiths, Pete Shotton, and Rod Davis are considered notable just for playing with The Quarrymen.) A second assertion was raised on the talk page that Kublai Khan isn't a notable band which I reject completely. Per Allmusic.com "1980s metal band Kublai Khan released one well-received album after a few years of underground presence" ... they can easily be shown to meet the GNG if required. I could maybe see a merge/redirect with Kublai Khan, but not an outright deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A would also like to point the full language of WP:BAND criteria #6 "Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Handevidt passes on both counts where only 1 is required, technically. The criteria makes no mention of the membership having to have lasted for a significant amount of time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - The last note, however, still stands. In what way has Greg Handevidt displayed individual notability? He was part of Megadeth for a couple of weeks in March 1984, and another band whose notability is questionable, to say the least. To comment on the other articles you mentioned, two wrongs don't make a right. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Except the criteria as laid out on WP:BAND are that the person has met "any one of the following criteria" and #6 doesn't say anything about being notable as an individual. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Actually, it does quite clearly, as I have pointed out several times, but you seem to ignore it. Look at the very bottom. "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 15:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Nope, I am not ignoring anything. That is a general guideline of what to do when a given band member isn't notable. In fact, it also illustrates the reason someone gets a page if they were a member of two notable bands - namely you can't redirect one page to two different places. Also, you might want to quote the whole note your refer to which continues "Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." So even said note acknowledges that this guideline is overridden by criteria #6. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:21, 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. Jamie^☆S93 00:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Montenegro relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. the recognition of Montenegro should be in Foreign_relations_of_Montenegro#States_that_have_explicitly_recognized_the_Republic_of_Montenegro. very little third party coverage (except 1st article of search), most of it in a multilateral not bilateral context. [63] LibStar (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these are just not important. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 08:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This one not as bad because of proximity of Montenegro to Greece, I suppose. Collect (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources covering the topic of the article itself. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. No prospect of improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When no reliable sources discuss the subject of an article in any depth (in this case this bilateral relationship) then there is no room for expanding or otherwise hosting an intellegible encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress this in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 20:16, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Serbia International Partners[edit]

This article is really pointless. I really don't see any value in keeping it. (Buttons (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there may be good reasons for deleting but the nominator has given a bad one. Drawn Some (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-cited worthwhile information on a topic more important than most.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is informative and well cited. Its interesting to see what countries Serbia is cooperating with.Mike Babic (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original synthesis, mixing historical events with current minor bilateral agreements and cooperations, nothing encyclopedical here. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:32, 21 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) 00:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyber Evolution[edit]

I originally PRODed this, then the creator removed it. A quick Google turned up no RSes. Deletion suggested. Ipatrol (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Note: for anyone who is not normally involved in article deletion, here are some terms to know:

Consensus A rough agreement among interested editors.
!Vote A bullet statement in a discussion that is not a vote, but a short discussion thread ("!" means "not" in many programming languages).
Source (or citation) A resource (online or otherwise) with signifigant coverage of a topic (WP:CITE).
Notability A standard for inclusion based on how many sources cover an article (WP:N).
Verifyability The ability to base information off of a source (WP:V)
NPOV A policy that requires articles to lack bias (WP:NPOV).
Spam Advertising or advertising-like links that has been inserted into Wikipedia.
Canvassing Informing people on other websites of a discussion in hopes of having users of those sites get involved in the discussion in order to sway it (WP:CANVASS)

there is no reason to remove it, i deleted it by accident --Orgin (talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just spam. Eeekster (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - It is not spam it actually exists. www.cevo.com. i have been playing in this league for as long as it has been in operation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.195.6 (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC) — 69.151.195.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ - The responses of the anon IP are doing nothing to help their cause, but a google news search turns up quite a few sources within the gaming community, including support of "CEVO" from AMD.^{CNN Money} Shadowjams (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I've changed my mind. The CNN piece is a PR press release, and the other sources are pretty trivial. I also don't have any faith that this article will remain neutral after the AfD is over either. Shadowjams (talk) 20:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would remind users unfamiliar with wikipedia policies to 1) Be civil to other users and they will be likely to listen to you, and 2) wikipedia has specific criteria for inclusion at WP:N. No one doubts the site exists, just question its notability. Shadowjams (talk) 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do not see any indication of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Texas Android I do not believe that you gave a real look into this. CEVO is very well known within the counter-strike and call of duty community. they are also sponsored by the AMD/ATI corporation as well as slim jim. they also have referenced affiliation with alienware — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.195.6 (talk • contribs)

And the sources showing this are... where? Of the four links in the references section, two are to the companies own site, one is to an "in development" page of some sort, and the last makes no mention of the subject, far as I can see. If you want to show that your product is notable, you need to provide reliable, independent, non-trivial references to establish it's notability. Without them, you are likely fighting a losing fight. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know if you have ever heard of gotfrag before and i highly doubt it, but gotfrag is a huge news source for the competitive gaming community which is now under ownership of the mlg (major league gaming) [64] gotfrag covers all the cevo professional events for counter-strike: source, counter-strike 1.6, team fortress 2 and cod4. i doubt you used google or any other search engine of any type to look into this. you can also probably search cevo and counter strike on youtube and you will get media coverage.

If you want to save the article, then you need to provide the links that show that this meets the requirements laid out at WP:NOTE or WP:WEB. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure how google searches aren't turning up sources, but my guess is the searches are for "Cyber Evolution". If you search for "CEVO" there are quite a few google searches up top. If you search google news for the same, you see the CNN Money article, and others, as I indicated. I am not an editor of this article. Shadowjams (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CEVO was originally Cyber Evolution and was shortened to CEVO but Cyber Evolution still stands as a name of the llc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.195.6 (talk) 03:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found lots of sources when i searched for it --69.151.197.244 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Both 69.151.19*.* IPs come from AT&T's data network (probably wireless) which assigns dynamic IPs. This users's edits have only been to this article and this AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N as not having the coverage suitable for inclusion. This also seems rather promotional in nature. Them From Space 11:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is no more promotional than Cyberathlete Professional League, Electronic Sports World Cup, TeamWarfare League —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.197.244 (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles aren't in the best shape either; see Other stuff exists. Them From Space 11:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, at best, coverage in secondary sources. Also, if Google results provide reliable sources as some in this discussion assert, then, for verifiability, said sources need to be shown. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – advertisement. I also cannot find anything reliable that can establish notability of this organization. MuZemike 02:10, 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 merge to Peter David. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Potato Moon[edit]

I speedied this on OrangeMike's recommendation because it didn't appear to have any independent sources (Peter David appears to have some connection to comicmix.com, and the other two links were to his own website), or to assert that there were likely to be any, but by request and on reflection, I was too hasty ... there have been enough edits on this that it deserves community scrutiny. So scrutinize. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep lots of attention within the comics community. Speedy delete should not have been an option--it is a plausible search term and at the least should be redirected to the author if it is not kept. JJL (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. - Dank (push to talk) 00:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Peter David is certainly a notable author, as are several of the participants, so I have no problem with this meeting the general notability guidelines. The Comics Mix connection appears to be through Glenn Haumann, who runs David's website, but not David himself. However, I've added a few new references, as the story is gaining more notice as it progresses. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peter David is quite notable in the comic book field, and there are references there already about notable reviews of Potato Moon, and most likely plenty more about. Dream Focus 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this article clearly belongs with Peter David it is not notable on its own Capitalismojo (talk) 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the user above me obviously had the same idea as me. Well done. Eurovision 2009 and 2010^{Sasha Son}_{Sakis Rouvas} 08:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'll agree that it goes under Peter David. It should have it's own section such as "Current projects" or similar.Joe407 (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect to the david article. There are no reliable sources that establish independent notability for this. Let's leave it up to the active editors at the David article to decide how much weight this should, or should not, be given in his BLP.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Project is notable largely because of David's involvement, so best located in his article. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I, too, agree that it should go under Peter David's main article, especially because it marks his return to Google, and also because it is related to the Twilight Saga, another notable work.Ladysybilla (talk) 17:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Helpful One 15:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of SLAM Magazine cover athletes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia is not a directory of magazine covers. The individuals on this list are clearly notable, but they are not notable for having appeared on this magazine cover. There do not appear to be reliable sources that discuss the phenomenon of being on this magazine cover other than trivial mentions that one athlete or another happens to have been on it contained within longer pieces that are about other subjects. Otto4711 (talk) 13:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weakish keep The covers have received a fair amount of discussion ([65], [66], etc), and some have been credited with popularizing certain more obscure players (like Rafer Alston), so this seems like a reasonable spinout of the article on the magazine. Zagalejo^^^ 19:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't tell about the Chicago Tribune source because it's subscription, but it looks from the snippet that it's a profile of Iverson that has a couple of sentences in which the cover is mentioned. The books include a few paragraphs out of multi-hundred page books. I would suggest that the information you've found would serve as a basis for a section in the magazine's article but don't establish that the list of every cover model is notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – some of the covers may indeed have some notability, but does that quantify having an entire list? I say no. MuZemike 19:13, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. wikicruft. another embarrassment to something that is trying to be a good encyclopedia. Kiwikibble (talk) 05:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP violations are an embarrassment. This article is more or less innocuous. Zagalejo^^^ 05:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think just a list of magazine cover athletes is encyclopedic. JIP | Talk 06:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the collection itself doesn't meet WP:N, which is needed to be the independant subject of an article. Also Wikipedia isnt an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a directory. Them From Space 11:55, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pocket Guide to the Apocalypse[edit]

Obscure book with limited importance and notability. Fremte (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A holdover from Wikipedia's days of taking all comers, this one was a stub made in 2005. Nobody wanted to help Wikipedia by expanding it. No notability asserted fro this book. Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jason Boyett as a plausible search term. Otherwise, nothing that can establish notability. MuZemike 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge I found quite numerous sources on google news. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:55, 18 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 00:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as a gsearch shows it go some attention. I wasn't able to find the gnews sources mentioned above. JJL (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only six hits on google news[67], with only one that might be useful but hidden behind a paywall[68], and I see nothing useful in a wider google search[69]. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the notability guidelines. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:47, 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 Keep. The sources found by King of Hearts establish a measure of notability. Although she is only a county represenative, Vartanza is right in saying that the county she represents makes her notable. Because the county in question is a New York Metropolitan county (and therefore much larger and more notable), this increases Yatauro's notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Yatauro[edit]

Taking to AfD instead of speedy; the article has been created 4 times, and was deleted as promotional/non-neutral, so AfD lets us G4 it in the future if it's deleted, and lets us preserve the article if neutral editors get involved. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Questions where is the obvious non-neutrality or discussion about it? What is the proposed reason for deletion? Drawn Some (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Answer On May 28, 2008 the editor Vitadellocalcio wrote " This page provides a background on Diane Yatauro. This page has been reviewed and approved by Diane." Article was deleted three times. After the deletion on May 28, 2008 the same editor recreated the article with the same content and did the same on August 17. The specific editor so far was edits only in this article + an uploaded photo of Diane Yatauro + the addition of a link to her article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:24, 18 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 00:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless I'm mistaken about WP:Politician, first level sub-national (New York State) political office includes "members of a legislature and judges." This is a New York state Representative. It's an explicit category under WP:Politician. Shadowjams (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I misread the lead and understood her as a state rep, and not as a local rep. I withdraw any comment on the AfD. Shadowjams (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone who used to live in Nassau County, this is an important position, comparable (although obviously not identical) to being city council president of a major city. not all presiding officers of all counties are inherently notable, but the counties in the NYC metro area are large and powerful. More sourcing is needed and should be easy to find - Vartanza (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - wholly unreferenced BLP, no significant press coverage, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Delete and salt until she does something notable. لenna vecia 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A Google News search and Google News Archives search turn up multiple sources. Some of them are trivial, but others are quite significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patton vs. Alcohol vs. Zach vs. Patton[edit]

Non-notable bootleg EP —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 11 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, 18 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 00:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:05, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Lee[edit]

Prod removed. Concern was that this is a non-notable person because he hasn't won a title in a major promotion, and the article doesn't have any third-party reliable sources to help prove notability. Nikki♥311 21:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 11:40, 12 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, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:57, 18 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 00:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think playing on an independant circuit professionally would meet the (overly broad) criteria of WP:ATHLETE. Them From Space 12:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There are certain promotions in the independent circuit where that would be true, but Force One Pro Wrestling is very small-time to the point where its wrestlers don't meet the notability criteria (unless they've wrestled elsewhere as well). Nikki♥311 01:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. لenna vecia 13:46, 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 merge into Differential cryptanalysis. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degenerate Key[edit]

Cannot find sources in Google showing "Degenerate Keys" in the context of RSA public key encryption. Fails WP:N (no third party sources). A v N 16:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Differential cryptanalysis and/or Degeneracy_(mathematics). It might be useful as a redirect/search term. Key Degeneracy is an important concept in differential cryptanalysis. Gigs (talk) 20:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rd to Differential cryptanalysis; a minor point on its own and not worth breaking out as a separate article. JJL (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - Is it specific to differential cryptanalysis? What about to Cryptography since null keys exist in other crytposystems, or is this term specific to public key, or even to RSA? I wasn't aware that differential cryptanalysis was directly related to public key encryption (I understood the term to be specific to known plaintext attacks against symmetric systems). Shadowjams (talk) 06:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Degeneracy in the broadest sense could be widely applicable, however, differential analysis has a special interest in it. It's definitely not RSA specific. Here is a paper that relates to degeneracy and differential analysis. [70] Gigs (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks, that's exactly what I wondered. ~~Differential cryptanalysis~~ is a good choice (and maybe the RSA specific language should be left out of whatever merge is done). Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - A google book search reveals a lot of references, however they are all in relation to public key cryptography. In fact, I don't see any references that cover it in a differential cryptography setting. A merge to either Cryptography or Public key cryptography is better. Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. JIP | Talk 06:51, 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. Not notable. Blogs are not reliable sources. Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trashwiki[edit]

delete and redirect to Wikipedia:Transwiki log nn website.--EWJNK (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC) EWJNK (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete? How can it be improved? --Sigurdas (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is about a subject for which it is hard to find the normally required Wikipedia specification references. On the other hand, there are many references to Trashwiki in the frowned upon blogs etc area. This is where I would expect to find mentions, rather than in The Times or Pravda. There are enough relevant ghits to satisfy me that the subject has notability even though the purists may discount these as blog stuff. (In most cases, I do too - where 'reliable' references should be expected to be found.) I do confess to skip rummaging on occasion - at the roadside not at shops. I collect scrap aluminium and copper for a Cub Scout group, and have collected bricks for home projects. and wood for bonfires. Peridon (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A single mention in the Make blog doesn't really count as much, especially considering how short it is. Skip the suggested cross-namespace redirect, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blogs are not reliable sources. Do not redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bilderberg Group. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2003 Bilderberg Meeting[edit]

This article is just an unsourced, possibly defamatory list of people who are alledged by an unreliable source to be in a giant conspiracy to dominate the world. Hipocrite (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article as it currently stands is no longer conspiratorial or defamatory. What's left, though, is not enough for a separate article; most of the information is already at Bilderberg Group. Hairhorn (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this, and the 2007 and any other individual articles. The series of meetings is notable, but not the individual ones. Whether we should have a list of atendees needs some further thinking. DGG (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If it weren't for the other articles I'd say delete, there are no very few sources and this is just a conspiracy. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:35, 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. Does not meet the inclusion guidelines for an article in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Barefoot[edit]

Non-notable former college football player. Last game was the 2008 New Orleans Bowl, can't find even any sources saying he plays now in the NFL. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable failing WP:ATHLETE. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable sports figure. Kiwikibble (talk) 05:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only possible claims to fame are unreferenced. Fails WP:ATHELETE. لenna vecia 14:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas Bonnier[edit]

Delete as a non-notable publisher. A Google search turned up proof of existence, but I'm not seeing enough to meet notability concerns. Tavix | Talk 17:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looking at the Swedish article, he founded or was a partner in a series of notable publishers, one very notable indeed [71] and founded a notable prize [[72]] which is apparently accepted there as a criterion of notability. That the enWP article is still not as fully developed is not reason to delete it. the swWP has several good refs, including the long obit [73] DGG (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ditto logic of User:DGG. Article should be enhanced. Use of the "Google Test" is hardly the criterion to apply here. Williamborg (Bill) 03:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 23:09, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murat Saygıner[edit]

Non-notable commercial photographer. This lacks reliable third-party sources which give any indication of notability beyond a working photographer freshacconci talktalk 20:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a little premature for an encyclopedia...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "International Photography Awards" seem to be a proper competition with a real jury and enough press to be notable itself (no Wikipedia article but would qualify) and the sponsoring foundation is real with "important" directors etc. So in my opinion he would qualify on the basis of these awards and there is also enough coverage of him in sources to make a case that way as well. Drawn Some (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Award-winning photographer that has been the subject of several magazine articles, including some front-page features. Sources listed in the article are sufficient to establish notability. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 23:06, 30 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 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-Heptafluoropropane#Tradenames for HFC-227ea used as fire suppression agent. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAF S 227[edit]

Prod was removed, concern was completely unreferenced, no evidence of notability, seems to be pulled from soewhere, though I cannot find the source, created by editor with a bunch of articles based on copyrighted info Terrillja _talk 14:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a technical manual. This article makes no assertion of importance or significance for the subject and is unreferenced. Drawn Some (talk) 16:34, 18 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, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This commercial product already has appropriate listing in Heptafluoropropane#Tradenames--Shirt58 (talk) 11:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article linked above as a plausible search term. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:28, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domino One[edit]

This casually written article about an admittedly "underground, low-budget film" fails WP:N, all 5 general principles and 3 other-evidence principles of WP:FILMNOT. Article cites no reliable sources, and a scan of the top hits of a Google search produces nothing that supports Wiki notability or reliable sources. The article is peppered with the names of a few well-known actors it features, but in accord with WP:FILMNOT, that doesn't establish grounds for the film's notability; see WP:Notability (films)#Other evidence of notability, item 2. Jim Ward ^{(talk·stalk)} 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article content is highly speculative including first person attestation to having seen it. As for reliable sources, nobody appears to have reviewed it. i can't find any reviews, and the IMDB entry has no links to any external reviews at all. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 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, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:14, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Renaissance Festival[edit]

Minor local festival, with no real notability outside its area. Previously deleted by PROD, which was contested at my talk. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 15:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Google News shows the festival has had very substantial coverage, including from the New York Times, going back to the festival's origins in 1977 [74] [75]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 18 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, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three decades is not ephemeral. Collect (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The second of CoMs links suggests it's notable - "The festival [...] went up for sale this month in the most modern of ways: Internet auction. 'EBay told us it had never been done before,' said Thomas Collier, a real estate agent.". And there're sufficient other articles for me as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigger digger (talk • contribs)
Keep. Not every ren faire lasts this long or generates this much coverage. JamesMLane t c 22:47, 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.