< 27 May 29 May >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Distorted View Show[edit]

The Distorted View Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is largely a copy of the article on the show's own wiki, Freakipedia. It's so chock-full of advertisement, unneeded data, and just a total mess. I tagged it for deletion for basically being advertising. Eik Corell (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Shops[edit]

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

Most of this content was copied from Chicken shop which was just deleted. G4 declined by PeterSymonds. Original research, unlikely to be sourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, that one reference I found is bad. Antonio López (desu) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Wyszynski[edit]

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

Vanity page of a nonnotable person - Altenmann >t 23:33, 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 CSD-A7 Jclemens (talk) 00:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BB Squad[edit]

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

Non-notable club, does not qualify for anything else, let alon notability guidelines Donnie Park (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They say June of last year. Calathan (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I'm going blind, even with my glasses. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timmeh!(review me) 21:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CMoy[edit]

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

I'm actually not sure how to articulate why this doesn't belong here. I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies. There are probably hundreds or thousands of low-wattage amplifier circuits. What makes this one special? Conical Johnson (talk) 22:54, 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 23:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnegat Fund Management[edit]

Barnegat Fund Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Total of 45 non-wiki ghits, none of which shows notability; zero gnews hits. Prod contested by new editor who cut most of the article but did not address notability issues. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soros Fund Management
  • The Children's Investment Fund Management
  • Bridgewater Associates
  • Citadel Investment Group
  • D.E. Shaw & Co.
  • Fortress Investment Group
  • Long-Term Capital Management
  • Man Group
  • Renaissance Technologies
  • Amaranth Advisors

Nothing in this article is promotional or solicitous. There are only facts and descriptions about what Barnegat is trying to do to provide steady returns.--Justinlexington (talk) 19:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 16 ghits and one in news? There isn't anything there that changes my mind. Dawn Bard (talk) 14:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked article has been removed. Reference this archive.org cache instead.R.Vinson (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only need to vote "keep" once, and if you have links to reliable independent sources, then I suggest you add them to the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hedge fund strategies are a valid article when properly referenced and not attached to a company entry. R.Vinson (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how do I insert this news article that mentions Barnegat's performance "Pensions & Investments" 'Many hedge fund strategies reach positive territory in Q1' [6]--FredBund (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That article mentions "Man Barnegat Fund Ltd" - do we even know that it's the same thing as Barnegat Fund Management? Even if it is, this reference alone does not provide the substantial coverage in reliable independent sources that Wikipedia requires for inclusion. I will add it to the article as an external link. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barnegat Fund was formerly known as "Man Barnegt Fund Ltd" try toogling either one and you'll get to the fund's home page.--Justinlexington (talk) 21:36, 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 keep both articles. - KrakatoaKatie 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

María Amelia López Soliño[edit]

María Amelia López Soliño (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is just for the "oldest blogger" (at that time), which is not that notable. Subsequently we will get more of these as the old ones die off, and new ones appear. To say it's special that an old person can use a computer, is rather ageist. I could easily make a page for my father who was programming a ZX spectrum in 1990 at the age of 87. It's just not notable. I originally PRODed the article, but the page creator asked if I would be willing to change to AfD instead  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject is very similar:

Olive Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can you let the creator of the Olive Riley article know that you've included the article in this nomination? --Canley (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the other way around. Entries in Recent deaths ultimately survive only if a WP article is created and it passes any notability challenges. WWGB (talk) 03:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and in fact, she should be removed from Deaths in 2009 if she's not notable, which seems to be the case. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added her to the obit section because her death was mentioned in USA Today's "Pop Candy" column. That mention was brief, but it did include a link to an obituary -- and I used that as a reference, and Mr. Hammer should have looked at it before he said there was no coverage in third party sources.SPNic (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The obit seems to be the only coverage she got. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: Canley, do you mind if I ask what you mean by "the nominator's father...". I really do not get what you mean, but it doesn't sound like it is in accord with WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF.
(s)he means my father (see my text at top). Dad would have loved a page on himself, but I could not cite any refs. I was just trying to show that the use of a PC can apply to someone of any age, and we should not be ageist by making pages for the older PC users.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no disrespect or offence meant at all, Ron, hope you didn't take it that way but it looks like you didn't. --Canley (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offence taken.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request that perhaps voters here re-review the article in light of substantial additions made to the article. There appears to be no concensus. I am not attached to this article (although it appears others have become so, ironically) and as I stated before I will not contest non-notability. Thus I am not voting but I just wanted to express my opinion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:06, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacKenzieHeartsu[edit]

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

Insufficient sources. Sources are all flaky or PR Newswire. Includes a huge chunk of OR tagged since 9/07 with nothing fixed, a search for better sources turned up nothing. YTMND is the second hit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Mmm, chicken. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken shop[edit]

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

It would be nice if there were a speedy criterion to cover this mess. I'm praying for SNOW. - Dank (push to talk) 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have WP:SNOW? Vicenarian (T · C) 22:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VT iDirect[edit]

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

Declining db-spam speedy because two people shouldn't be making this call, there's a lot going on here, but taking to AfD because I believe a solid majority wouldn't see a great deal of difference between this company's brochure ([8]) and this article. There were copyright problems, the article creator worked on them and contacted OTRS, and the article was restored by Moonriddengirl. I'm hoping that additional work will be done and we can keep the article, but not in its present state. - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't top post please. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I'm mainly doing is taking a guess about how this article will be received in this discussion; I could be wrong, let's wait and see. In the meantime, read WP:NPOV. - Dank (push to talk) 23:21, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barney B. Rasor[edit]

Barney B. Rasor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject per WP:BIO. The military decorations listed, while admirable, do not meet the requirements for notability. Created by an editor who has created several biographies of friends and family members. Drawn Some (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say keep for only one reason. Mamurra and Titus Pullo. That his military record was important enough to be noted in a book makes him the modern equivalent of these two. Therefore, it should stay. --Genovese12345 (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed your second "Keep" to "Comment", you can't !vote more than once. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Rasor is only mentioned in passing in that article - this isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 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 Keep per WP:SK, clear consensus and nominator withdrew as article has been greatly improved (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Arthur Stroud[edit]

Kenneth Arthur Stroud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable author. Google searches return no reliable sources. Neither do Google News Archive searches. Cunard (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Gilman Street[edit]

Live at Gilman Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This live EP has no coverage in third-party, reliable sources, and it has not been listed on any major music charts. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. In addition, it is very possible this is not even an official release. Timmeh!(review me) 21:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Tracks[edit]

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

This live EP has no coverage in third-party, reliable sources, and it has not been listed on any major music charts. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. Also, the title seems too generic for this to redirect to the band's article. Timmeh!(review me) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted per Dank, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan Airways Flight 1336[edit]

Uzbekistan Airways Flight 1336 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

notable? Highest Heights (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article states nothign which makes this flight sufficiently notable Passportguy (talk) 21:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A1 (insufficient context). —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs)
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#A1 (insufficient context). So tagged. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that WP:PUTEFFORT. Vicenarian (T · C) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tune in, Tokyo...[edit]

Tune in, Tokyo... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This live EP has no coverage in third-party, reliable sources, and it has not been shown on any major music charts. Therefore, it fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh!(review me) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "May", not "will". There's no way that this can be expanded beyond a track list. The Billboard and VH1 sources are just track listings. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results Direct Marketing[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Speedy declined. Single reference in article is a local business directory profile. GHits amount to online business directories or company press releases. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:57, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Wiese[edit]

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

Non-notable movie-maker. A Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources; it is the same with a Google search. None of the movies he created are notable. Even IMDb doesn't have an entry for him. Cunard (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Espond[edit]

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

prod removed, thus listed here. Neologism, self-invented word Passportguy (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even know that existed! Yes, per WP:NEO, too. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to call WP:SNOW on this one.... Vicenarian (T · C) 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per WP:NEO and WP:SNOW too. Highest Heights (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I thought WP:SNOW was invoked to indicate something is pretty much a foregone conclusion (such as the deletion of this article) and debate isn't really all that necessary? Maybe I brought it out too soon. PS: Google it, it's already in the Urban Dictionary. Vicenarian (T · C) 21:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy LaMott[edit]

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

Contested prod (you can probably guess who removed the prod if you've seen many AFDs lately). Original prod reasoning (by someone else) was "neither label nor awards are "major", no third-party sourcing, and no material relevant to any of the other criteria are mentioned." I also support deletion for those reasons. DreamGuy (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation caught up with him... blocked as sock of a banned user, gets no votes and any of his edits can be reverted on sight by any editor. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the reliable sources noticeboard discussion, AllMusic is not a reliable source, and even the minority that suggests it could be reliable in some circumstances say it should not be used as an argument for notability. Even if it were an indication of notability it'd be the only one on the article, and you need multiple, independent reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage to establish enough notability for a Wikipedia article. This article fails GNG And WP:CREATIVE, and just insisting that it doesn't without any sort of rationale isn't an actual argument for keeping. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin Please be aware that Varbas is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of a banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rick Busciglio (2009-05-20). "We remember Nancy LaMott". examiner.com. Retrieved 2009-05-30.
Hrafn is right, I passed on using that as a source. Let's not get sloppy in our sourcing. Fences and windows (talk) 17:01, 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) 08:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melinda Winner[edit]

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

Non-notable chef. She "has won many national recipe contests", but a Google News Archive search returns no reliable sources to confirm this. A Google search returns mostly information from user-generated sites, such as Cuisineart Stand Mixer. Cunard (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Second Camp Half Blood Series[edit]

Untitled Second Camp Half Blood Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased book series, rumored to maybe happen in late 2010, but there's no reliable sources to back up anything. WP:CRYSTAL violation and lots of unsourced speculation. DreamGuy (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Pickens[edit]

Michael S. Pickens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Local politican, fails WP:Politician Passportguy (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMI-Partners[edit]

AMI-Partners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable corporation. Highest Heights (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenneyball[edit]

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

Contested PROD, reason was: Sport of dubious notability and questionable verifiability. Also, only useful link found via Google describes tenneyball as a bat-and-ball game: Brief description at Melrose Schools (PDF) A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would like to submit this school article that references "tennyball" as a game for high schoolers. ImFlavaFlav (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • That phys ed list is hardly a reliable source. All it does is list a series of games that are part of the curriculum. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the fact that game called "Tenney Ball" was patented as a part of the United States Patent 3865371 of Feb 1975, there are no indications that the game ever became popular or even known to more than a handful of individuals outside the patent office[14]. Insufficient notability, lack of verifiable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition, I would like to reference this blog (of whom I do not know) that references "tennyball" as a game which is a cross of tennis and volleyball as defined here. Per blogger " I arrived, went swimming with my clothes since i totally forgot my swimmers, played tennis-volleyball. Tenneyball. or Vollis." ImFlavaFlav (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Self-published sources, like blogs, are generally not acceptable as reliable sources (see WP:SPS). This blogger does not appear to be an expert on sports or the topic of "tenneyball." Vicenarian (T · C) 04:42, 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. chaser (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swanpool Beach[edit]

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

Almost no information, maybe it's also non-notable? Highest Heights (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It exists, if you do a Google search. It just needs to be punched up a bit. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Speedy delete A7. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately it has already been nominated for speedy once and declined, no idea why, it was clearly an A1. – ukexpat (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I expect the reason that it was declined was that the article provided perfectly clear context - in fact it was nothing but context. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:44, 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. chaser (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edsel Ford Fong[edit]

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

Delete: Non-notable individual despite voluminous cruft and refs. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell he is basically a foul-mouthed, surly waiter. I wish him well, but not on Wikipedia. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 08:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In New York, Jerry Seinfeld would have called him the Soup Nazi. Eauhomme (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is more notable? Edsel Ford Fong or Sam Wo Restaurant? (and I ask this as someone who is unsure of the answer, not being a resident of SF and having only heard of Fong). Eauhomme (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Wo is more notable – Kenneth Rexroth mentions it as early as the 1930s, and its still fairly well-known today. There was a clip on the Conan O'Brian show about it a couple years ago. These cultural references pre- and post-date Edsel Ford Fong. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Recommend something be done with this article swiftly. I can't enforce the requested time restriction on a renomination, but the article in its present form/location appears to have legitimate concerns that are unlikely to fade away. Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections[edit]

California Vehicle Code - Bicycle Relevant Sections (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be moved to Wikisource. My conversations with the editor who is bringing in huge quotes from the state traffic code are not encouraging. I urged him to make these edits to Wikisource, but he is unwilling to do so. I know there is an underconstruction tag on the page, but continuation of the construction does not seem to indicate this can be resolved. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am having trouble understanding what this is about. I found this article about sections of the California vehicle code that relate to bicycling a few days ago. It was marked as a stub, so I started to expand it. This is the stub condition it was in when I started. Note that it fully quoted CVC 21202, but did not discuss much about other relevant sections yet. Since the topic was sections of the vehicle code, I chose to quote the relevant part of the code that each section of the article was discussing. Frankly, I'm not sure how else this article could be written. But I'm open to suggestions. Why this should be move to Wikisource is beyond me. AFAIK, wikisource is not the place to write about sources, it's just a place to keep sources. Does wikisource even have articles at all? I can't find any. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is full of interpretation (rather pointy, and I suspect far from authoritative) of a legal document. That is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia. An article on the vehicle code should deal with its function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein. And that's it. It is not a users' guide, nor an advice sheet for cyclists. Constant wikilinks back to the same article are inappropriate, as are such lengthy quotes. Kevin McE (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I've shortened all of the lengthy quotes down to only the very salient (to bicycling) parts. I've left CVC 21202 and 21208 fully intact since the details in them are so critical. Is that satisfactory?
The "interpretations" are fairly well sourced, especially for an article that is marked as still being under construction. Bicycling law specialists like Alan Wachtel and Bob Mionske, the main sources in the article, are among the few authoritative people on the issue of bicycling and the law (you can google for both, if that's really an issue). If there are any particular "interpretations" or claims that you believe are problematic, please identify them.
If you think any of it reads like a user's guide or advice sheet for bicyclists, please identify the problematic sections and I'll be happy to remove advisory language, etc.
This is an ideal topic to cover in Wikipedia because there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about it in the general public, but not among authoritative sources and specialists in the field. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response. I resent the implication that the interpretations are without citations, considering how hard I've worked to make sure everything is properly sourced (did you even notice?), not to mention that the article is still tagged "under construction", and that lack of some citations is hardly a reason to delete an article. By that standard over 90% of WP articles should be deleted.
Whether racing or drafting bicycles in California is legal is a perfectly legitimate question, and a reasonable issue for a general encyclopedia to address. If someone wants to know the answer to that question, Wikipedia would be more useful if it answered it than if it didn't. When all the authoritative sources agree both are legal, and none say it is not, it is appropriate for the article about bicycle law in California to state that. There is certainly nothing controversial about it - it's just not a well-known fact. I just added one more source for it, FWIW. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* It's a perfectly legitimate question. But, an encyclopaedia should not address it. As far as Wikipedia in particular, refer WP:NOT. This is clearly not a legal advice site. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the only even potentially relevant section from WP:NOT is this one:

Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.

The article does not, or at least should not, read as a how-to style manual of legal advice. If you think it does, please identify where and we can fix it. But such an easily fixed infraction hardly justifies deletion of the entire article. That this article would not belong in WikiHow or Wikibooks further illustrates my point. The topic of this article is to simply cover what reliable authoritative sources say the law in California relevant to bicycling is. It's pure encyclopedic information. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, answering the question of whether bicycle racing or drafting is legal is not giving legal advice. Legal advice involves suggesting what one should do in a given legal situation. Very different. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plea to admin - First, thank you in advance for giving this decision about an important and appropriate article the careful consideration it deserves.

I hereby plea to whatever admin makes the ultimate decision here to consider that the reasons cited in each of the Delete votes above are, ironically, reasons to Keep the article. This is because the topic of this article -- the legal rights of bicyclists -- is fraught with misunderstanding and confusion in the public at large (including, apparently, for those voting above), even though there is little if any confusion or disagreement among those who are authorities on the topic (like bicycle law attorney Bob Mionske, author of Bicycling & the Law, a major source in this article). That's what makes this article an ideal candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia, where it has been since 2004. Please consider:

  1. This is not a new article, it is almost five years old.
  2. The original objection behind this nomination was that the article be moved to Wikisource. That makes no sense. Wikisource is for, well, sources, not articles on topics like bicycling and the law. However, in hopes of addressing this concern, I have pared down some of the longer quotes of the law in the article so that only the very relevant parts of each section are displayed, rather than the entire section in each case.
  3. The reason cited by the first vote for deletion was almost the exact opposite. It was that the article was "full of interpretation". Well, yeah, but interpretation cited through reliable authoritative sources much better than the average WP article, IMHO. Even if that was an issue, lack of citations is grounds for noting that sourcing needs to be improved in the article, not that the article should be deleted.
  4. Both votes for deletion cite or refer to WP:NOT, particularly the "Wikipedia is not a user's guide" section. Yet this article is not a manual nor does it provide legal advice. It provides facts and information about what the law in California is with respect to bicyclists, and what authoritative sources say it means.
  5. The second vote cites WP:OR which illustrates how unfamiliar even cyclists are with the topic of bicycling and the law. So unfamiliar that even sourced facts and information appear to be original research to them... Wikipedia is the ideal place for such an article - so the controversial information can be properly vetted in the public and open forum that Wikipedia is.
  6. The article has been tagged as being within the scope of two Wikipedia projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cycling and Wikipedia:WikiProject_California.
  7. The article is still under construction (and was tagged accordingly a week or so ago). See the TODO list on the talk page. Feel free to add to it with anything that you think will improve the article.
  8. Finally, if people have objections to content in an article, shouldn't they first raise those objections on the article's talk page, and allow editors to work them out, before simply nominating the entire article for deletion? In the five years that this article has existed, there has been no discussion about its content, except that it was of "stub quality". Both projects had it rated as "stub class", so a few weeks ago I started working on improving it, and as a result it was nominated for deletion.

Thank you again. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dbratland, you seem to be suggesting, without basis, that the article in question is a fringe theory, presenting new ideas, "countering systemic bias in institutions such as academia", and/or is an effort to "right a great wrong". What are you talking about? What is your evidence for any of this?
I have read over a dozen books on bicycling and they all say the same thing about the law. The fact that the public in general has not read these books and is generally not aware of what the law is does not make it a new or fringe theory.
If this article was a how-to manual or provided legal advice, then the WP:NOT objection would apply. But the article is neither.
Wikipedia is the place to provide facts and information, including interpretations made by reliable authoritative sources in the given topic area. The references in the article form the basis for my claim that that is exactly what this article is. What is the basis for your claim that it is not?
You represent yet another person who perceives what authoritative sources on the topic agree, and have always agreed, is fact, to be "presenting new ideas" (never mind that writers writing books that address bicycling and the law have for decades been reflecting these "new ideas", consistently, without argument). --Born2cycle (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: Wikipedia is not the place for "promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs... You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case." I don't think I can make it any more clear than that. The public at large, as well as the police and the courts, are "wrong" and you are using WP to bring them The Truth. It's hard not to fall into that trap if you're editing articles on topics you feel that way about.--Dbratland (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be hard not to fall into that trap, but that doesn't mean I have. Please, speak for yourself. The police and courts are wrong? What does this have to do with the article? Did you even read the article that is being discussed here? If your comments have nothing to do with the content/quality/appropriateness of the article (rather than me), I suggest they do not belong here. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with SpacemanSpiff above ... this article doesn't look at all like a good encyclopedic article. Citing the CA code in lane splitting would be sufficient to convey its encyclopedic importance. -- Brianhe (talk) 02:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't "look at all like a good encyclopedic article"? So now we're deciding whether to delete articles based on how they look? What kind of reason is that? And what does this article have to do with lane splitting? The legality of lane splitting is only peripherally related to the topic of this article, and it's not even mentioned in the article, nor even on the todo list for the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned above: "An article on the vehicle code should deal with its function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein." (emphasis mine). Born2cycle did his best to make the article better, and he sourced it better than most Wikipedia articles. I agree with Born2cycle that this is no candidate for wikisource. But currently, the article is also no candidate for Wikipedia. It is too much focussed on the details of the law, the big overview is missing. The article now is beyond repair, to get a decent article it would be best to start with nothing and build it up with "function, publication, history and possibly an overview of the sections contained therein.". --EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an article on the vehicle code. That would be California Vehicle Code. This article is about the bicycle relevant sections of the CA vehicle code, and explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California, so of course it is focused on the details in the laws. That's the topic of this article! The "big overview" is, or should be, in California Vehicle Code. I mean, should we delete 24 (season 7) because it is too much focused on the details of season 7, the big overview is missing? I agree some history can be added - about when each section was added, but that can be done without deleting the article. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get the point. The 24 (season 7) article should be deleted if all it contained was the plot. The article also has other things, about production, the strike, and it still needs information about how the series was received by the public. This big overview is also needed in the CVC-BRS article. If you think that this can not be added because that should be in the CVC article, then the only logical conclusion is that the CVC-BRS article does not belong on wikipedia.
About your pleas to the admin (which I am not): 1 is no reason, neither is 6. I agree on 2 and 8. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Finally something that makes sense. Thanks for that and the time you've obviously taken to give this issue due consideration.
Points taken about 1 and 2 in my admin plea list. The introduction/overview is definitely incomplete, but it is now at least slightly better than what it was two weeks ago. I agree the article is problematic and needs work. I was the one who put the under construction tag on it. I could use help improving it (and this discussion is helpful, but it would probably be much more effective if held on the article's talk page and the topic was how to improve the article, rather than being part of a debate about whether to delete it). But all this is beside the point here, where the only issue is whether the article should be deleted now.
You say, "The 24 (season 7) article should be deleted if all it contained was the plot". Don't you mean that article should be improved/expanded if all it contained was the plot? Don't you mean that it should be tagged with one or more of the plethora of maintenance warning tags we have available to us, and some articles are tagged with for months if not years before they are deleted? But to simply go straight to Afd and vote to delete it because it's not yet up to ideal standards? I just don't understand that. I would hope all of you would simply vote Keep on the grounds that, if nothing, else, this nomination for deletion is very much premature. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing WP:NOLEGAL to my attention. I was not aware of that. However, I'm puzzled as to how you see what it says as a reason to delete this, or any, article, much less to be the primary reason. If anything, it supports the existence of articles like this that provide and address legal matters. WP:NOLEGAL says nothing about what should be in WP articles with respect to legal matters or anything else; it is simply a disclaimer that states that legal information in Wikipedia should not be taken as legal advice. Consider these statements from WP:NOLEGAL
  • "Wikipedia contains articles on many legal topics" - right, like the article in question here.
  • "There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on legal matters is true, correct or precise". - which implies that legal matters are covered in the articles.
  • "The legal information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and ..." - This implies that Wikipedia provides legal information. You know, stuff like ...explaining why and how these sections are relevant to bicyclists in California...
The opinion that this article is "not a encyclopedic neutral treatment of the subject written for a universal audience" is not substantiated. Anything in the article that violates WP:NOTAFORUM should be removed, I agree. But, again, I was very careful to only add material that is supported by authoritative, reliable sources. Even if there are some violations like that, that justifies having those tagged and potentially excised accordingly, not deleting the entire article.
I agree Bicycle law is a better article, and stands as a model for this one to potentially follow. Thanks for that input too. But this one is still under construction... --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, how about giving this article a few months to improve, and, if anyone still feels it should be deleted then (say 9/1/09, is that fair?), it can be put back on the chopping block. In the mean time, please visit the article and leave your comments about how it is progressing. If nothing else, this process has served as a valuable source of suggestions on how to improve the article, and what direction it should take, attention it probably would not have gotten had it not been an Afd nominee. Thanks very much. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Bicycle law in California. That is the encyclopedic subject that this article is trying to address, not the Vehicle Code (and it's unfortunate that our article on the California Vehicle Code is still a stub). Perhaps the code quotations should be trimmed (full code section text could certainly go to Wikisource) but there is plenty of sources out there to write a neutral article about laws pertaining to bicycles in California, which are found in the Vehicle Code. Any "interpretation" of these laws that is not cited to a reliable source can be removed, but it seems to me that all this information should be verifiable. Information on the "function, publication, and history" of the laws could certainly be found and would improve this article, but such information will probably not be found online without a Lexis-Nexis account. However, a lot of information can be found about the current application of these laws, from both specialists such as Wachtel and from government sources. As such, any specific instances of original research can easily dealt with. And summarizing such sources would not make this a "manual, guidebook, or textbook" or "legal advice" any more than the article on United States open container laws, for example. Also, this is not "promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere;" the existence of reliable sources on the subject belies this claim. Nor is this article trying to "right great wrongs"; informing people on subjects of which they may have little or bad knowledge seems to be the very purpose of an encyclopedia. To any extent it is might suggest that police and courts are "wrong", perhaps it can be more neutrally worded if there is a documented controversy, or such claims removed if they can't be cited. In short, none of the problems asserted are unfixable, and the topic is encyclopedically appropriate, so I do not see a valid reason for deletion. DHowell (talk) 05:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'm going to cry. Thank you!. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Bicycle law in California. I agree with DHowell's reasons, and I think that under that name, it is more logical to talk about its function, publication and history. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:08, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kidcrusher[edit]

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

Nominated for speedy but it asserts significance. No vote. Ryan Delaney talk 19:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mendel Winery[edit]

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

Article about obscure winery in Argentina. No references, and external links are the company website, a trivial mention (only in one paragraph of a short trivial article) on a publication online that looks like it's probably one of those places that just reprints press releases submitted to it (so not an independent source) and some listing on a website trying to list all wineries: trivial and not reliable for information. Need multiple, independent, reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage to establish any notability at all to be mentioned in any article, and needs more than that to have an article of its own. DreamGuy (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if you consider Wine Spectator to be a reliable source, what are the other independent, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that would meet the multiple sources requirements for having an article? DreamGuy (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has now been blocked as sock of banned user. DreamGuy (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments attacking me personally are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just alerting the closing admin to a potentially invalid !vote. They can do with that information whatever they want. DreamGuy (talk) 01:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But like I pointed out above, only one of the 3 sources (Wine Spectator) is independent and reliable! and it only contains a trivial entry in June 2006! The other two sources are not independent (winery's own website) and/or un-notable (wine portal). The article as it stands does not show notability, and neither does the source! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I have. I did a Google and Google News search and nothing comes up in reliable independent sources (apart from the trivial mention in the WS from 2006). Just brief mentions in online wines stores, tourism/travel pages, etc. --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first link you mention ([18]) may well be independent but the content of the mini-article (2 paragraphs) is completely un-notable! The second link, as you say, is just someone's blog, and does not provide any notable content about Mendel either. It seems clear that Mendel makes boutique quality wine and that a respected wine-maker works there, but where's the notability? There are thousands of boutique wineries out there.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two paragraphs is enough to be non-trivial coverage, I think. (The coverage doesn't have to be notable, and it's not apparent to me what "notable coverage" might mean; the notability criteria just say there has to be non-trivial discussion in a reliable source independent of the subject).—S Marshall Talk/Cont
  • Well, I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation here. Firstly, WP:N says:
"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.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive
2 paragraphs surely cannot be considered to be 'significant coverage'. In fact, I would consider a mere two paragraphs to be utterly trivial. Give the name of a winery and I'll find you two paragraphs written about it in an independent reliable source! The Wine-Pages site has literally thousands of articles on wineries. How can 2 paragraphs possibly be 'significant coverage'? And there can be no doubt that the 2 paragraphs do not "address the subject directly in detail"
Secondly, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The coverage doesn't have to be notable". It's the winery (subject of the article) that has to be notable! If I had the time and the inclination, I could provide hundreds of similar non-notable wineries along with a few paragraphs from similar sources, and then where would be be? We have to draw the line somewhere! If someone could find something notable about this winery, we could keep it. I've followed up a lot of links from Google (both English and Spanish sites) and haven't come up with a single item of intersting or notable news.--BodegasAmbite (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's agree to differ. :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Bodegas is right. Over at the Wine Project, we've done a lot of soul searching in trying to evaluate notability of wineries. When it came down to it, we realized that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a wineguide and we must hold wineries to at least the same standards as local mom & pop pizza joints. Any restaurant can get local reviews and passing trivial mentions in larger publications but according to WP:N and WP:CORP those extremely local and trivial coverages are not enough for every local restaurant and pizza joint to have a wikipedia entry. Just because a winery makes wine, doesn't make them any different than these other local business. AgneCheese/Wine 14:57, 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 let it snow, let it snow delete. Jamie☆S93 22:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest cities by the end of each century that did not exist by the beginning of that century[edit]

List of largest cities by the end of each century that did not exist by the beginning of that century (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pointless list that would seem to rely heavily on synthesis of other articles or original research. Scjessey (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very much would rely on WP:SYN. Also, what is the point? And why the supercalifragalisticexpealong name? Vicenarian (T · C) 19:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As mentioned the idea came from Brasilia#Demographics. What is needed is to expand the list. There are already entries such as List of largest cities throughout history. Montemonte (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Each article must be considered on its own merits. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are we debating another one here? Mandsford (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You brought up List of largest cities throughout history. I thought you were using the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but I think I misread you. My apologies. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But I hope that worrying, about what other people might think, will not deter someone from contributing. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I wrong in invoking WP:SNOW here? Seems like I've been doing that a lot. Vicenarian (T · C) 13:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the speedy deletion criterion does this fall under? –Juliancolton | Talk 16:35, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Kiss[edit]

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

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

Comment: The second way. That award listed is just an award nomination. She has not won anything yet and I believe she's already retired. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sonnet mondal[edit]

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

Contested speedy. Mondal is an active self-promoter - it seems he imagines he's surpassed figures like Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Ramprasad Sen and Rabindranath Tagore to become the national poet at age 17. Regardless, we're under no obligation to help him further his quest for recognition, something reliable secondary sources have conspicuously failed to accord him. Biruitorul Talk 19:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentDon't you just love Geolocate. Both IP addresses resolve to Calcutta , the capital of Mondol's home state. Ignore above vote --Deepak D'Souza 17:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No dear, I did not ask that above vote be ignored because it was from West Bengal. There is no such rule. The reason is that there is a very good chance that the three anonymous edits are done by the subject of the article itself. Now watch the denials come in. On second thoughts, don't even bother, we see that pattern all the time. Also please understand that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Changing IP addresses and posting "do not delete" wont help.The final decision depends on Wikipedia's rules of notability. Awards from questionable sources(that too unreferenced), do not help. Mondol's achievements, you say?? two books(with unknown circulation) do not make a poet; nor do paid awards. And Wikipedia is not here to help upcomming poets or writers or researchers. --Deepak D'Souza 04:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis one is from Calcutta too. Our bard tries too hard (:-) Hey I can write a bit of poetry too!!) I did a search for all the names mentioned in the article and guess what none of them , apart from our Shakspeare has a wikipedia article. That settles how important this Poetry festival is to the International Poet community. --Deepak D'Souza 18:10, 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 no consenus, but leaning to keep. There are some decent arguments on both sides, though there is a bit too much on whether the article is useful. I see no consensus and the weight of argument is fairly even - though The Transhumanist's argument is pretty compelling, which is why I see this as leaning to keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of Internet-related terminology[edit]

Glossary of Internet-related terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Incomplete list of original research items and opinion (see PHP for example). Not factual or NPoV. https://www.detroitsci.com/ (talk) 18:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSAT Instruction Providers[edit]

List of LSAT Instruction Providers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not see how this passes WP:NOTDIR and it might also fail WP:NOTHOWTO. MBisanz talk 17:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read the introductory paragraph under "Content" on WP:NOT, which states, "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." Deor (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You already stated that you think it fits under subheading (3). So what is your point now?--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't state that. 18:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Oh. What are you even doing in this conversation? GTFO.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the other two lists that you've mentioned haven't been nominated for deletion. Both lists are low quality-- unsourced, indiscriminate, remarkably uninformative-- and they could be brought here to the snake pit if someone wanted to do so. Around here, what they refer to as "other crap exists" (Wikipedia's wording, not mine) is an argument that gets shot down right away. If the outcome of this discussion were "merge", then it would provide you the opportunity to mention the subject of instruction providers within the body of the LSAT article, and provide some precedent to avoid having someone try to edit that information out. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mandsford: Thank you for at least addressing my questions/arguments, and not resorting to ad hominem accusations and vague/conclusory statements. I'm glad someone around here finally had the intelligence and courtesy to do so.--Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, been there, done that. I think that the topic of LSAT preparation classes in general is worthwhile, just like the bar review classes that every graduate goes through before taking the bar exam; and I think that people would want to know how to find out more. On the other hand, because there are so many providers out there, I think that you run the risk of crossing into either (a) making a yellow pages if you try to list them all or (b) promoting the so-called "notable" companies (translation, "bigger") at the expense of the smaller ones; neither of those is a good result. Ideally, if there was a link to an independent website that lists purveyors of that type of service, that would be the better result. There's a specific policy rule against creating directories of addresses and phone numbers; on the other hand, nothing wrong with showing people where they can click on to someone else's directory of addresses and phone numbers. Mandsford (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was thinking about making this page into a comparison chart with pricing and geographical location information for each course. Would that make a difference, or would it still be "yellow pages" material? --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Patent Lawyer 001:If you want people to anwer your points seriously, I would recommend not phrasing them as attacks or insults. You'll get a better response. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This from the guy whose first communication with me was to accuse me of being the author of the blog I posted an article about. You are a d-bag. STFU. Stop fabricating rules for wikipedia, and people might not get annoyed with you so often. A quick look at your talk page reveals that you enjoy making up your own rules. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That probably would cross into being a directory. Although it would certainly be useful information, Wikipedia was launched with a very definite set of ten rules about the content of articles, grouped under the heading of "What Wikipedia is not" (the shortcut of WP:NOT has the text). Although I found those frustrating at first, they all make sense. In the case of information that other people might rely upon (such as a price list), you can see the problems in having that in a form that "anyone can edit". Mandsford (talk) 14:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I won't bother then. I thought that this would be a helpful contribution, and based on the other existing pages (noted above) I thought it was within the rules. But apparently most of the pages I've cited above should also be deleted, they just haven't been nominated for some reason... This situation is very confusing to newcomers who look to existing pages as examples of what is appropriate. This is all the more frustrating when other editors refuse to look at the existing articles you give as examples, but merely scream "NOTDIR - DELETE THIS" repeatedly. Thanks for the info. --Patent Lawyer 001 (talk) 16:37, 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 deleted, author requested deletion (as evidenced by page blanking and the below comment). Jamie☆S93 18:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Henigman[edit]

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

Another probable hoax - Google shows no hits for "Camryn Henigman", making it unlikely that she has released three studio albums as claimed by the article. Passportguy (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livnic- very sorry I was trying to create a practice article but accidentally published it

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G3) by Orangemike. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Horpestad[edit]

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

Likely hoax - http://www.moldefk.no/site/statistikk/spillerstall.php?page_id=724 does not have this person listed and google doesn't show anything pertinent either Passportguy (talk) 17:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.moldefk.no/site/statistikk/spillerstall.php?page_id=724 only shows the senior team of Molde FK. Google is likely to show up with limited results due to his very recent rise to recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Punaballer (talk • contribs) 17:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If he is not a professional footballer playing in a major league then he is not sufficiently notable to be included here. Passportguy (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Altenmann >t 18:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derzhava[edit]

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

The transliteration of a russian word, which is nothing but an archaic term for "state". Of course, as any archaic term, it bears a certain flavor in modern Russian language, but it is hardly a subject of an encyclopedic article. Timurite (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is the case, can it be expanded beyond a mere dictionary definition to an explanation of the concept? If not, I'm afraid I have to reassert WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Vicenarian (T · C) 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If it's not listed in any English dictionaries, it's a transliteration—it's as simple as that. Otherwise we could take any Russian word describing some high concept with some regional specificity and create an article about it. Doesn't work that way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:59, May 28, 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Excellent, so let's rewrite it about the concept of "derzhava". But if it stays written like a dictionary definition, it should go, at least over to Wiktionary. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A quick google books search for any similar term/concept (e.g., narod, samoderzhaviye, otechestvo, rodina...) would yield similar results. This does not automatically make these words English, however. In a work explaining a concept it is only natural to transliterate the original Russian word for clarification, to eliminate ambiguity, or to meet the needs of the specialists. When a concept is explained in many academic works, it eventually enters the English language as a loanword (e.g., glasnost, intelligentsia, oblast...), but until that happens it remains just a transliteration used for convenience. We, the Wikipedians, are not in a position to determine what is and what is not "good enough" to become a new loanword; we are supposed to be guided by existing reference sources to make a distinction. The term "derzhava" does not pass muster, no matter how much details we stuff into the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:37, May 28, 2009 (UTC)
  • You have said this several times already above, are you going to repeat this every time someone votes "Keep"? :) --Martintg (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do sound like a broken record don't I? :) The point I'm trying to get across is that I'm hearing all this about how "derzhava" is an important ideological concept, therefore the article should be kept. However, the article in its current form does not go into "derzhava" in any greater detail than a dictionary definition - thus qualifying it for deletion. I'd be all for keeping the article if it were reworked into an expansive explanation of this "central notion for the self-assertive and national-patrotic course." In fact, I would be fascinated to read it. BUT... I'm going to stop repeating myself. :) Vicenarian (T · C) 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a relief :) It is apparent that this article can be reworked into an expansive explanation of this "central notion for the self-assertive and national-patrotic course." Clearly the article is a stub in need of expansion. We don't normally go deleting stubs, nor can one expect a stub to be expanded during the course of an AfD debate. --Martintg (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a stub and an article that simply does not belong as is. If an article doesn't belong, it should be deleted. Any willing editor is welcome to work on improving the article offline or in his/her userspace if/when it is deleted, and can then move it back to the main encyclopedia when it is "ready for primetime." I've seen this done may times. Vicenarian (T · C) 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You forgot vodka, vobla and pravda. It would be pretty absurd to claim that NOTDICTIONARY requires deleting all of those merely because they're Russian words. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not forget "vodka", which is listed in every English dictionary one would care to consult, or "Pravda", which is a proper noun (a newspaper title). I would have to double-check if "vobla" is included—if it is not, it should go the way of "telogreika" and "derzhava".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:02, June 1, 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pattabhi Ram[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP and no sources seem to be available besides the subject's own blogs and youtube page (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). Even if the curent claims could be verified, subject does not seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC requirements for notability. Prod was contested by 117.97.194.13 (talk · contribs) without any improvements or reason being given; so am bringing it here for discussion. Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redd Stylez[edit]

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

Part hoax (if he landed a part starring as himself in a movie, why are there no Google news archive hits on him?), part promotional, part non-notable. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rely on IMDB for debunking a possible hoax, as you note, it's not a reliable source. Drawn Some (talk) 22:12, 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 following more edits to the content I have speedily deleted the article as G12 copyright violation and G11 blatant advertising. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASCEND (organization)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. There is also a redirect to this article at ASCEND, A Humanitarian Alliance. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:ORG. The sources cited do not appear meet the threshold of independent, reliable, third-party sources. Several of the source links do not work. One is a blog. Several are from websites that seem indirectly connected to the organization itself. There is a newspaper search result from the Salt Lake City Tribune linked, but I don't see what that has to do with the article. Vicenarian (T · C) 17:18, 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 -Djsasso (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Edmonton Business Association[edit]

South Edmonton Business Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined PROD; prod tag deleted without edits to the article, but the user left the note "decline: reliable sources mentioning the subject are enough indication of importance/significance" on their talk page. I disagree - the sources only mention the SEBA in passing, which doesn't add up to "significant coverage".

The original reason in the PROD tag was: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: 2009 May 28 – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." I agree completely - Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" - as I said above, the sources only mention SEBA in passing, and in my view, that doesn't amount to "significant" coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would not dispute your point that having a page on Wikipedia will be virtually worthless from an advertising perspective but you are missing my intentions entirely. As an online encyclopedia I was under the impression that it was a comprehensive database of noteworthy information. The association, which dates back to 1912 and has been instrumental to South Edmonton's current economic and political landscape, apparently doesn't have a "significant" amount of coverage. It is a non-profit association that has been involved deeply in Edmonton's history over the past 100 years and it is very disappointing to see a few people who likely know nothing about Edmonton try to destroy an entry based on what they have "googled". I'm not sure if there is some sort of points system on Wikipedia where people are rewarded for tearing down someone else's work (albeit a small entry) but I suspect that the people who do this are void of actually ever having built anything themselves. Unless of course they include their Wikipedia page as something they've built. BRAVO. Jimtraxx (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this personally - this is not about tearing down something that someone has built, and it certainly isn't about earning reward points. Wikipedia is not a database, as you say, but an encyclopedia. Per Wikipedia's notability guidelines, "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." That burden has not been met in the article in question. If you have such sources, I suggest that you add them to the article. I also suggest that you review Wikipedia's guidelines about assuming good faith and ownership of articles. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia says that it is NOT a directory. Joey the Mango (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say DIRECTORY? It says in plain font "a comprehensive database of noteworthy information". Clearly there are more intelligent people on here than me, for they have mastered the art of deciphering code. (198.166.28.213 (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Don't question the infinite wisdom of someone hiding behind a keyboard. (ChristopherPark (talk) 16:19, 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 withdrawn by nominator. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 11:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Draycott[edit]

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

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league. Contested PROD. GiantSnowman 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Mgm|(talk) 09:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pipe makers[edit]

List of pipe makers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Trivial and unnecessary list, magnet for spam. Almost all entries non-notable; other than Patsy Brown, the bluelinks in the article all go to disambiguation pages (without any pipe makers in them) or unrelated individuals. Likewise, the inclusion of companies (in addition to people) in the list makes it very spammy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A quick search of JSTOR shows that Robert Reid produced a chanter with 14 keys. I don't think this is an arbitrary list. Ottre 23:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not understanding your comment — 'because a specific notable pipe maker and 8 other notable pipe makers are featured in a list of 82 pipe makers, the list is valid' - is there something else to be inferred from your mini-biographical statement? Quaeler (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article obviously didn't begin as "trivia". So what if it has been spammed over the years? Only a thousand or so pipemakers have ever registered their own brand, so it's difficult to judge the notability of each entry. Ottre 01:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: are you drive by voting or what? This is actually one of the most precise listings imaginable. "There are only 15 bagpipe makers in the world today" [26] Ottre 03:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that cited quote, it seems like you're trying to make a point about the present day with a 20 year old article... What am i missing there? WRT precision, the article isn't restricted to present day so, given that we're dealing with centuries of human history, how could it possibly ever be 'one of the most precise listings imaginable'?
Is there Wikipedia precedent for a laundry list of people, the majority of whom are unlikely to ever each have an individual article covering them? Quaeler (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, its centuries of the history of four or five different countries. Second, if we assume there was in fact a revival of pipe music in the 1950s and that by 1989 only fifteen different people were in the business, I think it's safe to say there are no more than fifty notable pipemakers -- ever -- worth writing about. I can't manage fifty individual articles on my own, of course, but over time it's very possible to get complete coverage of the industry. Ottre 06:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like i'm taking Zoolander crazy pills here — that's honestly a valid metric? That because the word couplet "bagpipe maker" shows up in a number of news articles (and looking at the link, not many about an actual bagpipe making person), this gives us informative data? Really? Quaeler (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glancing at the first result from that, it mentions "famous Edinburgh firm of bagpipe makers", and then the second "one of Scotland's most acclaimed bagpipe makers". Yes, there are sources out there to confirm those on the list. Dream Focus 04:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of which addresses the initial claims for article deletion: "Trivial and unnecessary list, magnet for spam. Almost all entries non-notable; other than Patsy Brown, the bluelinks in the article all go to disambiguation pages (without any pipe makers in them) or unrelated individuals. Likewise, the inclusion of companies (in addition to people) in the list makes it very spammy." Is the suggestion that we delete all individuals off the list who cannot be directly supported by a reputable citation nor has a Wiki article? Quaeler (talk) 05:47, 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. ~fl 06:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galleri Rom[edit]

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

I'm bringing this here because my good faith efforts are not really producing any information that explains the importance of this gallery. The article creator says it plays an important role in Norwegian culture, but I can't verify that with reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition, 16 Oct 2006 in Aftenposten mention in a fashion article + several other articles, mostly notices about exhibitions at Galleri ROM. A search of Aftenposten for ROM for Kunst og Arkitektur gives some newer results: [27] [28]
Here is an article in Arkitektnytt, Architect News, about the gallery and its leader, Henrik der Minassian. It says he's been the leader since Galleri ROM and Institutt for Romkunst (The Institute for Room Art) were combined in 2005 to become ROM for Kunst og Arkitektur (ROOM for Art and Architecture). And here is another article in the same magazine, where, clearly, the gallery is still called Galleri Rom, now in 2009.
It appears that the gallery is active with both exhibitions and conferences. - Hordaland (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Added additional content. Still think it is a keep. Williamborg (Bill) 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Consumation[edit]

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

Independent release with no independent reliable sources. Only source comes from forums on Hurt's official(?) message board (not independent or reliable). Prod removed for pointy reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:30, 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 Discretionary early closure based upon what seems to be the obvious outcome. Masses of unsourced content, potential copyright violation, potential WP:COI concerns, fails to demonstrate why this National Rail department is notable, and is written in a completely inappropriate style. Content duplicates part of National Rail Enquiries which itself needs serious reworking or simply merging into National Rail. Adambro (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Rail Communication Centre[edit]

National Rail Communication Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is written exactly like how I would expect the "about us" link on an official website to be written. It contains no references, no incoming links, and was written in one go by Nationalrail (talk · contribs).

If any of the material here deserves to be on Wikipedia it should be condensed to a paragraph at National Rail or National Rail Enquiries (the latter article is not in a much better state than this, needs much trimming, rewriting and citing to make encyclopaedic, although the topic is inclusion-worthy.) - I'm just not certain there is enough that is encyclopaedic that can be said in this article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Lampropoulos[edit]

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

Contested PROD: No indication of Notability - Quick search reveals mainly single line mentions of the name in questionable reliability sources. Does not seem to comply with WP:BIO guidelines. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. BTW, there is also an article created on the band itself, which also probably ought to go. Constantine ✍ 09:46, 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) 08:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt (Self-Titled)[edit]

Hurt (Self-Titled) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Independent release with no independent reliable sources. Only source comes from forums on Hurt's official(?) message board (not independent or reliable). Prod removed for pointy reason. Duffbeerforme (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Hurt (band). What is suggested at WP:NALBUMS for non notable albums is a merge into the band article, but the article already seems to have mention of it, so only a redirect is needed. FingersOnRoids 21:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Delete it. Can't think of a reason why anyone would ever search that. FingersOnRoids 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dax Callner[edit]

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

Contested Prod - No indication of Notability - Quick search reveals mainly single line mentions of the name in questionable reliability sources. Does not seem to comply with WP:BIO guidelines. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 16:21, 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 keep. ~fl 06:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelo Lucero[edit]

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

Article is one sentence in length. Although there was a flurry of media coverage of this individuals death last year, I do not believe this article is notable enough Thisglad (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, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why not try and improve the quality rather than complaining about it? It is easy to point out shortcomings but more noble to correct the faults. Thanks ShoesssS Talk 23:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • what makes you think someone who nominates an article for deletion must try and improve the article? That's not my job, and Marcelo Lucero is not notable Thisglad (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In that we are not paid for what we do here, I have never considered this a job, but rather an opportunity to disemmenate information, without bias, and free of charge :-), Regarding your comment "... what makes you think someone who nominates an article for deletion must try and improve the article?" is not that why we are here? To make sure the imformation that is posted to Wikipedia is both informative and correct? Thanks ShoesssS Talk 00:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

washinton123 MArcelo Lucero is a falshpoint in local and national spotlights showing the racism that is evident in todays society. Locally, in Long Island, he is still ahuge news story after 7 months. In addition local civil rights activists are comparing the Suffolk County Executive to a modern day Racist and enactor of modern jim Crow laws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Washington123 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 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, blatant hoax. Laser brain (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arfon (composer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability, primary contributor appears to have a conflict of interest. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Hornuss[edit]

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

Has never played a game in a fully professional league, failing the minimum inclusion threshold. Punkmorten (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Judes[edit]

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

This band does not appear to meet WP:BAND standards based on current sources. All linked sources appear to be from band's own website. No Google hits. Vicenarian (T · C) 15:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I am withdrawing my nomination of this article for deletion. The band appears to meet notability, and I am working with the initial contributor to remove original research and improve citation. I am recommending a speedy keep. Vicenarian (T · C) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference your last point on the page. These sources don't have a online archive component that I can find. How do I: 1. Validate these articles. Yes, they're posted on the Judes site, but given the sources lack of an online-archive, I'm curious on how I can validate these. 2. Major station rotation. How do I validate this?

The band's toured internationally and been signed to an international label, with links to Sony and MGM. Can this be rectified by someone at Blue Pie contacting wikipedia to verify the band's noteriety? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KungFuTony8 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The information in the article is sourced from the articles referenced. Also I've included an additional media link. KungFuTony8 (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Hello again. Kay, I think I've removed information not cited in the media references. KungFuTony8 (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Tone 20:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lando Calrissian's Power Tash[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lando Calrissian's Power Tash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

14 GHits, no Google News hits, no reliable references supplied pointing to notability. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mokhless Al-Hariri[edit]

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

Recreation of previously deleted material: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mokhless Al-Hariri. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spiritual Edifices of Islam[edit]

The Spiritual Edifices of Islam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This body of work has not received enough independent coverage to justify its own article. Google search returns only a couple of relevant results... original contributor seems to be writing quite a bit about this family... suggest merging into Wahbi Al-Hariri for now... Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crimson timebomb[edit]

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

Local band. The gomemphis link gives at least a minor assertion of notability, but IMHO it just is not enough, thus this AFD. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:42, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Reclosing to fix formatting. Originally closed by Artw (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Mann (painter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:Creative. Minimal assertion of notability, little coverage in outside sources, google search brings up only a few results for "David Mann artist" (note that some of them are for at least two other painters named David Mann). Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Consider the nomination withdrawn; my apologies, I apparently made a mistake with this one. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 00:13, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (Shawn Desman album)[edit]

Untitled (Shawn Desman album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced article about unreleased/supposed-future album. Fails WP:CRYSTAL at the very least. Google search brings up no third-party press on this album. - eo (talk) 15:28, 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia – South Africa relations[edit]

Georgia – South Africa relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination with no resident embassies. I could find very little coverage of actual bilateral relations [32] except their 2 rugby union teams sometimes compete. LibStar (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. ~fl 06:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edouard Stern[edit]

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

Articles with mostly unfounded rumors and a murder not worthy of a page Abdelkweli (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Icelandic–Kosovan relations[edit]

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

This was previously nommed as part of a group. The result of that debate was "merge" to International recognition of Kosovo. The information in this stub, that Iceland recognized Kosovo's independence, is already present in the target article. A "merge" discussion (which would just make this a redirect} hasn't gotten any traction (2 arguing in favor, the creator of the article arguing against). Since this stub has no room for expansion -- since there are no reliable, independent sources that discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all -- lets delete this (no info would thereby be lost since it's already contained at the "recognition of" article. I would have no opposition to a redirect being created after deletion, but note that this is a highly implausible search term. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what "reliable, independent sources" are at all, do you. Ponder on that word "independent" and then ponder "released by Iceland's ministry of foreign affairs" and see how they're related. Also, ponder what "in any depth." Might mean. I ask you to ponder all of this before you, basically, call me a liar again.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. We don't need to turn this into a mud-slinging contest. As you note, there are several qualifiers you use in your description of sources as either "independent" or "in depth". When I say that such articles exist, you might have assumed that we could have different opinions about what your vague terminology encompasses. Instead you lashed out at me saying that I "have no idea" of what you're talking about. Please don't take my questioning your subjective judgment about the worthiness of this article as a personal attack. We just disagree. Leave it at that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Iceland isn't going to be giving much aid to anyone. If you haven't been keeping up with financial news, the entire country has basically gone bankrupt when their entire financial system collapsed bringing the government down with it. The whole country is in shambles, their currency is worthless, they even had to get an IMF loan. Shameful really. Here's a timeline: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7851853.stm Drawn Some (talk) 04:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relations established in the past but discontinued today can still count as notable relations. (See Cuba-United States relations) "Worthless"?!? "Shameful"?!? Comments reflect a systematic bias.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you don't understand what systematic bias is, please read what you linked to. Drawn Some (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"trying to do their best"? when is that a criterion for notability? If they were trying to do their best they would open up trade channels, open up an embassy, take a certain number of Kosovars as refugees. And you're again using another argument to avoid WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note of more canvassing by Turkish Flame here's Alchaemia [35] and then there's [36] [37] and [38].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 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 keep; rescued. - Altenmann >t 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DRV concluded that the result was actually "no consensus", so striking false claim above. (Personally, from the votes showing 9 deletes to only 4 keeps and the state of the article it's probably more accurately a "Delete" consensus, but since a "Keep" voter jumped on this and closed it without following proper procedure I guess we're stuck with no consensus for now.) DreamGuy (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France – Papua New Guinea relations[edit]

France – Papua New Guinea relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since no reliable independent sources discuss this bilateral relationship in any depth at all. One can find mutual french and PNG presence at fishing conferences or on a UN committee here and there but A. Such things are multilateral. B. Even when these multilateral events have been covered (usually in primary sources but whatever) there is nothing beyond the trivia of "Ministers x and y were present." Bali ultimate (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your point of view runs against consensus. Articles on bilateral relations are not inherently unacceptable. You make believe they are, but Wikipedia practice and consensus disagree with you. That makes your vote on this particular article off-topic. Aridd (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the above point does not relate to bilateral relations as PNG did not become a country until 1975 and was never a French colony. that info should be in History of Papua New Guinea. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is plenty of information here regarding political, economic, cultural and even military ties between these two far-flung countries. I'll be updating the page in the hope that it won't be deleted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Loads of information? Like this: France still does not have much of a presence, exporting only EUR 2M in 2003. LibStar (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. A claim that a french explorer landed on an island "just to the east of New Guinea" 200 years before Papua New Guinea became an independent nation state as bolstering a claim for notability of a bilateral relationship. That's a rather epic fail in basic understanding of what bilateral means, even considering it's from an ARS member.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, just to let everyone here know, France has what's known as a "sui generis collectivity" in New Caledonia which isn't that far away from PNG. A plan for bilateral cooperation between the Armed Forces of New Caledonia and PNG’s defense forces was approved in November 2004. Sounds like bilateral relations to me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your failure to find in-depth coverage indicates non-notability? Do you speak French by any chance? Anyone speak French around here?!--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I speak French and could not find anything. almost all coverage is multilateral context or rugby league LibStar (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually see quite a few references to Papua New Guinea's relationship with New Caledonia (still within the French Republic). Did I mention before that I added a source saying that they have a bilateral military alliance? I think that should suffice to establish notability.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not true, where in the above search? are you mixing up "NOUVELLE GUINEE" with Nouvelle Caledonie? LibStar (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What nonesense. Still all primary sources. Still zero reliable sources independent of the subject that discuss the subject -- this supposed bilateral relationship -- at all.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are still confused about what a primary source is. A government owned media outlet is still a secondary source when reporting about a trade agreement. The actual text of the agreement is the primary source. Even so, primary sources are not banned. They just must be used with caution so that no original research is done in explaining that text in the primary source by a Wikipedia editor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
primary sources are not banned but any case for notability is greatly strengthened by independent third party sources. LibStar (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
THe three primary sources are all run by the french foreign ministry, so i'm not sure what "government-owned media outlet" he's taking about. There is none.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you do need secondary sources. I think you are confusing notability with verifiability, a common mistake. Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines, which are the criteria for determining whether a topic deserves a stand-alone article. They say, in part that: "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.… "Sources,"[1] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[2] Yilloslime TC 19:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are secondary sources, the primary source is the text of the treaty. The secondary source is the government website discussing the treaty. If you are worried about government websites not showing notability, we use the census designation to determine that townships are notable. For almanac entries, they just have to exist. We pipe in all federal judges, and elected representatives from their official congressional biographies. We dont require a biography in the New York Times. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I should have just quoted all of WP:N to begin with:
We can argue about whether a gov't website is a primary or secondary source, and I'll grant that it's reliable, but it's unquestionably not an independent source. Yilloslime TC 22:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the France website is independent of Papua New Guinea. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you say that the French gov't website is an independent source of information on France-PNG relations? That's the real question here. Yilloslime TC 04:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Yilloslime. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 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 keep - Altenmann >t 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamental Law of Education[edit]

Fundamental Law of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable topic. Fails WP:N. Almost entire article is paraphrased from a single "source" and/or directly taken from the Japanese wiki with translation clean up. Has been tagged for lacking of sources, being OR, and notability since January without a single edit being made to it beyond the adding of an interwiki link, which goes to a Korean law, not the same topic. PROD was removed by User:Fg2 with reason of "Removed deletion proposal. Objecingt to deletion. Topic is very worthy of an encyclopedia article." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Japan already has an article, so why is this article needed when all it does is repeat the law and then surround it with unsourced interpretation to it? If it is so key, why does nothing link to this article at all, including that article on Education in Japan? Can you find reliable sources showing that it is, indeed, a key statute, that this is the law's actual name, and that the article is factual? Can you verify it?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How so? The Japanese wiki is not known for its extensive verification requirements (indeed, references there are as rare as can be). Nor does it have the same criteria of notability. its existence on another wiki does not mean it is notable here.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=wrUUAAAAIBAJ&sjid=J8QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=7146,2137971&dq=the-fundamental-law-of-education
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22The+Fundamental+Law+of+Education%22&cf=all
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Fundamental%20Law%20of%20Education%22
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/179408/education/47705/Education-after-World-War-II
http://www.mext.go.jp/english/org/struct/006.htm — Rankiri (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect to Football Icon. — Aitias // discussion 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hurrell[edit]

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

Contested PROD, reason given was; "Winning the television talent contest is a substantial claim to notability; the referenced article appears to be as much about Hurrell as his football career".

However, WP:NOTNEWS states "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

His footballing career alone does not pass the criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE, as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo[online] 13:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Prospekt's March. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Postcards from Far Away[edit]

Postcards from Far Away (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable song which has not ranked on national or significant music chart, won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fails WP:NSONGS. I previously redirected and nominated for PROD but these have been reverted. JD554 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creative (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, never released as a single, released as a download only and made it all the way to 94 in the UK singles charts. As far as I can tell, the song is a track on an album or EP which doesn't have an article. Recommend redirecting to Leon Jackson. Note that this article is a magnet for sock puppets of the indefinitely blocked troll Nimbley6, who may well pop up to vote in this AfD. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Meet the Fockers#Sequel. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little Fockers[edit]

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

As stated in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Future films, films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. This article has no sources at all. DAJF (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem with a redirect is that there is no reliable evidence that the film will even be called "Little Fockers". --DAJF (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4 Tone 20:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arturs Vaiculis[edit]

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

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league or cup competition. Article was previously deleted last year after being nominated for deletion. Contested PROD. Bully Wee (talk) 13:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - He does not pass WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in the Scottish Premier League! Bully Wee (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive. DreamGuy (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please follow your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Varbas (talk) 04:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting the closing admin be aware of a potentially invalid !vote, per standards. DreamGuy (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: Also endorse Speedy Delete per Jimbo online, below). DreamGuy (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 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. Although a fair case can be presented for that the person has verifiably fought in a boxing match, and that that there is one source which covers the person (this one) beyond mere result tables, the consensus still appears to be against keeping the article. The talk here about the subject also appears to be largely limited to internet memes and Youtube videos, which is a fairly weak foundation for basing an article. The boxing match was played in a school gym, and a further reasonable argument for deletion has been presented that the claims of being a professional boxer due to fighting and losing a single match, are little more than claims. Since the latter view has a rather large majority behind it, and present quite strong arguments, I belive that there is a rough consensus for deletion in this case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Zelenoff[edit]

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

Reason Lordvolton (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC) I stumbled upon a link to the Charlie Zelenoff article on the Kimbo Slice page. A quick perusal of the discussion page and I saw that another user had already highlighted the issues. I've removed the link from the Kimbo Slice article. This appears to be a hoax page.[reply]

Even if he did lose a fight to someone 1-13 (1 win 13 losses) it's not relevant.

Lordvolton (talk) 23:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I'll go "delete" and rather change it depending on if some significant coverage turns up. --aktsu (t / c) 08:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually boxing and MMA are completely different in terms of their set up and structure - The vast majority of boxers fight as amateurs and less than 10% ever make it professional.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Zelenoff have any amateur fight though? I get the impression that, while not smart if you want to have a legitimate career, it certainly possible to go straight to pro meaning we have quite the shortcut to be eligible for an article (maybe I should go get beat up to get my own article as well?). --aktsu (t / c) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look forward to your debut and I'll be sure to get the PPV! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 09:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ATHLETE: "[...] conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Is there any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to show notability beside that (IMO faulty) criteria? --aktsu (t / c) 09:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • BoxRec is a pretty reliable source and he shows up on a number of their pages.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but that's about it. No mentions in news articles, no articles about him (that I could find; the one in the article does not come off as a reliable source), nothing. I don't think being listed at BoxRec equals the significant coverage in multiple sources WP:BIO calls for (which is what we should be looking for). --aktsu (t / c) 13:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although we dont count forum "chatter" here - a quicl Google search will tell you that this guy aint just your usual novice. He has a profile on BoxRec as well as Make-A-Fight and there is a full report on him FightFax (if you want to spend the 20 bucks on it) as well as the athletic commision suspension report. There is also article with regards his debut on Boxing Confidential and there was a report of his debut fight that was on Deep South Boxing which is reproduced on his Boxrec profile. Without crystal balling this, I am sure there will be more articles over the next month with his next fight coming up.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. One sanctioned fight held in a middle-school gym + pissing off people by smacktalking online does not equal notable in my book. Not that my opinion by itself really matter, but the boxing-media seems to agree by not covering him at all. --aktsu (t / c) 14:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess so. However, it reminds me of the discussions with regards the Kimbo Slice article that used to rage prior to his fight with Mercer. Obviously Zelenoff is a comedy act imo but its not necessarily the quality of the athelete that makes them notable sometimes its the lack of quality - e.g. Eddie the Eagle and Eric the Eel.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the fight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxtDLPKnDA
The comments beneath it are interesting, "Just to let you guys know, you have been scammed for the last year. charlie zelenoff was a student at UCLA doing comedy for a class he was taking. i would say he was pretty successful after the first 3 months with the height of his popularity. now he does it to make a name for himself and to make money on the side. his goal is satire and to become an internet legend. charlie planned to quit before the fight started. his real name aint even charlie zelenoff. folks he is acting."
I guess we're not cooperating? I highly doubt this fight was sanctioned, but even it were he's not notable for anything other than trying and failing at being an internet legend. We're left deleting his spoof articles about himself and links on the Kimbo Slice page. We probably need to figure out which account he's using. Lordvolton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, without getting into the merits or demerits of the points made above I would just like to point out that this delete !vote is made by the nominator of the AfD, just so as to avoid any double counting.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, actually its does qualify as competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" as per WP:Athlete. Zelenoff holds a porfessional licence which was issued by the Athletic Commision in the State of Arkansas. Not that he needs it but he is also scheduled to have his second fight, this is not WP:Speculation and this fight has been registered with the state commision and is listed on BoxRec.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, now you are just ranting, which doesnt suprise me to be honest as in my opinion you havent come up with anything logical yet. To my knowledge Zelenoff has never edited wikipedia so I dont understand your comment saying "He is only "notable" among the editors of Wikipedia who must put up with his antics". Also please explain what you mean by a "spoof fight" - are you saying it didnt happen? are you saying the state athletic commision didnt sanction it? are you saying Slug Out didnt promote it? are you saying the official record of the fight on BoxRec and Fight Fax is a fake? I am no fan of Zelenoff but I am intrigued by the guy and his story, but that doesnt mean he is a fake, he is very much for real.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:43, 5 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. لennavecia 15:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isa Bagci[edit]

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

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-pro league or cup competition. Contested PROD. Bully Wee (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been blocked as sock of banned User:Azviz now. DreamGuy (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He does not pass WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in the Scottish Premier League! Bully Wee (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This user was determined to be using multiple accounts during a sockpuppet investigation of a user banned for a string of socks used in AFDs to give faulty reasons to keep articles. Not sure why he isn't blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, the investigation found that you were using multiple accounts, and made a ruling that it was possible that the account was, in fact, being used by the banned editor but that not enough info was in yet. This is not the same as a finding of "not guilty". Misrepresenting sockpuppet investigation results with fake legalese to try to sound vindicated when you are not is highly deceptive... and, curiously, a tactic that the banned editor had also used in the past. DreamGuy (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal comments attacking me are not helpful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My editing restrictions do not in any way prohibit me from making the closing admin aware of potentially invalid !votes, and accurately pointing out that you are misrepresenting facts is not a personal attack. The proper way to avoid having people point out misbehavior is to not misbehave in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how your WP:BF allegations make my "vote" invalid. Varbas (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banned users do not get to vote, so your votes are, as I said, "potentially invalid !votes", as you are currently under investigation. That's not bad faith, that's a simple fact. The closing admin should be aware of it, per AFD standards. DreamGuy (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 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 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta – Poland relations[edit]

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

    Yet another X-Y relations page. None of these pages are notable and are just random pickings. Angria77 Banter, Edits 17:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:27, 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. لennavecia 16:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Prince Phumulani Nyoni[edit]

    Prince Phumulani Nyoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not a notable personality. Article resembles a facebook page and appears to be self-publicity, fails WP:N

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (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. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Retinaldehyde Nitroethane Jasmonate[edit]

    Retinaldehyde Nitroethane Jasmonate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This article appears to be a hoax regarding a fictional substance used as a plot device in an upcoming independent film. Aside from the fact that the purported chemical name "retinaldehyde nitroethane jasmonate" is nonsensical in terms of IUPAC conventions, a google search reveals the only mention of this phrase is in connection with an independent film called "Jake's Dead" (see, e.g., this Facebook page). It seems plausible the originator of this article (whose only contribution is this article) is connected with that film, and created this article as part of a "viral marketing" project. Ryanaxp (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - an IP, 76.126.178.169, who made several minor corrections to the article soon after it was input by the author Ttb543 (talk · contribs) and may well be the author editing logged-out, has now added to the head of the article the sentence: "This article refers to the substance known as RnJ from the Feature Film Jake's Dead". This confirms the nominator's suspicions, and confirms that the article should be deleted as (a) the subject is a non-notable fictional substance, (b) having been cut-and-pasted from three separate articles it is scientific nonsense, and (c) Wikipedia is not for promotion. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 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. Deletion probably isn't the best tool to correct wrong dates with. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 17:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweet Robots Against the Machine[edit]

    Sweet_Robots_Against_the_Machine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

    Absolutely wrong article!!! First album of Sweet Robots Against the Machine was released in 1997!!! NOT IN 1999!!! And this tow albums can not be the versions of each other - it's different releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeirloomXX (talk • contribs) 2009/05/25 15:45:56

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (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 Wrong venue. As said, WP:RFD is the place to go for this. (non-admin closure) treelo radda 16:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Albino[edit]

    The_Albino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

    Directed page contains no references to "The Albino" whatsoever. Cokehabit (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy close. Redirects for discussion are at WP:RFD.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gary Pease[edit]

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

    Not notable. SummerPhD (talk) 11:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A hoax? The link to the Internet Movie Database would show the person is real. Dream Focus 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [49] Hipocrite (talk) 11:45, 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 keep. — Aitias // discussion 00:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Craig L. Russell (software architect)[edit]

    Craig L. Russell (software architect) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No real notability shown. BLP lacking reliable sources, none found Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to closing admin: Above user has been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned account User:Azviz. I have removed his comments as banned users aren't allowed to post under new accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dori did not show that the "Subject clearly passes notability requirements". Hits are not reliable sources. Varbas (and other editor name used) knows that. Duffbeerforme (talk) 19:47, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sudarsan Yennamalli M.[edit]

    Sudarsan Yennamalli M. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A young artist with only one exhibition to his credit. No notability at this time or references to indicated any notability freshacconci talktalk 10:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Garrett[edit]

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

    No clear notability established, no inline citations, no articles on books authored. If the subject passes the notability criterion, it's not clear what the basis is. Pete (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure I follow... "complete deletion" is a different vote from "Delete"? I would agree that if this is deleted the existing article should be more readily accessible, either through a redirect or page move. DreamGuy (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm never really sure how detailed to make comments here. Maybe my point is just obvious, and I shouldn't have bothered. Sorry! -Pete (talk)
    Pete, you're right. Good note. لennavecia 22:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, it is appropriate, in fact, this is exactly the situation for which it was created. Drawn Some (talk) 18:47, 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 close (non-admin closure). Article has been redirected to Simon the Sorcerer series#Simon the Sorcerer 5 - Who'd Even Want Contact?!. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Simon the Sorcerer 5[edit]

    Simon the Sorcerer 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non notable video game. Violates WP:Crystal as well. Shadowjams (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Padukone (village)[edit]

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

    Village in India. I've cleaned it up and added geo coodinates. But I still cannot find any formal mention of the village or town. None of the mapping options appear to have it, and I cannot find any news sources with it (although it is a common last name with a disambig page). I would be convinced by any formal recognition of the village, but I cannot find any in the searches I've done. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. Two acceptable sources have been found and the nominator changed their mind. No longer any calls for deletion in the debate. Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HelpNDoc[edit]

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

    Apparently non-notable piece of software, produced by a non-notable company. A google news search gives three insubstantial references: one from a local paper, one from PC World associated with a download link and therefore arguably commercial, and one from a source on which we have no article. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    NB: have later switched to weak keep after sources were provided Gonzonoir (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Jonjbar (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)jonjbar[reply]

    Gonzonoir, here are some reviews and facts about HelpNDoc which might be helpful:

    Response from Jonjbar (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Softpedia is first and foremost a software depository. Its editors can be quite indiscriminate in their coverage and occasionally review the type of software that doesn't seem have any notability whatsoever. Some of their recent reviews cover such low-profile subjects as "BitDefender Total Security 2010 Beta - Novice Mode", "BitDefender Total Security 2010 Beta - Advanced Mode", "Cornerstone Bible - The Perfect Bible Study Tool", "Startup Programs Buddy", and so forth. Would you support creating two additional BitDefender mode-related articles as well? So, the way I see it, the Softpedia review alone just does not satisfy WP:N and the rest of the sources you mentioned all seem to fail WP:SOURCES in one way or the other. Perhaps if I see another in-depth review that can be used as a reliable indicator of notability, I will change my position to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since it looks like this AfD may turn on the reliability of the sources, I've made a request for input on the ones you've listed over at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I've also read up on the reliability guidelines and checked over each of the sources you listed. One relevant guideline is on self-published sources: it specifies that, where sites are self-published (i.e. don't have established editorial processes to meet the standards of WP:RS), we should check whether individual contributors to such sites are experts who also write for other, reliable sources. With that in mind, I think the following of the sources you provided don't meet our reliability guidelines:
    • Independent review by 3D3F software directory
    • This site doesn't provide any authorship information or any details of its editorial processes, so I think can't be deemed reliable. The only name I can find attached to the site is Michael Monashev, and I can't find any evidence of his authority.
    • Neither of the Free Download Center reviews is attributed to an author. The site itself provides no information about its editorial processes so there's no indication it meets reliability standards.
    • No authorship details provided; the sites About page provides no indication of reliability. Doesn't look to me as though it clears our self-published sources guideline.
    • No authorship information available for checking authority; parent site appears to be effectively run by one person, who himself doesn't seem to have authority beyond the site.
    • 'Partial' independence probably isn't enough; this site reads to me as promotional.
    There's also
    • No authorship information is given, but my Portuguese isn't up to establishing whether this is a good source.
    So that leaves:
    • Independent review by indoition in the "Low-cost tools" section
    • Tending to view this as an acceptable source.

    To me, this still looks thin, and I'm still leaning delete. I'd like to know what others think of the sources. But then, that's why we're at AfD :) Gonzonoir (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response by Jonjbar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Softpedia's reviewer, Codrut Nistor clearly seems impartial as shown by the many reviews he has written for the web-site (545 according to google). Its reviews doesn't target only the best software:[reply]

    This makes me think the reviewer is clearly independent and impartial and shows that the in-depth review he gave HelpNDoc can be trusted. Jonjbar (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from Jonjbar (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Other reference sources I can find include:

    Keep. The two reviews by Softpedia[54] and Boston Broadside[55] seem to fairly sufficient to pass a WP:N check. I'm changing my position to keep. — Rankiri (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm glad we agree. Thank you for taking the time to review all the listed content. Jonjbar (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep With the caveat that this is not my field and I'm not totally convinced of the calibre of any of these sources, you've demonstrated at least that the software has been covered in multiple sources that appear independent. Though I was nominator, I'm switching to a weak keep. Gonzonoir (talk)
    • Thank you for your input Gonzonoir and for taking the time to review the content. Jonjbar (talk) 13:23, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fiona Handbury[edit]

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

    fails WP:BIO. not much coverage, most coverage mentions her in the context of her husband Matt Handbury who gets mentions in the media because he is the nephew of the actually notable Rupert Murdoch. WP:NOTINHERITED if I ever saw it. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    List of firsts in the United States[edit]

    List of firsts in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Appears to be a wildly mismatched list of trivia of the sort one might find in a bathroom book or a very confused almanac. Non-encyclopedic. jengod (talk) 06:21, 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. Merging non notable things is not really a solution. Merging is a good solution for things that have some notability but not sufficient to meet WP:N. But despite being deleted once before (the first article I mean), having existed for years, and being listed at AfD, the ARS page and the NICK project for a week, not one independent source has been provided for any of these. There is no deadline, but there is a burden on those wanting to keep things in any form when challenged, and no one has even started on this. Fram (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Nicktoons Summer Beach House[edit]

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

    This, and all of the following nominations of Nickelodeon program blocks are nothing more than unsourced schedules and branding efforts that recieved no coverage outside of Nickelodeon as the primary source, and are not well-remembered by anyone beyond the original editors of these articles. In the few articles that have sources, they're just links to TV.com and user-generated summaries that just say 'this show aired here and there'. The lead article itself was re-created after a previous deletion vote, much to my surprise. Note that I am not asking for deletion of blocks such as Nick in the Afternoon or U-Pick Live, as those had original content and hosts of their own that ran for more than a select period of months. This nominaton covers blocks which just had bare connections of continuity, lasted less than a season or a programming quarter, and were unremarkable outside of the rest of the regular schedule.

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unsourced summaries of Nickelodeon schedules and unremarkable programming blocks:

    Nickelodeon television weekend blocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nickelodeon TV Weekday Blocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (actually a redirect to the network article)
    Nick Friday Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nonstop Five at Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Slime Across America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The Summer Nick Pack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    U-Pick Daily (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Takes Over Nick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Friday Night Slimetime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    ME:TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nicktoon Movie Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Nickelodeon SLAM! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Moovibot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (this nomination is for a program on Canada's unrelated YTV; however I have included it as meeting the same problems as these Nick articles) Nate • (chatter) 05:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have taken out the mention of cruft per your request. This has been a long-simmering problem though. None of these articles have any sources to speak of. Many of them are just schedule rundowns that meet WP:Not a TV Guide, were created at the time of their promotion and then just left to wither on from there. Nickelodeon is infamous for having these types of promotional efforts that go on for three months and then either just wither out or make way for the next 'theme of the (season of the year)'. I think it is time to address this, and as I said, sources need to be found for any of these articles to even earn a weak keep. As it is, they all have only primary sourcing and poor-quality writing and would need serious help to meet the basic standards of a stub. Further on, these articles have very few incoming links into them if you go by their 'what links here' pages. There has been no effort to connect these further to Nickelodeon articles at all, suggesting a lack of cohesiveness or theme to Nickelodeon block articles. Nate • (chatter) 10:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright fair enough. You are hitting many arguments at WP:ATA but I do understand what you are aiming for. I think a merge with List of programs broadcast by Nickelodeon will be appropriate for just the sourced and notable stuff, everything else just redirect to the same place and unlink where appropriate. ZabMilenko 11:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH, are you actually saying we include or exclude articles on the basis of the intrinsic artistic quality of the work? DGG (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I put out a request a week ago to WP:NICK for their help about this, but no one has responded to my request for comment on this AfD. Nate • (chatter) 06:08, 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 keep --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Three Blind Mice (record label)[edit]

    Three Blind Mice (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable record label, no third-party reliable sources to find. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:06, 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, One two three... 04:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment. I would go for keep if the references you've found are incorporated into the article, so as to establish verifiable notability. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:59, 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 Keep. Looks like rescued. - Altenmann >t 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Team Picture[edit]

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

    Non-notable film. Appears to have had only limited film-festival release and then gone straight to DVD, where it appears to have largely ended up in the online bargain bin. No awards that we can find or other evidence of notability. No notable actors. Contested PROD (why, I'll never figure out). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Note to closing admin: Varbas has been banned as sockpuppet of banned User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin Varbas has been indef-blocked (similar to banned) as a puppet of Azviz. The only good that came out of his unprodding this article is that the article has now been improved per WP:AFTER to meet guidelines and concerns. Please look at the before in comparison to the after now that AfD has forced improvement. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 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 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Control paradox[edit]

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

    Doesn't show notability, no refs. I looked around and found all kinds of different things people are calling "control paradox", none of which have anything to do with this. Conical Johnson (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I mean it is original research, someone's personal discussion of a topic unaccompanied by any references. It may also be a neologism as the nominator described but I didn't explore that. Drawn Some (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think the "paradox" here is attempting to make an analogy with the barber paradox. (If every man shaves, and the barber shaves every man who doesn't shave himself, who shaves the barber?) = Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    But the barber paradox had a set-up; every guy in town has to be clean shaven, there's only barber in town, and anyone who doesn't shave himself has to go to that barber. If he shaves himself, he's breaking his own rule. If he doesn't get a shave, he's breaking the rule. Maybe this is an attempt to imitate the barber paradox, substituting "control" for "shave", but without other conditions. But a true paradox isn't "choose this or that"; it's more like "either choice will be the wrong choice". Maybe someone will come up with the "Wikipedia mass nomination paradox". Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say it was a good analogy, just observing that the barber paradox is based on a syntactically similar statement. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lydia Mitcham[edit]

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

    It's unclear what's going on here, if it's a mistake or a hoax. I cannot find any WP:RS on the named individual, on google or google news, or in the references provided. However, there is an individual who closely matches the name "Meredith" instead of "Mitcham" who is in some of the references. The children listed in the infobox also have the name Meredith. I would normally change the name and correct it, however the creator's username is similar to the article name, and the name is used a number of times. I want to be sure it's an error and not something else before correcting it. Shadowjams (talk) 04:15, 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. Consensus is clear Fritzpoll (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Estonia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

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

    I am nominating a 2nd time, as there was very strong consensus from the deletion review to delete this page, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20 not recreate as an disambiguation page. In the 150 odd bilateral articles in the last 2 months, not 1 has resulted in a disambiguation page, some have been redirected but that has been through consensus in the AfD. I am opening this for specific discussion of whether Estonia-Luxembourg needs to exist even as a disambiguation page. Also there has been some discussion here on the talk page of the admin who decided overturn and delete and subsequently recreation as a disambiguation page User_talk:King_of_Hearts#DRV_closure User_talk:King_of_Hearts#Estonia-Luxembourg_relations LibStar (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    as per WP:DABNAME The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, there is nothing ambiguous about this title the term Estonia–Luxembourg relations refers to relations between these 2 countries and nothing else. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks, that was the missing explanation that I haven't been able to verbalize well. Drawn Some (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have changed my vote to Conditional delete explained below.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am changing my vote back to Keep. Upon further research,I do not believe that this article can be deleted if the restrictions on editing in the form of a protection tag remain in place per Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion. As I suspected from the first, it makes no sense to delete pages that are not allowed to be improved. I would therefore end this discussion as keep, remove the protection tag, revert the page back to its pre-disambig state, and further improve it.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With such a niche topic as "Estonia-Luxembourg relations," I would like to know what significant event would justify this article's existence. For instance, Germany-Namibia relations is justified since Namibia was once a German colony.--WaltCip (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all the discussion is about deleting the disambiguation page that resulted from a consensus to delete the original page as the topic is not notable and any information can be contained in the articles on each country's foreign relations. Second, common membership in the EU is multilateral relations. Third, "probably engaged" etc. is a complete supposition. Fourth, a consensus has been reached that not all of these articles are inherently notable, although I see you stated that elsewhere. Fifth, you have to have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability and it was already explored extensively just in the past week or so and found that it doesn't exist. Drawn Some (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    agree totally with above. good luck finding reliable sources proving "probably engaged in significant trade". italics added LibStar (talk) 06:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment re: sources about relations > well, this seems to indicate €13.8million of trade in 2007, with mutual trade/business delegations every few years since 1999. Luxembourg investments in Estonia totalled €225million. This is a news article regarding their diplomacy regarding the EU constitution. This might yield something interesting, though I've not looked into it in depth.
    I think that that's enough to be getting on with. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you really look at that stuff? It clearly emphasizes in words how unimportant the trade between the two is, several times. Not important trade partners at all. Do you have a conception of 13.8 million Euros and how that is essentially nothing in terms of trade? Both countries have a GDP of about 30 BILLION Euros. It proves the opposite of what you claim it does. Drawn Some (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh. I thought that a source establishing trade worth quite a lot of money (and if it isn't quite a lot of money, you can transfer €13million to my bank account at your convenience), estabishing trade delegations and specifying investment and what form imports and exports take, was quite useful to people inclined to keep the article. Also, this is a news article regarding their diplomacy regarding the EU constitution. This might yield something interesting, though I've not looked into it in depth. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 10:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    on the point of trade in 2007, Estonia exported 1.4 million EUR to Luxembourg, yet total exports were USD11.31 billion, so doing the conversion and maths, Luxembourg represented 0.02% of Estonia's total exports! and for imports 0.12%! insignificant. LibStar (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    To Libstar and Drawn Some, as of December 31, 2007, foreign investments made in Estonia originating from Luxembourg totaled 225 million EUR accounting for 2% of the total volume of foreign direct investments, placing them as the tenth largest source of foreign investment. That information was removed to make room for this disambig page for us to discuss. Oh well, I guess the word will never know. Sigh.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a clearer way of looking at the sequence of events. Docu, can you explain how LibStar is "confusing people" ? Tarc (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how I have anything to do with conversion to a disambiguation page. Besides I don't read anything where "Docu requests restoration"? Where did you read that? -- User:Docu 23:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Just ignore him tarc. He just plays games/refuses to answer direct questions/tries to do end arounds on consensus/etc... He's one of those legacy admins.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably for the best, but it is odd how can one write "Thus, for GFDL compliance, the article can't be deleted. It should either be redirected or kept" yesterday, and then deny that he asked for the article to be restored today. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This isn't necessary here, perhaps there is a better place for discussion. Also it's not fair to point fingers at King of Hearts, period. Drawn Some (talk) 23:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Tarc here except that King of Hearts was acting in good faith (not that I agree with creating an inappropriate disambig page). Ever since Docu's decision to keep was clearly overturned, he has been pushing the restoration of this article so that his original decision doesn't look bad, hence he can do these markings, [61] and [62]. this is an attempt by Docu to cover his actions, what is also of concern is that this not an ordinary editor but an admin doing this. LibStar (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be clear, I do not hold KoH's actions in any sort of bad light or faith either. :) I don't agree with the restoration move obviously, but it was done with the best of intentions at addressing the possibility of a copyright/licensing issue. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite frankly, that is bullshit, and I am appaled at your blatant end-around of a community decision. The article was deleted according to broad consensus, and was specifically recreated for the sole reason that it was believed to be necessary to satisfy GFDL concerns. Revert yourself, please. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bullshit?!? Yeah I might use that word. Since you've compelled an admin to revert my helpful edits,[63] without asking me to on my talk page, or getting your hands dirty yourself. I'm sorry I wasn't privy to your observation that this page, could only, and should only ever survive as a disambig page indefinitely, no matter how much new info was brought to light. So there's nothing left to say. This article can't be improved in this condition. I see no point to try to defend it in this state. I urge King of Hearts to get a second Admin's opinion. But as far as being an "involved editor" is concerned, Tarc, I can at least say that I'm making an attempt to improve the quality of this project. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and by the way Tarc, your repeated removals of my Rescue tag here and here were really beyond the pale. Seriously, it's practically vandalism. This page was improved past Luxembourg–Russia relations and you still wanted it gone. Do you have an ax to grind or something?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Axes? No, as I have never been involved in any of this until a few days ago, and that only came from seeing the DRV discussion. I do have a beef with people who misuse rescue tags to save their favored articles when it clearly isn't applicable, though. It was not vandalism to revert your misuse. Tarc (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for any misunderstanding, but I was trying to allow for the article to be evaluated as a disambiguation page. We've already considered the article as an article at the last AfD, and it was deleted, so that is not necessary at this AfD. I'm not such a staunch advocate of my creation of the disambiguation actually; see my comments below. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you meant well, but the inevitable result of your action (to recreate an article page, which is what you did, this is not a Dab page) was that some people would try to resurrect the elaborate piece of crap article that had a rather overwhelming consensus to delete despite the rather incompetent interventions of user:Docu. There were no GFDL concerns whatsoever (that was just a smokescreen thrown up by Docu) and yet here we are.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments King of Hearts, I do believe you were acting in good faith, and certainly had no intention to restore the original article as others have been pushing. LibStar (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Two users? Who are they? -- User:Docu
    If you click on "history", you can see: Richard Arthur Nornton (1958- ) and Cdogsimmons. Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle, you think my trying to improve a page to the point it can be kept should result in me being blocked from editing? There was no set policy or consensus that the page should not be improved from the disambig state (and still none exists to my understanding, merely the weight of an Admin's overturn). We obviously have serious differences in the way we think wikipedia should be run. If you think I should be blocked for my actions, I advise you to take it up with an administrator and then let me have the benefit of procedural due process, rather than excusing yourself for being "involved".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there was clear policy that the page should not be improved from the disambig state; it was only restored to that state for copyright concerns. The content was removed, by consensus, and it was improper for you to restore it. All water under the bridge now really, so please, move on. Tarc (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. I can understand a vote to delete based on copyright concerns if they were valid. However, as King of Hearts explains above, copyright is not applicable here. I disagree that the page must be kept in such a minimized state. I personally don't think that the page serves well as a a disambig at all. I would be all in favor of deleting it so that the page could be restored based on its own merit. I added several facts which were then removed when the page was reverted to a disambig that could have allowed the page to pass a deletion review (which I understand has happened before but which I disagree with since the page has merit, the problem being, no one here was as willing to improve the article as they were to delete it. Call me an optimist, I think I can improve the page to where it can pass deletion review if I'm actually allowed to edit it). Instead, people here are left clinging to the old decision for deletion and stuck with a disambig page that makes no sense. It doesn't have to be like this, but since it appears people here are only willing to consider the page as a disambig (which is not required anywhere, Tarc, only implied by the fact that it was deleted before and restored by an Admin as a disambig) which is stupid in my opinion, but whatever, I think the disambig should be conditionally deleted so good faith editing can take place on a recreated version of this page which will be worth reading (aka notable). That vote for delete of course is conditional on the page being restored to an editable state. I do this for practicality's sake, not because it makes sense, (maybe in part because User:Stifle is trying to get myself and others who want to improve this page blocked if you look above) and not because there is any solid decision or consensus that requires this page to remain a disambig. People have just convinced themselves that there is.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're being disingenuous. I've requested protection through the end of this AFD to stop attempts at circumventing consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "Disingenous" –adjective, lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere. Your accusation is misplaced Stifle. My main concern is the improvement of this article, as I explained here, and on your talk page. Your opinion that I am being disingenuous is wrong. Can't say it any plainer than that.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have modified my opinion (again) back to keep per the policy at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#You_may_edit_the_article_during_the_discussion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    have you seen this Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_May_20? LibStar (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Rescue Squadron do not vote Keep automatically. Just yesterday I said Delete to an article that had been tagged. This article should be kept. The closing administrator said the Keep arguement was far more valid, than any of the deletes, and reading it over, I agree. It should've been kept. A lot of you went over to the deletion review and had it overturned, it then restored, and here we are again, at the AFD. If an article is to be deleted, it should be done in the AFD, where people will notice it. Consider this a do over. And please stop assuming bad faith on the part of other editors. No one here is a bot. Dream Focus 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually agree. It would have been far better as a matter of policy to have deleted this article cleanly so that if it were to be recreated, we wouldn't be stuck in a situation where people are only willing to consider the article as a disambig page. The overall ability of wikipedia users to improve articles should be sacrosanct. Freezing the article in a disambig state makes improvement impossible and is against the policy decision laid out in WP:Ignore that wikipedia should be open to improvement. I think the new information added (that Estonia and Luxembourg have a fairly significant investment relationship since Luxembourg is a major banking power, all the more relevant today based on the turmoil in the banking sector) should merit recreation of a substantive article which should be discussed honestly. This disambig nonsense has wasted everyone's time.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing Administrator please note The article is frozen in its useless Disambiguation page state, which no one is arguing to keep. Those who say Keep, want the original article back(it was determined Keep in the first AFD, do to the arguments of the Keeps, not the votes of the deletes). Those who keep coming here and saying delete now, as the two above, only comment on the Disambiguation page. If there was a problem with the first AFD, then relist it, and do it over again, with the proper article page there, not these Disambiguation page that is there now. Dream Focus 11:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The deletion review is basically whoever is around at the time who decides to comment, it apparently a vote, unlike the AFD which is based on the content of the arguments. And I don't want every single bilateral article kept, only those with content as this one has/had. Dream Focus 12:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    so we should disregard a deletion review (which uses consensus as well and a very strong consensus developed including many people that I have never seen at bilateral AfDs) and all delete AfDs just in case there are not enough people around to comment on? that's ridiculous. this whole Estonia-Luxembourg case is making a mockery of the established procedures WP:AFD, WP:DRV and WP:DAB, we wouldn't even be here if correct procedure was followed and it was closed as delete, do you intend now to contest deleted bilateral articles in deletion reviews? LibStar (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD closed properly as KEEP based on argument, not votes. You didn't like it, so you took it to the DRV, and had enough deletionists(who seem to vote delete 99% of the time or more) there to have it overturned. You have not made any valid reason why the original article should be deleted. The article should be restored and kept. Dream Focus 12:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    closed properly as keep? you have to be kidding me, I refuted the only 1 keep vote in that. and now you totally disrespect the outcome of deletion review. many admins commented in the deletion review that Docu's judgement was poor. was the deletion review wrong? I don't think so. I have made several reasons why the original article should be deleted, the main one being a significant lack of third party coverage of actual bilateral relations. seems like you only want to keep all bilateral articles...please request deletion review of the 150 odd deleted ones in the past 2 months. LibStar (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    you're also effectively saying that deletion review outcomes should be ignored (especially when someone likes an article) and in effect it's a useless procedure of Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The closing administrator believed the argument of the keep, the "Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements", made it notable. It was closed just fine. You didn't like the outcome, so you ganged up at the one place where its about votes not valid reason for arguments, and overturned that. Ignoring the KEEP made on valid arguments, and respecting the deletion review based on vote stacking, makes no sense at all. And I do not vote Keep on all bilaterial articles, only those with content which clearly make them notable. Dream Focus 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    the above is purely your opinion and might I add disrespectful of the deletion review process. to accuse me of ganging up is not assuming good faith. It may have had "Presidential visits, growing trade and cultural contacts, four bilateral agreements" but it lacked significant third party coverage to meet WP:N, something you fail to acknowledge. I refuted the only keep vote as it did not prove there is significant coverage of bilateral relations, almost all the coverage was multilateral, and a search was conducted in three languages: Estonian, French and English but none found significant coverage of bilateral relations. perhaps you could do a search in German to disprove me? LibStar (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to the above, a decision to delete does not mean that the subject does not and never will deserve an article in Wikipedia. It is just a decision that the article as it stands does not meet the criteria for retention. Any editor can recreate an article with this name, as long as they make a solid, informative article with good sources that show notability. A decision to delete would raise the bar a bit - a new article with this name would get fairly intense scrutiny - but if there is enough to be said on the subject, the new article would survive. Again, I don't see what the fuss is about. Let's quit arguing about borderline cases and spend our energy on constructive improvements to the tables in the "Foreign relations of ..." articles. See User:Aymatth2/Relations for my personal views on what could usefully be done. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you check out the non-disambig version in the history. It's a little hard to improve when the article is protected.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:42, 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. Cirt (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Top 100 Global Universities[edit]

    Top 100 Global Universities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete - there do not appear to be any independent reliable sources that establish the notability of this list. There are sources that mention it in passing as part of a source about another topic and there is the occasional press release-style announcement from one of the universities on the list, but nothing that offers significant coverage of the topic "Top 100 Global Universities". PROD removed with the usual unsubstantiated claim of notability. Otto4711 (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    the shanghai and the Times Education Supplement--sorry--its in the lede paragraph of the article, so I thought it would be clear. DGG (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course I understand that this is "a list of schools as ranked by Newsweek in 2006". But then I have to pull out arguments already made above, for example that this simply reposts the list and adds no real content to it. It's just wikipedia-as-web-depository. Hairhorn (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, but those are objectively verifiable lists, as well as the bread and butter of paper encyclopedias. Hairhorn (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support deletion on the article, and I believe the copyright is problematic, but the argument for keeping it is not that it would be a fair use (taking a whole work is rarely a fair use, although not always) but that a bare list is not itself protected. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you're going to write an article about the list, then the article needs to be notable as demonstrated by third party sources. There's no indication here that the list is notable, just because Newsweek published it, just as individual news stories aren't notable, despite being published by the New York Times, or columns published by Paul Krugman aren't [usually] themselves notable. So it would need some sources in addition to what it has now that indicate the list has some notability. Shadowjams (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Keep - nominator withdrew and all other comments for keep. (Disclosure Note: non-admin closure by editor who voted keep.)

    John wellington ennis[edit]

    John wellington ennis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    All three sources are trivial mentions; no notability established. American Eagle (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *Note: Name changed to proper case    7   talk | Δ |   04:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yaft[edit]

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

    Article was prodded, with 2 supporting prods. Has been deprodded and while modified, still unremarkable and the sources cited don't appear to be WP:RS. Not just a neologism, a neologistic acronym. Shadowjams (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tell you what is though... treelo radda 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Integrated commercial performance improvement[edit]

    Integrated commercial performance improvement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable proprietary (apparently) commercial service. Article seeks to promote the service, and cites no sources other than those of the company web site. No relevant Google hits aside from the company site. Borderline spam. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy deleted by KillerChihuahua, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Adinians[edit]

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

    A 'tribe' of dubious veracity. No sources.

    The statement "They are known for their advances in the sciences of the Uren Golnishke (see related page). All who did not worship their Lordess, Adinia, were forced to endure it", seems particularly suspect. Icewedge (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jana Stanfield[edit]

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

    Non-notable musician. She has a non-trivial biography in Allmusic, but the only other hits I found were Amazon and press releases. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was redirect to Palo Alto Unified School District#Elementary schools. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ohlone School[edit]

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

    I thought I'd bring this one up, as last time I checked, elementary schools without any particular national recognition do not meet the notability guideline. I must admit I have a conflict of interest in the issue. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 02:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's your COI? tedder (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    One of attending the school in question I'd imagine. treelo radda 16:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, attending the district, anyhow. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 13:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - schools are not speediable since they don't meet the A7 criteria. Common outcomes are merge/redirect not delete since this is a likely search term. TerriersFan (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, and I know that-I should have said "speedy merge". My point is that it should be a non-controversial merge since it isn't a Blue Ribbon school. tedder (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete. Tone 20:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Empire of New Europe[edit]

    Empire of New Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not sure how to even start with this one so I will just say. Total of 7 Google hits. Ridernyc (talk) 01:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    G-Forces Web Management[edit]

    G-Forces Web Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Page edited to include 3rd party reference to establish notability. TonusHillius (Talk) 15:53, 01 June 2009

    Survived speedy deletion - barely - but still unsuitable for inclusion per WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Emirati–Kosovan relations[edit]

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

    information could easily be contained here Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo#Middle_East. not strongly opposed to redirect but would prefer delete as unlikely search term. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    isn't your last sentence original research? LibStar (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [65][66]--Turkish Flame ☎ 02:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    your first article above, blogs are unreliable sources for Wikipedia as per WP:SPS. LibStar (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That article was first published in The National on Sunday 26 Oct 2008. --Turkish Flame ☎ 03:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It can't be verified as per WP:V, who knows if the blog author altered it? LibStar (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkish has been the only "keep" !voter in almost all of these "X-y relations" discussions. That should tell you something. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It would not only be WP:OR but WP:CRYSTAL. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "It can't be verified as per WP:V, who knows if the blog author altered it?" Well, let's use the original version, then, on the newspaper's own website www.thenational.ae – it also mentions that the UAE donated $25.7million to build a humanitarian airport in Kosovo. OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    COmment see Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. JJL (talk) 14:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The page appears to pass muster under the standards set at Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations (a significant involvement in a war and humanitarian assistance, although that page clearly says those are merely guidelines, not set in stone). The other page you refer to is an ongoing discussion that has not reached a concrete policy. Perhaps more clarification is in order.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment better handled at e.g. Foreign_relations_of_Kosovo#Arab_states. JJL (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The relations between two sovereign nation states or lack thereof is inherently notable and deserving of its own page then why about 150 of these bilateral articles been deleted? LibStar (talk) 05:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak about other pages that have been deleted without my seeing them. I will say that the deletion of such pages would seem to me to be a misguided effort on the part of the editors patrolling this page. As far as this specific page is concerned, it seems clear to me that both countries are in the process of attempting to develop relations. Your original reason for deleting this page was that it could be contained at Foreign relations of Kosovo. That page is already quite long. You seemed to think Ethiopia-Qatar relations was worth saving. If we had spent as much energy improving the article instead of trying to delete it by now, I quite confident it would a worth-while read.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't apply here. LibStar (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The peace keeping forces are notable because of what it says about the UAE's relations with Europe. The UAE is not attempting to establish a relationship with Kosovo! Indeed, we can read "Following Iraq's 1990 invasion and attempted annexation of Kuwait, the UAE has sought to rely on the GCC, the United States, and other Western allies for its security." The UAE troops in Kosovo have nothing to do with Kosovo. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As Kosovo is one of the very few Muslim-majority countries in Europe, it seems likely that the UAE may have had more altruistic motives than that. Moreover, the deployment generated enough coverage to meet WP:N, which is what's in question here. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. The groundwork laid as governments are taking place is clearly relevant to national bilateral relations between recognized governments after those countries become recognized by the international community. Just look at France – United States relations. The UAE's significant steps to become involved in a present day relationship with Kosovo do belong on a page detailing that relationship.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree. See my comment above regarding France – United States relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you really think that all U.S. foreign relations can be fit into one page? Clearly not. You probably think that U.S. foreign relations are notable enough to merit multiple pages. I submit that it would therefore be far better as a policy matter to have 20,000 articles detailing bilateral relations than excluding some on the basis of subjective impression regarding the "notability" of a country's relations. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    By that reasoning, all poets would have an article on Wikipedia, as would all painters and plumbers. That's why WP:N recommends that a topic should be notable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cdogsimmons, you're using an WP:ALLORNOTHING argument. LibStar (talk) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I put it in those terms because Edison did. I personally think that in a circumstance where nations have no clearly documented relations whatsoever, such a situation is undeserving of a page (although it would be interesting to understand why those countries have no relations). But this page does not fit into that situation. Let me try to explain why:
    1. The UAE extended military and humanitarian aid to the area and people that would become the state of Kosovo. According to this article those troops are still there. This was the UAE's first military mission outside of the Middle East and it was the only Muslim state to participate in the Kosovo Force.
    2. That military aid, in this case consisting of over a fifteen hundred peacekeepers and special operations forces, 6 Apache helicopters, 15 tanks and 50 armored fighting vehicles, (hardly "trivial" as Biruitorol suggests below) is sufficient to support the creation of an article detailing bilateral relations under the policy developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_International_relations#Bilateral_relations, in that such military involvement denotes that the two country's have been involved in a war together, that they are in or have been in an alliance, or that they have been engaged in a significant diplomatic conflict. (The page itself says these factors need only be roughly met to create notability, and that these guidelines are not set in stone)
    3. The humanitarian aid extended by the UAE which has been substantial is also an indication of an alliance.The article above indicates that the aid given to Kosovo by the UAE’s Red Crescent Authority alone cost Dh125 million between 1998 and 2008.
    4. The UAE has recognized Kosovo's declaration of independence and thus, Kosovo should be recognized as having the status of a nation state by wikipedia for the purposes of this article.
    5. Kosovo is in the process of opening embassies around the world and has indicated that it will open an embassy in the UAE.
    Therefore, in my opinion, a relationship clearly exists between these two countries sufficient to merit documentation by wikipedia in its own article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Biruitorul, sending over 1,000 peacekeepers and special operations soldiers into a foreign country is not "trivial at best". Also encapsulating all relations between Kosovo and Emirati cannot and should not be done at an article on UNMIK. You might as well try to encapsulate the relationship between the United States and Russia at the article on the UN.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We usually look for a reliable source to indicate whether something is notable, rather than decide what is obvious ourselves. Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are suppose to use common sense and think for yourself, not rely entirely on the suggestions in the notability guidelines. Those are just suggestions to help you make a decision, not policy. Dream Focus 16:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment in fact, WP:V is indeed a policy, and WP:N and WP:RS are not mere 'suggestions'. I don't see why this case should be an exception to the rules, which is so like all the others that have been discussed in detail at the previously-mentioned pages in order to develop consensus on how to handle them. To the contrary, following consensus seems like a good idea for consistent treatment of these types of articles. Where is the source asserting that this particular relationship--beyond individual actions involving the two countries--is notable? JJL (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, it's telling that even UNMIK says nothing about who makes it up, and that this fact only becomes a concern when we try to "rescue" stuff better consigned to the dustbin. After all, has anyone treated the subject of "Emirati–Kosovan relations"? If not, you're just breaching WP:SYNTH in claiming the UNMIK presence as evidence of such relations. And please, let's not compare the Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War, the subject of many a published volume, with Emirati police in UNMIK, whom no one has troubled to cite as having a bearing on "Emirati–Kosovan relations". - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another note of more canvassing by Turkish Flame here's Alchaemia [67] and then there's [68] [69] and [70].Bali ultimate (talk) 15:27, 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 keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Balham Alligators[edit]

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

    No non-trivial coverage found in third party sources, fails WP:MUSIC. Also delete Category:The Balham Alligators albums, which contains several redirects to the band's article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Geraint Watkins was not deleted. It was a redirect page Geraint Watkins (musician) that was deleted. Adds more to The Balham Alligators than I'd seen earlier. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated The Balham Alligators. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Ossai[edit]

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

    Non-notable footballer fails notability guidelines per WP:ATHLETE in having not played professionally, not played senior international football or achieved anything significant in football ClubOranjeT 01:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was redirect to Mikoyan Project 1.44. Redirected per discussion with original editor, deletion nomination withdrawn by nominator Acroterion (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    MiG 42 Foxglove[edit]

    MiG 42 Foxglove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    There is no "MiG 42 Foxglove." The article references a speculative website dating to 1997, not a reliable source. The aircraft in question is probably what became the Mikoyan Project 1.44. At best, it's a redirect. Contested PROD. Acroterion (talk) 00:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conceivably so. Acroterion (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, based on my conversations with the editor who created it, I believe he's sincerely convinced it's a real airplane. Acroterion (talk)
    • That has nothing to do with my point. - BillCJ (talk) 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC) THat can be the result of an AFD to Delete an article. To this point, there is not really much worth keeping in the existing article that one well-wirrten sentece would not cover, and it could be written entirely without consulting the article's poorly-written text, thus the article does not need to be kept in history for GNFU purposes. - BillCJ (talk) 07:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Zarzon[edit]

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

    Prod contested by IP. Article is unreferenced, and makes no claim/offers no evidence of notability. --EEMIV (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.allgame.com/game.php?id=32540
    http://www.klov.com/game_detail.php?letter=Z&game_id=10521 — Rankiri (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Technos Japan#List of games by platforms. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle Lane Vol. 5[edit]

    Battle Lane Vol. 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No indication that this a notable video game. ÷seresin 18:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You exclusionists miss the point of wikipedia "the sum of all knowledge of mankind" but I don't want to argue, I've given up, so delete whatever you want, see if I care. Sandman30s (talk) 21:23, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Steven McLachlan[edit]

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

    Non-notable musician. Chart positions cannot be verified. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:43, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ikechi Nnamani[edit]

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

    NN-high school athlete, per WP:ATHLETE. Prodego talk 18:40, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Conor Molan[edit]

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

    An Irish footballer who does not meet the inclusion guideline of WP:ATHLETE for an article in the encyclopedia as he has not played in a fully professional league. Limerick F.C., the club that he played for up to Nov 2007, does not play in a fully professional league. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I would have to cast doubt on whether the editor claiming to be the subject is such, as an edit he made preserved the claim that he is currently at Limerick F.C., but his name is not mentioned at that club's site. Previous versions of the page link him with Melbourne F.C. and/or Whittlesea Zebras: might he have made A League appearances with either of them (I note that Whittlesea won the Victoria Premier League in 2004, and were runners up in 2007, and am guessing that these might have earned promotion). Kevin McE (talk) 08:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm struggling a bit to find evidence one way or another for the professional/amateur status of the FAI First Division, in which Limerick compete - can anyone give me a cite to confirm it's not a fully pro league? I don't doubt it, would just like a concrete confirmation.
    FWIW we also only have the objecting editor's say-so that he's the subject of the article; there's been no formal verification. Again, I've no reason to doubt the claim, I just want it made explicit that we're taking it on good faith. Gonzonoir (talk) 08:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was an article on Setanta recently about how the Premier Division is not fully professional (it has since been removed, but you can see it on Google searches), so if the Premier isn't, I very much doubt the First is. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds plausible. I've got more circumstantial evidence: Wexford Youths F.C., who also play in the First, are described (as of June 08) as "completely amateur" (presumably in the literal sense, and this isn't just a journo being harsh!) in an article here; this Irish Times article asserts that "a growing number of First Division clubs struggle even to meet the criteria that would normally be applied to the term “semi-professional”." But I'm wary of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and I'd still like a flat-out confirmation. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:14, 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 Moved to "Yee Haw!" (its actual title per the album) then boldly redirected to album. This allows the Jake Owen song to be moved to the Yee Haw title. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 13:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yee Haw[edit]

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

    Non-notable song, didn't chart, no sources. Suggest deletion and moving Yee Haw (Jake Owen song), a more notable song, to this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:20, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the fact that that will leave "Yee Haw" (Jake Owen song) as a redirect, which is undesirable as you and I have both pointed out on many occasions during song AfD's?  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 23:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are cheap, and they can't really do any harm.FingersOnRoids 02:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest I'm easy either way. I was just keeping some consistency in my arguments. I reckon we can non-admin close this and do a bold redirect, what do you guys think???? Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 03:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd wait, there are only three editors involved right now, not really enough for a full consensus.FingersOnRoids 16:08, 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. WP:MUSICBIO #10, inclusion in compilation album. لennavecia 04:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Abis[edit]

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

    BLP with no sources (someone added a MySpace page and acted like it was a reliable source, removing the BLP unsourced tag). Based upon the unsourced info given in the article, individual's only shot at notability is having written a song recorded by someone else that was played in some capacity or another on some TV shows -- failing WP:MUSIC/WP:CREATIVE etc. quite dramatically. DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you actually read WP:CREATIVE? Because even if we are to be generous and count those supposed sources (MySpace? You're kidding, right?) as reliable, proving that a song someone wrote was played on TV is nothing like demonstrating that he himself is notable in any way, shape or form. At best you might be making headway in trying to demonstrate that the song could be notable, but notability is not inherited and this person is not notable in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Varbas (talk) 05:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Making recommendations on how you can educate yourself to try be less ignorant of our policies is not a personal attack. DreamGuy (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is giving you helpful information supposed to be a violation of anything? Oh, but that response reminds me of something else. DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: Note that User:Varbas is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of a banned user. Please weigh that when closing this AFD as appropriate (perhaps the investigation will have been concluded at that time). DreamGuy (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note to closing admin: No, he isn't. He was, but the investigation has concluded with no sanctions against Varbas.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but you are mistaken. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Azviz, which is still open at this time and concerns Varbas and other accounts. DreamGuy (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Godfather Academy Awards[edit]

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

    Crufty content fork; there's no rationale for splitting this info off from the main articles. Were there a main series article, I'd recommend merging there, but at the moment there isn't. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment So where is the Godfather Academy located? Sixteen awards for the three films isn't too shabby; I'm surprised that there's not an article about that looks at the three films together. ("The Godfather Saga" was a TV broadcast of the original and Part II). Mandsford (talk) 00:57, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 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. Non-notable film festival held at a community college. Fails WP:N—almost no coverage in third party sources. Ruslik_Zero 19:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophy in the Dark Film Festival[edit]

    Philosophy in the Dark Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An inherently non-notable event. Nothing to indicate notability per WP:N Wolfer68 (talk) 17:31, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The confirmed fellowships and endowments meet the significant awards and honors criterion of WP:CREATIVE. Because the article received references late in the debate, later comments have been given more weight. Mgm|(talk) 09:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Gallagher[edit]

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

    Delete Originally prodded (by someone else) with explanation: Original research. Statement under References reads, "All information graciously provided through interviews with Ms. Gallagher. All information has been reviewed and updated as of (December 16, 2008). The link below was used to contact Ms. Gallagher and she submitted the information used in this page" Was deprodded by a serial deprodder with claim notable per WP:CREATIVE -- I see nothing in WP:CREATIVE that would apply to this person, as she fails every point. No independent reliable sources to establish notability for a full article, and the content of article was clearly generated to promote this person's work (until recently the content included: maryharden@hardencurtis.com. For information regarding performance rights, contact her representative, Mary Harden. (at end of line quoted above with the original research / text prepared by subject of article). Just looks like a page being used as a resume for someone who doesn't meet our requirements. DreamGuy (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This account was blocked as a sock of a banned used, so invalid vote. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note This account was determined to be a sockpuppet account while a banned editor (who abused AFD votes by making false claims about notability and using multiple accounts to stuff votes) was being investigated. Not sure why this account remains unblocked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The investigation found that User:Varbas was not guilty of abusive sockpuppetry. Attacking me personally is not useful to this discussion. Please abide by your Wikipedia:Editing restrictions that have been placed on you by the Arbitration Committee. Varbas (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, you are still making that false claim even after having been told that nobody ever said you were "not guilty" and they instead at that time ruled that it was quite possible that you were the banned editor but that they didn't have enough info at that time to block you. And of course you know that you are currently still under an open investigation, especially after your recent behavior. Please do not try to deceive people by making highly deceptive statements about what the sockpuppet investigation. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I count four Delete votes (one of those Speedy) to one Keep vote (by a questionable account). Normally that would be a pretty clear consensus already reached. DreamGuy (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "two people saying delete"? Five people have said delete. And this AFD should have been closed long ago as having clear consensus, and it still does. Mere existence of plays doesn't mean that they are notable or that she is ntoable by extension. We need good reliable coverage to demonstrate that, which isn't there. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to explain how 5 - 3 is "clear" consensus? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly, at the time of the comment the vote was 5-2. However, he noted "long ago" which suggests, when coupled with his response to relisting, that he was referring to the 4-1 prior to relist, a clear consensus when one weighs the fact that one gives reason for speedy deletion and the sole keep has been determined to be a sockpuppet. لennavecia 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    5-2 (discounting sockpuppet vote) is a clear consensus. 6-2 now even more so. DreamGuy (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Amor De Madre[edit]

    Amor De Madre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Insufficient sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:29, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Heighington CE Primary School[edit]

    Heighington CE Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested PROD. Non-notable secondary school. I propose deletion or a redirect. Having an outstanding OFSTED inspection doesn't make a small school notable. Computerjoe's talk 19:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I think a script played up. Computerjoe's talk 16:38, 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) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many schools are grade 1; it is not really a claim to notability. Computerjoe's talk 15:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is the highest award a primary school can attain in the UK, right? tedder (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't an award. OFSTED must inspect all state schools in England. They then issue a report, grading the school between 1 and 4. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is still notable. I don't understand the logic where a failing secondary school of 800 can be more notable than a primary school the same size with a Grade 1 report. Dougweller (talk) 17:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A primary school of that size would be notable, quite amazing! This school has 260 pupils. Failing secondaries are a major political issue and the press coverage they get often extends far beyond local press by the way. There's probably thousands of grade 1 primaries. Computerjoe's talk 19:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as "primary versus secondary" schools are concerned, secondary schools are generally kept per the common deletion outcomes. You may also be interested in notability guidelines for schools (failed consensus, but is helpful), and the essay at WP:HS. tedder (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, but what I don't understand is why this stuff is not actually in the guidlines -- and CDO just seems self-perpetuating -- we did this in 2006 so we should be doing it now. It seems to be treated as though it's an unofficial guideline, and that just seems wrong to me.Dougweller (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't evident at all. Computerjoe's talk 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had no difficulty adding some more material and another citation just now. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 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 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Two Twenty Two[edit]

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

    This unreferenced article makes statements that several google searches could not verify or even circumstantially support. I can't find any evidence that 222 is considered an unlucky number or that it has any relevance to cannabis culture, jamaican culture or anything at all. Forget that it's poorly written, forget that it is two separate articles conjoined, forget the lack of referencing and style issues. The big problem is that its core subject is false, or at least not verifiable. And therefore should be deleted. Carbon Rodney 10:29, 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) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Bridesman[edit]

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

    This article does not appear to be notable at all (a Google search returns dubious results (Yahoo! Answers, etc.) and the article is not linked to by any page in the article namespace. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:15, 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) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. With the sources MookieZ cited now included in the article, the keep arguments are stronger than those in favor of deletion. Mgm|(talk) 09:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Solar System (song)[edit]

    Solar System (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article essentially reiterates the infobox; there is no content or notability here and this is probably true for dozens of Beach Boys song articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Don't forget Peter Carlin's book. Rlendog (talk) 19:12, 29 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) 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Camryn Kiss[edit]

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

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

    Comment: The second way. That award listed is just an award nomination. She has not won anything yet and I believe she's already retired. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Myzery[edit]

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

    Poorly-constructed, unsourced, recreation of previously deleted article. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:30, 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) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Karl Marlantes[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Novelist with no assertion of notability, other than the fact he has a book available on Amazon. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:29, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wilfried Ellmer[edit]

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

    While this is an intesting factoid, I cannot find any further trace of notablity of this person, nor do I have any indication that his "concrete submarine" ever made it into mass production. Passportguy (talk) 22:46, 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) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Gabe Cornman[edit]

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

    A championship is claimed, thus making this not A7 eligible. But the championship itself must be notable, and this one just not appear so to me. And absolutely nothing else in the article shows notability, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: the only reasonable notability claim is gold medal in a contest without wikipedia article, hence of unknown notability. Mukadderat (talk) 00:10, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Norwich Film Festival[edit]

    Norwich Film Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable film festival. A Google News Archive search returns no results to establish this company's notability. A reason could be that the festival was founded in 2009 — this year. I would not prejudice against recreation of this article if more sources surface at a later time. Cunard (talk) 22:28, 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) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    David V. Johnson[edit]

    David V. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A7 CSD was declined, saying notability is asserted. I'm sorry, but I just do not see how this meets notability requirements. TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 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) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The source listed for the award is a press release from prwire.com, which isn't considered a reliable source. I didn't find any reliable sources in a Google search either - it's all sites related to his business, which aren't considered reliable. Without 2nd party sources, it doesn't look to me like the award is notable. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Urban Land Institute Award for Excellence - 17 Google hits all either trivial mentions or from Johnson's own business sites. The only "news" hit is a press release, which isn't reliable or 2nd party per WP:RS.
    • Entrepreneur of the Year from USA Today, again only 10 Google hits, all from Johnson's own business sites, and nothing from Google news, not even from USA Today.
    • Environmentalist of the Year, Michigan Chamber of Commerce 3 hits, all from Johnson's business sites, no news hits.
    • Developer of the Year, Building Industry Association - 2 Google hits from Johnson's businesses, 1 news hit, unfortunately one would have to pay to see it, but it seems like a passing mention - the title is simply "People on the Move" - and at any rate it doesn't add up to significant coverage in reliable independent sources.
    • Distinguished Community Leader, Bloomfield Hills Rotary Club 3 hits, all from Johnson's business sites; no news hits.
    I don't see any independent evidence that attests to the notability, or even the existence in some cases, of these "awards" - it's all from primary sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sticking with my delete vote, but thank you for the clarification. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:14, 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 G11 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    All American Security Systems, Inc.[edit]

    All American Security Systems, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Blatant SPAM, Speedy declined, PROD removed. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 13:15, 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.
    1. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
    2. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.…
    3. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
    4. ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
    5. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
    6. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
    7. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
    8. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.
    More