The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japan–Seychelles relations[edit]

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

non resident embassies, and a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly in multilateral context especially in whaling. Whilst Japan (amongst other countries) is a aid donor to the Seychelles, this can easily be covered in 1 or 2 sentences in Foreign relations of Seychelles. only article I found was this which doesn't make an article. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in any depth. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added some sources. Japan is a major trade partner with Seychelles (purchasing 8.3% of Seychelles' exports). The countries also have historic agreement and disagreements based on whaling. The page deserves further development. I doubt anyone from Seychelles would think that these relations were "non-notable".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The creator of this article, User:Russian Luxembourger was never notified of the this Afd by the nominating editor User:LibStar as is strongly suggested at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the creator was notified at 01:13, 27 May 2009. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is a directory listing of arbitrary events linking the two countries. There are no sources indicating any notability in the relations. Naturally each country wants to cooperate with as many other countries as possible – it's not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If there are major trade relationships, then that is notability. The article topic is about all sorts of international relations, not just narrowly diplomatic. DGG (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE. LibStar (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTQUOTEESSAYSASPOLICY --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, I'm pointing it out as an argument to avoid not as any policy. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yeah, there's a lot of Japanese cash floating around the Seychelles (like that's unusual). Does that mean anyone has actually bothered to write about "Japan–Seychelles relations", rather than what a handful of Wikipedians think that is? Of course not. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An unremarkable chronicle of handhsaking that doesn't stir much waves in terms of the topics importance in world affairs. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete where are the reliable independent sources that discuss this relationship in some sort of depth that might establish it as a notable one? Fails GNG. Bali ultimate (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Synthesis of utterly non-notable and random events, with no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever. And, among the many questionable "bilateral relations" articles, this one takes the cake so far in terms of ridiculousness. Dahn (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect/merge to Foreign relations of Seychelles The article seems to be a summary of the last two years of this relationship, which does not make it worthy of an article. The content could be useful, though, if added to the short Foreign relations of Seychelles. 2help (talk) 18:54, 7 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 seedy delete per WP:NPOV & WP:SPAM. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin drinks[edit]

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

Where do I start? WP:NPOV & WP:SPAM probably. This article, although referencing some negative publicity, is very much written with a bias toward the product. Indeed to the point where it could be classed as Spam. Trevor Marron (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 02:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as db-spam, in its current form. I hate to see an article so well-referenced go, but in its current form, this is clearly an advertisement. I'd happily change my vote if the article were fundamentally rewritten per WP:NPOV. Btw, the article is (now?) VitaminWater. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 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) 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexz Johnson (album)[edit]

Alexz Johnson (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album title hasn't been confirmed, tracks hasn't been confirmed, released date hasn't been confirmed. None of the sources are reliable sources, the article fails WP:NALBUMS. 月 (Moon)と暁 (Sunrise) 23:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Poor sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Again I ask, why is everyone in such a big hurry? The first nanosecond some fanboy hears about rumors for an album, he's tripping over himself to be the FIRST FIRST FIRST to spread the news! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & .  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 07:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, No release date, no title, undecided track listing, poor sources = easily fails WP:MUSIC. Astronaut (talk) 05:58, 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. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonel Boljanac[edit]

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

Declined speedy. No vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete No sources, barely asserts notability. mynameinc^{Ottoman project Review me} 00:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I couldn't find any coverage at all in Google News under either of his last names (all dates)[1], [2] – not even a gig listing. On the web all mentions appear to be music downloads for sale, self-published youtube videos, Wikipedia and its mirrors, and his own MySpace page. Doesn't appear to satisfy any of the notability criteria for musicians. I wish him well in his future career, but it hasn't even begun to reach a state where there should be an encyclopedia article about him. Voceditenore (talk) 04:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BLP with no reliable sources, no supported claim of notability, no claim satisfying wp:music. Duffbeerforme (talk) 08:28, 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 redirect to Star Trek#Franchise future. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek XII[edit]

Star Trek XII (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Film fails WP:NFF. At the moment the information can be sufficiently covered at the Star Trek page. No cast is confirmed, no director is confirmed and no title is confirmed. I tried leaving it as a redirect but the creator is being stubborn. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral While it is true the information can be summarized at the franchise article, it could also be argued that it could be too much for a section. I've tried cleaning this article a little, but as you said, there's no confirmed cast nor director. I must also note that numerous cast members have discussed the sequel and their hopes, as has the head of Viacom. --HELLØ ŦHERE 23:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Star Trek. The only information about this movie (which doesn't even have a name yet, I've also heard the head of Paramount call it "Star Trek 2") is the writers and director. The script isn't even written, yet alone any kind of production started. TJ Spyke 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:NFF - I quote "While satisfying these notability guidelines generally indicates a film warrants an article, failing to satisfy them is not a criterion for speedy deletion." I also believe that WP:IAR and WP:DEMOLISH apply here. The whole reason I created this article was because I came here looking for information on the sequel and there was nothing to be found. Although there is no confirmed cast or director, there is a production team, a screenwriter and a projected release date. A sizeable article (with citations, I might add), has been created and no doubt there will be plenty more information to add in the coming weeks and months. Also, with the current high visibility of the new Star Trek film and the fame of Star Trek in general, I would argue that this is certainly a notable topic. Daskill (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a speedy deletion. You misunderstand the process. There is no director, there is no cast, there is no start date, there is no release date. The fact that you can google Star Trek sequel and find some citations given that the current film has made a couple of hundred million dollars is not a surprise, but those links are nothing but rumours, other than confirming Orci and Kurtzman. The most reliable source, Variety doesn't even give any dates. If fails the test for notability, and the name will not be Star Trek XII as the current film isn't called Star Trek XI, and no ST films have carried a number since VI. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't misunderstand the process. I know this is not a speedy deletion, but I think you're missing the spirit of the rule. There's no point in deleting perfectly good, verifiable information just to blindly and rigidly adhere to Wikipedia guidlines. As for your quibble about the name, if you don't think it's appropriate, start a discussion on the talk page and we can pick a more suitable name. Daskill (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I made it a redirect I sent you to NFF, then I posted on your talkpage about NFF, then I stated NFF as the reason for this AfD, I'm very familiar with NFF. To suggest that by following NFF I am "blindly and rigidly" adhering to some rule despite anything else fails to actually address what the point of NFF is, which is to determine notability. The subject of this article is not notable enough at this moment to justify an article, it is that simple. I'm not going to start a discussion about the title for a film which doesn't even have a script, director or actors. There is no point picking a more suitable name for a film which is at least a year to 18 months away from actually being a tangible thing. You suggest IAR and DEMOLISH apply when they don't, if an subject doesn't meet notability guidelines then it can't have an article, it is as simple as that. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use a guideline for speedy deletions when it's not a speedy deletion discussion. This article fails actual movie guidelines. The only confirmed information are the writers, everything else is just rumors and speculation. TJ Spyke 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It put it in slightly less bureaucratic terms, the rule you're talking about is intended to encourage this discussion before deletion, not completely negate it. Rather than a single admin deleting the page out of hand ("speedy deletion"), such pages should be brought to the community to decide their encyclopedia quality (what we're doing here). Now is the time to make the case for the encyclopedic quality - or lack thereof - of this subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - WP:HAMMERTIME sums this up perfectly. It is inevitable another Star Trek movie will be made, let the article wait until there is more than a few names of wanted cast and crew. Trevor Marron (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:HAMMER covers it nicely. Redirect this to Star Trek (although deleting it as an unlikely title is fine too), since it's obvious that this will be made but there's essentially zero info. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. WP:NFF applies and counsels a redirect until principle photography starts. Sure, we could ignore the rule but there's no reason to until there is too much verifiable, encyclopedic content to include in the series article. I'd consider this a plausible redirect, as the continued sequence is often referenced in fan discussions. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep People coming to Wikipedia will expect and look for an article on the next Star Trek film and information on the film will no doubt be fast and forthcoming. Why bother deleting this article only to create a new one later? The next film is inevitable. I do agree on the name of the article needing to be changed, though. MegabyteModem (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) {— MegabyteModem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Redirect to 11, and a sequel section. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete & salt: until there is more confirmation of credentials. C'mon everyone you know this hugely violates the rules we have on upcoming films. Ryan4314 (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Star Trek for now. Waaaaay to early to have a page, especially since there is little to no real information on the film yet. MikeWazowski (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Stop, Hammertime. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect, I don't care which. Sourced or not, it's all just vague speculation and far too early to be writing an article. Per WP:NFF we shouldn't have a standalone article until the film goes into production. PC78 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Star Trek#Franchise future, this is what the "Untitled sequel" link in Star Trek (film)'s infobox already does. Obviously no objections to recreation once principle photography begins per WP:NFF. BryanG (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. WP:NFF is a very good guideline to use, and I see no reason to disregard it in this case. Once filming starts spin it out again. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 13:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP per WP:IAR and WP:DEMOLISH. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There seems to be enough sourced info on the upcoming film. The only problem is the title. Northwestgnome (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the complete lack of any content, and the lack of a cast, or a director and sources with both say Shatner is in the next film and say that he refuses to be in the next film. And that we have a policy about future films, which this article does not meet. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMPLETE lack of ANY content? I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate. Daskill (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Star Trek#Franchise future as suggested by BryanG. No script, cast, director, or title? There seems to be as much information as for Star Trek XIII, XIV, etc. 2help (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that's fair. There is much more information on Star Trek 12 than there is on 13 or 14; namely, we know this one exists, we know who's writing, who's producing, who is contractually obliged to appear, naming convention etc. etc. Daskill (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is exactly enough information to fit in the Star Trek future section, that is that it has been greenlit, and has two writers, that is all. Not enough for a separate article. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is clearly no consensus to delete the page, I leave it up to the participants in the debate to decide on the article's talk page if the article should be redirected, merged, or otherwise repurposed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the term Latino[edit]

Criticism of the term Latino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete this isn't an article but rather an essay written to push a POV. It contains original research and in particular violates WP:SYN in that it uses sources solely to push a POV. Jersey Devil (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One-sided POV fork. Anything that is useful should be moved to Latino.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What parts are useful and what aren't? If any of it is useful then the article should be cleaned up/merged/redirected/moved/etc, not deleted. ZabMilenko 06:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a discussion over the existence of an article under that title, not about the contents. Merging is fine, but I don't think we need to retain the title as a redirect.   Will Beback  talk  19:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:BEFORE says (in bold even) "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". Normal editing does in fact include moving/renaming which anybody can do. ZabMilenko 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm suggesting that we delete the title and move any good material to whatever existing article seems appropriate, most likely Latino. I don't think it can be fixed in the current title, and I don't see a need to have a separate article on this topic. That's just my opinion.   Will Beback  talk  20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. The difficulty of choosing which "term" is "correct" is problematic enough to deserve research by the white house (per one of the refs). Whether or not it fails WP:SYN is iffy because the refs are hard to check. ZabMilenko 06:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: my last edit summary was wrong, hit down arrow key one too many times on autocomplete. ZabMilenko 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repurpose. It has obvious POV issues, but I think there is also much good material that could be repurposed into a Names of Latin Americans article, to be modeled on the Native American name controversy and Names of Syriac Christians articles.--Pharos (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repurpose. As I see many people feel the article as biased which is not. There is no single original research since everything has a source and quotations. What I propose is to remove the last quotation which is pretty redundant and to change the name to either Latino/Hispanic naming controversy (belonging to the naming controversies category) or like Pharos says Names of Latin Americans.--Scandza (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. This article was solely created to enforce the creators opinion on people. He actually compares the word Latino to the word Nigger! A search for the articles "Praise of the term Latino", "Critisism of the word Hispanic", "Praise of the term Hispanic" and similarly a quick search of other ethnic groups with related articles such as "Criticism of the word African American" returns no results. Both the praise and criticism for both terms are effectively covered on pages such as Latino, Latin American, Hispanic, Latino American, Hispanic American. etc. This soapbox must be deleted. CartelCacique (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The guy above is very passionate and doesn't provide hard proofs that the article is biased as he says. I challenge him to find any single phrase that is not sustained by genuine sources. As for the perceived WP:SYN violations I have to accept that the first versions were unbalanced and maybe forced. I changed and improved many things and I included enough external links to major newspapers and other websites. Like I said before the article could be repurposed into a different article covering the criticism of both the Hispanic and Latino ethnonyms.--Scandza (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/Merge The references and external links indicates that "the criticism of the term Latino" is not original research or the opinion of one user. Merging the article is a good idea, but for that we must preserve the information, removing any POV or original research. --J^mundo 21:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Merge back to Latino. Clearly there are differences of opinion about the use of this word. Both sides should be covered in one article for fairness. There is no article "Support for the the term Latino." Northwestgnome (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYN. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Eurovision Song Contest 2009. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Commentators for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009[edit]

List of Commentators for the Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet more Eurovision cruft. That someone happened to do a TV commentary on one edition of Eurovision in one country is not a particularly notable intersection. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge into Eurovision Song Contest 2009 (which already has various subarticles due to its size) because of the information it provides would probably be interesting to someone researching the extremely notable Eurovision Song Contest, but mainly because calling cruft in the afd nomination is an WP:ATA. ZabMilenko 05:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the information into the relevant country's page (e.g. Albania in the Eurovision Song Contest 2009) - largely as a result of this discussion almost a year ago. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 00:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Ülgen[edit]

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

Comment : Several editors apparently felt that this person is not notable enough. The prod was removed and then replaced, therefore I have listed this for a deletion dicussion. Personally I have no opinion on this. Passportguy (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of impact of acheivements of this worthy dentist. Structure of article as a CV and publication list is quite unsuitable. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I just wanted to note that usually be allow all university professors their own page on here, as that status alone is considered an indication of notability. I'm not quite sure why this person should be an exception. Passportguy (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May be I should have put this as a draft, I am quite new here. What I don't understand is a Turkish Pop Singer and her/his albums that the world doesn't know about is notable enough to be in wikipedia, but an honourable Scientist, a Dentist that made big achievements in Orthodontics in Turkey can be not notable enough for wikipedia. Mustafa Ulgen unfortunately is not a product of pop culture, but I thought this didn't make him less notable. I believe Mustafa Ulgen is an important person for anyone who would like to know/understand Dentistry/Orthodontics in Turkey. This article may not have enough about him, but I hope that in the future other people can add more.Alpsays (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It should be noted that the subject of the article is the father of Alpsays, see User talk:RadioFan. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"usually be allow all university professors their own page on here", no, generally we only allow University Professors that pass WP:PROF to have pages, and I think that is generally thought to be less than "most" of them, let alone "all". Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete If WP:PROF is the standard I don't understand what is all the fuss about. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Ulgen (4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.) His E-Books are read all over Turkey for dentistry education http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dentistry.ankara.edu.tr%2Fkutuphane.html&sl=tr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 (5. The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research.),(6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society.) He was a dean for two years in the University of Tigris ( Dicle ) Diyarbakır http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dicle.edu.tr%2Ffakulte%2Fdis%2Fyonetim.htm&sl=tr&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8 Please check the section where it says "UNIVERSITY FACULTY DİCLE the establishment SOON dental work of the DEAN" The Correct Translation is The Dean's of University Faculty Dicle from its establishment to it's day Alpsays (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep for limited period, to allow a chance for improvement. I think that good faith should be presumed with respect to the conflict of interest mentioned above. The article does not follow the usual style for a biography stub, which I think is what it would be if pruned and tidied, but that is not a reason to delete out-of-hand by itself. Experienced Wiki editors should help Alpsays with this article, and that would also allow some independence. Not my area, I'm afraid, but any volunteers? A.C. Norman (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfortunately there is a conflict of interest to contend with here as well, the creator of this article is the professor's son (see my talk page). While the subject is likely notable, there isn't anything in this CV-like article worth saving and it should be deleted.--RadioFan (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The links above would seem to show that the subject passes WP:PROF. The article can easily fixed by a bit of copyediting and cutting the list of publications to just the most important ones. Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete, but simply for other editors to review content for neutrality - I, for one, have this on my watchlist now so I can help out with this. COI is also much less of a problem when it is disclosed. Dentists might not be as exciting as TV talent show contestants but it is possible to write encyclopedia articles about them. Just a couple of weeks ago I found an article tagged for deletion whose entire prose content was "Sheldon Friel was an Irish dentist" but I think (blowing my own trumpet) that I managed to turn it into a pretty decent start-class article. The only things stopping me from doing the same with this one are physical and linguistic access to sources - I doubt whether any of the sources for this subject would be available in my local library and even if they were I wouldn't be able to read them. The point of the additional notablity criteria such as WP:PROF is that they are strong indicators that reliable sources exist, even if they are not online and in English. We already have enough sources for verifiability of the main facts in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. The main tests I could see applying here are WP:PROF criteria 1 and/or 4. His textbook would seem to claim #4, but I'm not in a position to judge its impact. However, his publication record looks insufficient for #1. Web of Science, liberally searching on "Author=(ulgen m*), Refined by: Subject Areas=(DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE)", lists 4 publications, all from Am. J. Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthoped., having 12, 10, 5, and 5 citations respectively. Note that this article lists a veritable boatload of other publications (some of which seem to be various editions of his textbook). Most of the "journal articles" are from "Faculty of Dentistry Magazine" from several different universities – these are almost certainly not peer-reviewed research publications. Likely ditto for "Pedodontics Magazine". Roughly a dozen other articles from "Turkish Journal of Orthodontics", but it is unclear whether this is a standard research journal for the profession. Answer seems to be in the nagative, since it is not in the list of over 50 dental journals indexed by WoS (J. Dent. Res., J. Endodontics, J. Clin. Peridontology, etc.). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. As Phil Bridger points out that with a bit of help this could become a start-class article. It just needs to be polished a bit. Jarkeld (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. His argument goes mainly to WP:V, but that's not the issue here. Rather, as Xxanthippe points out above, the question is whether this individual meets WP:PROF. The argument that somehow the latter is simply a proxy of the former ("the point of the additional notablity criteria such as WP:PROF is that they are strong indicators that reliable sources exist") is incorrect. There are lots of people for whom verifiable sources exist, but who are nevertheless not sufficiently notable for WP. For example, think of your average local politician or news reporter. The two considerations should not be confused with one another. Finally, the links Phil refers to above basically just confirm he's a faculty member – nice for WP:V, but these don't offer any further support toward WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. Per Xxanthippe and Agricola44. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. Phil Bridger makes valid points, but the subject is not at the same level of notability as Sheldon Friel.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The usual standard for researchers under WP:PROF is that research is an international activity, and international standards apply. If so, he might not qualify as a researcher. There are 15 papers of his in Pubmed (search for Ulgen M limited to the dental journals subset. although none of the Turkish journals he published in are included there, the German ones are as well as the American. Only the American ones are however in WoS; they are in a major journal, and have 12, 10, 5, 5 citations. Scopus as expected covers more of the journals, including 5 articles in turkish; unfortunately, it does not cover reliably back to the years of his major work. I do not have access to Excerpta Medica, which probably covers some more of them. This is not a distinguished record, but it is sufficient to show national impact--and in an applied subject like this, I think that to some degree it might be more appropriate to take national standards into account. In any case, the publication of multiple reviews and textbooks, and the apparent Deanship of a Dental school, is enough to show an impact as an educator in his field. I am not concerned about WP:V, because the key papers can be verified easily enough. What I am concerned about is ethnocentric bias on our part and the indexes. Even when a citation index covers a few major journals in a third world country, it does not cover the many journals there that would cite them; for English journals, it does cover such titles. The results are thus never comparable. DGG (talk) 03:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While your observation is correct, it is also why "third-world" authors do strive to publish in western journals. As far as I know, these journals do not have any systematic ethnocentric biases – if the work is notable it gets published. You could always reason one step further, saying that being in a third world country affects one's ability to do notable research, but I would say that this would digress too far for our present purposes. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment. When we are talking about third world countries we would like to mention them as developing countries. I would like to stress one point not only for this article, but for articles/ persons in general on Wikipedia as one might say Wikipedia International. If you set one standard for everyone what you will see on the International Wikipedia is there won't be any diversity (It would be Western World's Wikipedia). Therefore it is not right to use a standard set for first world countries to understand the history and development of a developing country's major field/fields. It won't be the right way of calculating the impact/notability. This would not be rational. What I am trying to say with Mustafa Ulgen is, here is a person that had done some significant impact on his country's orthodontics. He hasn't re-invented the wheel nor he hasn't got a significant impact on the international basis, but the book he has published first on 1983 Principles of Orthodontics Treatment is the first comprehensive book on Orthodontics in Turkish and for two decades and a half it is still the only book in the Turkish Language the students of dentistry study from (various editions of this book, 7th being the last edition, proves the point). Moreover the teachings he learned at Zurich he brought them to Turkey and thought what he has learned throughout his career. And when comes to his publications in Turkish Journals, they are the most reputable universities in Turkey (thus you shouldn't undermine he has 14 publications in western Journals). I can not put all of the facts because of the neutral point of view, what i am hoping for is in the future this entry will develop by others. At the moment in time the only reference I can find is from Who's Who in Turkey which is limited with what I have put in the entry and I am not sure if that is enough. I found out that he is in the Inegol village museum, but I need to check the full details. I need help on the index, I didn't know whether I was suppose to translate the subjects of the Turkish articles into English or what would be the right way of showing them.--Alpsays (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused, is this person known for his technical contributions to the field of dentistry or is he known for the translation of existing texts or techniques into Turkish? Is he known internationally? There is still only a single reference in this article so coverage in 3rd party sources has yet to be established here. --RadioFan (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No he is not known internationally. His impact was to his country. I'm not in the field so I can't really give a substantial answer to his technical contributions nor research. He is important for his teachings in his field, shared his knowledge (training/findings) and expertise to his country. He brought the western Orthodontics and latest developments in his field from Zurich which was ahead of many places at the time like London. He went to London to practice their techniques as well and find out they were behind Zurich, so he ended up giving his first conference at 1974 in University College Hospital Medical School of University of London Dental School and left. He is also a researcher, but I don't know the impact of his researches in the field nor whether he has invented a new technique. For the later, I don't think he has. As a result I tried to keep the biography to minimum basics. Knowledge is as valuable as gold. Sometimes so little can have so much impact. It is hard to imagine if you are not in a developing country. I really don't mind if you want to delete this entry. I will just put it in to a blog on the internet and get on with it. Initially I would like to put this article to Turkish Wikipedia. It is more likely that his students and people know him could develop this article further over there, but the Turkish Wikipedia is under a fascistic regime, they have erased the entry within the first couple of hours I put it up without any reason or discussion. They haven't given me the chance to develop the entry further as happened on this free platform. At the end of the day this is a voluntary work and everybody deserves respect for their time and work they put in. I appreciate everybody's comments and good will here. I wouldn't like to occupy anybodies time further. I didn't know how much work went into this live project before. Keep up the good work, my heart is with all of you.--Alpsays (talk) 14:26, 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. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urimai Kural (2010 film)[edit]

Urimai Kural (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Urimai Kural is not an officially announced film and it was very very recently suggested through out the media. There is no official word about the film or its cast. Most of the information written on this article has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. This article should be deleted until such a film has officially begun filming or "inaugrated" (i.e. a film puja). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelamstylez77 (talk • contribs) ) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nom. It looks well sourced, but the sources don't support any of the main facts. The film is not yet announced, and principal photography has not yet begun (if it ever will), it was not covered by reliable sources. Fails WP:NFF. Amalthea 22:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per notability requirements for films, films generally needs have reliable sources indicating the film is in principal photography stage before getting an article - in this this case the text claims that the film is in "home production". It appears doubful that "home production" is the actual filming of the movie, but it is impossible to verify because the claimed source is a dead link. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Film doesn't meet notability requirements, as it is at most in pre-production.Tyrenon (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONG Delete: The page is managed and poorly created by a blocked user, who fantasizes to create his own opinions into films. The original puppet, User:Thulasi12345 has been indefinitely banned, and this avatar has carried out scarily similiar edits preaching similiar views. Universal Hero (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• FALSE OPINION: I'm not the user your saying and I don't fantasizes. Enough with your idiot balmes on me just to make yourself so clever and popular. World Cinema Writer (talk • contributions) 05:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popular? Who finds me popular? Actually, who here find me clever :) ? Universal Hero (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:World Cinema Writer sure does. :P Eelam StyleZ (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable as a film yet. Hekerui (talk) 00:53, 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) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cypher transcoder[edit]

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

This is a promotional article of a software. From the edit history, it is apparent that the article was mostly written by the CEO of the software company, User:Sdmonroe. From google search, there is a lack of third-party sources to indicate that the software has been used by others or acknowledged in notable science/technology literature. Vsion (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete . Per nom.Capitalismojo (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A Google search for "Cypher transcoder" Monrai -wiki shows no indications of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 15:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One two three... 00:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of G rated films[edit]

List of G rated films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary list that cannot be maintained. Mblumber (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails list guidelines, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and too American-centric. Could have sworn this one was deleted before, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R rated movies, but can't find one under a similar name so not speediable right now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Someone worked very hard on making this list, but it's badly done and unsourced -- it Grated on my nerves. Not beyond rescue, but if you want to improve it-- (a) Sources. No, it's not enough to say mpaa.org and imdb.com are your links. and (b) Lose the films that were released before there was an MPAA rating. Do you plan to list every single film from the 30s, 40s, and 50s? Some films, of course, were re-released theatrically from the mythical "Disney vault", but gimme a break. Contrary to popular belief, lots of "G" rated films are marketed every year, and have been since the late 1960s. In this case, I'd do my imitation of a category evangelist ("Categories are the only way to eternal navigation!") but surprisingly, there's no category for "G-rated films", although articles usually have more tags than a camper's suitcase. Mandsford (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the reason there aren't films by rating categories is because there are so many different ratings systems in so many different countries that categorizing films on that basis would lead to category clutter. Films are also released in multiple formats with multiple ratings and can be resubmitted to the MPAA or other rating board for re-rating for a re-release. I have no particular opinion on this list but if kept it should be renamed to List of films rated G by the Motion Picture Association of America. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep No matter how long it gets, if it is limited to films with WP articles where the articles document the ratings. I agree with Mandsford that films before the ratings system should not be included. Appropriate for a category also. I do not understand "category clutter" as we can include categories for as many rating systems as we have documentation for. Neither our articles nor our categories are PAPER. If the list is not done adequately, there is a simple solution. DGG (talk) 03:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:Overcategorization: Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as "category clutter". Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These are notable films and, at least to many movie-goers in the United States, MPAA ratings are highly relevant and important characteristics of these films. This is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. I'll note, for example, that List of NC-17 rated films has citations, an explanatory lede, and has been in existence and avoided AfD nomination for many years, generally demonstrating that it's possible for this type of list to meet minimum Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that MPAA ratings are specific to the United States is a reason that in this case a list may be preferable to a category. (U.S. readers can refer to the list, while non-U.S. can easily ignore it.) I disagree with the claim that the list is unmaintainable--there are probably an average of two or three new G-rated films a month, and many Wikipedia lists keep up with those sorts of updates. The list does need to be improved, but an editor has done a lot of work and should be encouraged to add references, drop pre-MPAA films, and make other changes to fully meet Wikipedia guidelines. BRMo (talk) 04:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A rather well-defined category that productively groups articles with a common characteristic. Are we really using arguments about categories as justification for deleting lists? If there is a legitimate issue with the article's title, consider renaming to List of films rated G by the Motion Picture Association of America which could not be any clearer. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A rather well-defined category that productively groups articles with a common characteristic. - You hit the wrong keep macro. Otto4711 (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Guilty as charged. Make that "list". Alansohn (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sorting of titles beginning with "The" under the letter T suggests this was some kind of datadump rather than a manually constructed list. Ideally, the list should be made sortable both by title and by year, and should be annotated with whether the rating was established upon a re-release or whatever (but I doubt there were many director's cuts of G-rated films). Complaining that the list is American-centric is rather beside the point because it's a list about an American rating system, which can of course be clarified in the title. I personally don't see the value of compiling such a list, but nor do I see a reason why it shouldn't exist, and all of these issues are matters for clean-up, not deletion. Postdlf (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons as PG-rated films Bulldog123 16:23, 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 speedy delete G4. Amalthea 22:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot 100 Brazil[edit]

Hot 100 Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot100Brasil. Funk Junkie (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged as CSD G4 repost Obviously a WP:BADCHART with very little authority in Brazil. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 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) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael de bono[edit]

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

Article claims some notability, however a Googl search does not turn up much and from the article i would say that he doesn't have enough notability to be included. Passportguy (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Appears to be a young artist starting out, with little evidence of notability thus far. 99.168.86.206 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I was considering tagging this myself but didn't per WP:BITE.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 00:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Fails WP:ARTIST because his work has not been a substantial part of any of the exhibits listed on the page (the question of which quantity is taken as "substantial" still remains). ZabMilenko 05:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: His name seems to appear as Michael Debono at this ref. ZabMilenko 05:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angels Working Overtime[edit]

Angels Working Overtime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song did chart but only got to #35. Precedent among other country music articles is that most country songs that peaked below #20 should not get articles unless they prove exceptional notability beyond being by a notable artist. This article does not assert any form of notability beyond "it charted for a very brief period in 1999", and the only sources are a chart history and a link to the song's music video via CMT. What little verifiable content exists could easily be merged to the album. The article was initially unsourced so I redirected it, but the author undid the redirect and promised the addition of sources, which amounted to the two I already mentioned and nothing more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Everything's Gonna Be Alright. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as information would not fit with the content of an album page. Radio edit time and difference between the album version, info about the song's tempo and production, and the purpose of the song would not be at home on another page. As would a music video description; which includes director, backs up the song content, and the link to the video. The page is not a stub in anyway - as all that is missing is something in critical reception of the song. And I'm not sure how exactly you expect to reference any of the other information given (other than chart peak, and the video link); are people unable to watch the music video for themselves or listen to the song? I was able to pump more into this particular song than some of her more successful songs, such as "We Danced Anyway" which remains a stub. If there's enough info to keep this song from remaining a stub, and enough significant info to not fit with an album or artist page, then I think it should stay. Really the chart performance is only one of many factors - not being a popular hit on the charts doesn't discredit this song from featuring specific information. CloversMallRat (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is not a stub, and it has more sourced information than most song articles. Chart positions should not determine notability.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets notability requirement by virtue of charting; enough information exists for a sibstantial article. Rlendog (talk) 19:01, 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 speedily delete. Bencherlite^Talk 22:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Audrey[edit]

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

Cannot find any confirmation this is an existing project. No g-hits that seem relevant and the Nick site doesn't list it (though that site is a mess to navigate). Page history is also not encouraging. Matt Deres (talk) 21:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: This is totally a hoax. Spam, vandalism and test page. "It was released Christmas 2010" ARE YOU SERIOUS! hasn't even happened yet. I have put up a CSD three times and it is always being removed.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Article creator has been indefinitely blocked, and it seems very unlikely that Nickelodeon would ever air anything about Audrey Hepburn. Nate • (chatter) 21:36, 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 speedily delete. Bencherlite^Talk 22:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skalite (Band)[edit]

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

Non-notable school band. Not signed to a label, no releases, etc. CSD was contested, so bringing here. Matt Deres (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kill it with fire Obvious speedy (A7), school band, no coverage, no releases, play covers at their "friends' party". Very cute. Fails every aspect of WP:MUSIC. Exterminate. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:07, 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 speedy delete. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Return Of The Stix[edit]

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

Demo tape from non-notable band. Does not pass WP:Music. Contested PROD with no improvement and no reason given. Unsourced. Wperdue (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A9 Band article already tagged for A7, so once the band's page is gone this will qualify under A9. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:38, 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 speedy deleted as a hoax. Normally I would not use the G3 criterion to delete a possible hoax listed at AfD. However, the complete lack of Ghits and evidence from others below make this a clear case. Jamie^☆S93 21:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urinetzé[edit]

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

Short article lacking verifiability. Strange written too. Highest Heights (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mountains are typically considered notable, but this sounds like a hoax: since when do you have mountains less than 100 metres tall? I can imagine people on a seacoast calling something of this height a mountain, but in the mountainous region where this is located, everything is higher than 93 metres. Provide sources and cleanup and I'd be willing to reconsider, but at this point I can't imagine how such could be done. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a hoax. Slovene alphabet doesn't even have the "é" character and Kobarid itself lies 235.3 m above the sea level (not to mention how strange it would be to have a mountain - or even more of them if that one is the highest - inside of a town). --Yerpo (talk) 06:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--Janisterzaj (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:PROF can be a bit confusing if one is unfamiliar with the means we use to assess academic notability, but the consensus here is very clear. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Ramsay Shaw[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF. Criterion 5, being a Distinguished Professor was inappropriately cited as a reason to deprod, since half of all professors at Duke are (also inappropriately) called Distinguished, as Wikipedia's own article states. Regular Google Scholar/Book/News searching doesn't turn up enough to justify an article. Joey the Mango (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This is another of those "who cares" articles. What makes her diferent from the thousands of other professors in the US alone? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Distinguished Professor, named chair. Top GS cites 314, 147, 141 .. The up to "half of all" in this article refers to Harvard Business School, not Duke, and I see no evidence that that Duke calls that large a proportion "distinguished." In any case, Duke (and HBS) are first rate universities. Someone judged more prominent than the average Duke or Harvard BS professor would usually be thought to be quite notable in their field - the "who" that cares is the consensus here to accept such consenses among a professor's knowledgeable peers as proof of notability.John Z (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article makes no real claim of notability, who cares about prestige? Prestige isn't notability, and notability is not inherited from the institution. This sounds like pure elitism. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Google Scholar gives h index of 25, good for an early career researcher. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • As one can see in this older version of Wikipedia's article on the h-index, 25 isn't very high, and there are professors with much higher h-indices who don't have articles. Again, what can you point out about this person that is notable? No secondary sources are provided. WP:PROF was designed to keep articles about professors off of Wikipedia, not as a justification for keeping articles on Wikipedia. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That h-index is large enough for WP notability, even in the discipline of physics. In non-science fields, that h-index would be very large, since many journals would be excluded. For example, one of the most heavily cited researchers in the field of management, with over 2,000 Google Scholar citations to a single article, among others, has an h-index of 6. Also, in some specialized and citation-sparse fields, that h-index would be extremely high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Yurken (talk • contribs) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that the h index, like other bibliometric measures, is only one factor to be used with care in assessing impact of scholarship. The reservations associated with it are discussed in the article. I quote from the article h index "Hirsch suggested that, for physicists, a value for h of about 10-12 might be a useful guideline for tenure decisions at major research universities. A value of about 18 could mean a full professorship, 15–20 could mean a fellowship in the American Physical Society, and 45 or higher could mean membership in the United States National Academy of Sciences." Xxanthippe (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

My concern is that people argue using WP:PROF as a substitute for notability. Notability is a lower bound beneath which an article should not exist. WP:PROF is intended to be a higher lower bound than notability. I believe that Dr Shaw falls below the notability threshold, so it doesn't matter that she meets one of the criterion of WP:PROF. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide evidence of that interpretation? It says:

"it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant."

Hobit (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand. It's hard to imagine anyone non-notable getting an appointment at this level at a major university Surely, this can be rescued. - Vartanza (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • The burden of proof falls on those who argue to keep; do you have any secondary sources that demonstrate notability? Because I can imagine someone non-notable getting an appointment at this level at a major university. Joey the Mango (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No such thing as a burden of proof on Wikipedia. It's a collaborative project, and we should all try to determine whether including this article improved Wikipedia or not. You seem to have checked enough before you nominated, so I don't mean to criticize you in general. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cr050009p makes her appear notable. We need sources though. Hobit (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a primary scientific article for which she happens to be an author. How does that make her appear notable? Joey the Mango (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a slam-dunk on WP:PROF criterion #1, as any minimal checking would have found. Some journal pubs from Web of Science: Biochem. (1990) 201 citations, Pharma. Res. (2002) 137 citations, Toxicol. & Appl. Pharmacol. (1982) 129 citations, Biochem. Pharma. (2000) 114 citations, and the list goes on. Given her very notable publication record, her position, etc., it is likely she meets other criteria too, but these would just be incidental and not necessary to check for the discussion here. Glaringly notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Incredible that WP:PROF is being abused in this way. Joey the Mango (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way? Please explain. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

One of my edits got lost somehow; it said: How does having some citations--admittedly good for her career--prove that "[t]he person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources"? Joey the Mango (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, no secondary source says "Dr Shaw has made significant impact to the understanding of X". A list of citations is nice, but it is original research to infer that she has "made significant impact". Joey the Mango (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way that the system of academic research works, and particularly in the field of this LP, is by incremental advances on established knowledge. The convention universally followed in the research community is that the authors of a paper cite the previous work of relevance that has led up to their own work. Accordingly, each cite is evidence of impact on the scholarly discipline. If a paper has a lot of cites this amounts to significant impact. If a paper gets no cites then it is less likely to have made much impact. There are problems of assessing the individual contributions from papers with multiple authorship and this has to be judged by the accumulation of evidence. Of course there are other measures of impact such as distinguished appointments, patents, prizes etc. These are discussed at length in WP:PROF. The above is a sketch of the system and there are many subtleties. However, I hope it helps a bit. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

So no significant impact, then? Joey the Mango (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Your edits for this case suggest that you do not really understand the vetting process by which hard-science scholarship at research universities is judged, and by extension, the well-established precedents which are used here to evaluate articles with respect to WP:PROF. You obviously don't accept Xxanthippe's very clear (in my opinion) explanation, so please allow me to take a crack at it. The simple fact of the matter is this. When researcher A uses results/ideas/methods/observations/etc of researcher B (i.e. "builds upon the work of B", "B has influenced the new work of A" – however you might want to think about it), that fact typically manifests itself as a citation to B's paper. The citation count is the most realistic indicator of the impact of B's work. Admittedly not perfect, it sometimes under-represents the impact, because A might use B's results without citing (which can lead to priority disputes). Within academic circles, this person's research record (oodles of papers with >100 citations each) is considered quite impressive – most researchers do not reach such a level. And, with respect to WP:V, these citations are the independent sources. Indeed, we do not need someone to look at these for us and then proclaim "ah, she is notable and has an impact on her field", as you seem to want. This would be fine, but is entirely unnecessary. So, yes, her work has had a very conspicuous impact on her field – no ambiguity at all here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. WP:PROF sets a high bar, and she hasn't met it. Just having a certain number of hits in Google scholar of a few journal publications isn't enough - it has to be shown, through reliable independent sources, that the academic's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline," and I don't see even any assertion of that, let alone proof. (I do realise that that is only one of several possible criteria listed at WP:PROF, it's just that it seems to be the only one that might apply.) Dawn Bard (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please see my immediately preceding post. Your flippant assertion of "a few journal publications" is off the mark here and suggests you are willfully looking past the actual significance of this person's research record. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. As noted by John Z, meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment). Very likely meets other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Despite the nominator's refusal to accept this, she clearly passes WP:PROF #1 and #5, either one of which would be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'll second that. WP:PROF is a guideline agreed by consensus. The nominator, or anyone else who disagrees with it, should discuss the matter at its talk page rather than claim that it shouldn't apply to one article when it has been accepted by numerous Afd discussions to be a guideline for inclusion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a guideline for disclusion; it cannot override the policy of notability for inclusion. I note that of the keep notvoters have addressed this. Joey the Mango (talk) 22:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Er, no... have you tried actually reading WP:PROF? Where do you get the idea that it's for "disclusion"(sic) (I think you mean "exclusion")? The first sentence under the heading "criteria" says, "if an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, they are notable", and then criterion 5 says, "the person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research". The only possible room for doubt is whether you consider Duke University to be "a major institution of higher education and research". Do you seriously dispute that? And where do you get the idea that notability is a policy, rather than a guideline? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• My understanding of the reason WP:PROF was created was to increase the difficulty of having articles on professors on Wikipedia above and beyond WP:N. I was not aware that WP:N was not a guideline; I'm sure that is political, since it functions as a policy. I am not saying that WP:PROF is wrong to list Distinguished Professordom as evidence, I'm saying that this professor, in spite of her title, has not actually done anything notable, as evidenced by the lack of any secondary sourcing which could tell us what that might be. Would you support someone going through university websites and creating a directory-like article on Wikipedia for every Distinguished Professor found in every "major institution"? Joey the Mango (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There are over 300 secondary sources listed in a Google scholar search that say what she has done in her most well-cited paper, and nearly 150 secondary sources for her second most-cited paper. It's in that sense that WP:PROF is more strict than WP:BIO or WP:N: nearly every published academic will have multiple reliable third parties citing them, but we require much larger numbers of citations than the "multiple sources" required by WP:N to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:PROF, or we require other types of reliable sources for the other criteria. It's in that sense that WP:PROF is stronger than WP:BIO, and despite being a more stringent test it is clear that Shaw passes it. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see; you are saying that being cited is notability. Are any of these in review papers? That would count as secondary sources. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, some of them are, but I don't think that's such an important distinction the better question is: how many of these other papers say something nontrivial about her work, as opposed to a trivial mention among a list of other prior research? I don't know. A little searching found, for instance, DOI:10.1016/0027-5107(95)00104-2, which has a whole ten-line paragraph specifically about her work: "Barbara Ramsay Shaw, in addressing the mutation of DNA in vitro, tested the hypothesis that a cytosine which is mispaired (or is a neighbor of a mispaired base or is situated in a distorted helix) thus may be protonated and thereby deaminate more frequently than a normal cytosine in normal DNA. Her experiments were consistent with this hypothesis, thereby giving a reasonable solution to this apparent violation of the rule of independence of formation of individual mutational lesions." That's enough to count as nontrivial in my eyes. But most of the hundreds of citations are going to be trivial, so finding the nontrivial ones is difficult without spending a lot of time and effort (and access to a university library) reading all the references; citation counting gives us an acceptably accurate way of avoiding all that work in deletion discussions, allowing us to spend the rest of our Wikipedia-editing time in more constructive pursuits. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If her article was more than two sentences long I might be inclined to agree with "citation counting gives us an acceptably accurate way of avoiding all that work..." Many of her papers are about boranophosphates (that article was written by a User:Doclaura who only made that one edit). The word "boranophosphate" itself has an h-index of 21. So I remain unconvinced that my nomination was or is misguided. Dr Shaw got her PhD in 1973, so a body of work with a certain amount of citations is to be expected, but the deafening silence about her impact, as could be demonstrated by review articles saying what the impact of her work was, is disturbing. The link you provide is to an article titled "The 4th International Conference on Mechanisms of Antimutagenesis and Anticarcinogenesis: A summary", which doesn't seem legit at all. Do you at least see my point? Joey the Mango (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The word 'boranophosphate' itself has an h-index of 21." What do you mean by this? How did you arrive at the number 21? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• From the h-index article: “… a scholar with an index of h has published h papers each of which has been cited by others at least h times”. Given this definition, to say that a word has an h-index makes no sense.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe it does, it proceeds by the same line of reasoning; the penetration of the topic into the literature. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Something I like to do in this sort of AfD when I can get a specific idea of the subject's expertise is to search for that keyword and see how highly the subject's papers rank. Joey's h-index calculation for boranophosphates shows that they're clearly notable (the subject of some 1650 papers in Google scholar) despite the badness of our article on the subject. But the Google scholar search for boranophosphates returns Shaw's papers as its top five hits. So clearly, she is the top expert in an important subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Based on collective edits of the nominator in this case, what seems clear is the following: (1) With all due respect, nom is entirely ignorant of academic conventions and standards, especially as they apply to WP:PROF under whose criteria this article is being evaluated. In particular, s/he seems incapable of accepting/understanding that (a) Prof. Shaw's research has had a glaringly obvious impact on her field, as evidenced by numerous highly-cited papers, (b) academic governing bodies, even at the highest-ranking institutions, accept precisely this sort of evidence as proof of the notability of one's scholarship, in fact it is essentially the necessary and sufficient condition in the hard sciences (in which the subject works), (c) they do not consider any sort of outside validation to be necessary for judging scholarship impact/notability, e.g. mention in the popular media, in review papers, in non-technical publications, in news or trade magazines, or anything else the nom might claim is necessary, (d) WP has a long, established history of reasoning the notability of professor-type articles along these same lines because there does not appear to be a more objective way of doing so, and (e) there's no reason to insist we should now adopt a wildly different standard for this article alone. (2) This discussion is ripe with WP:IDHT, suggesting WP:NPOV concerns. I'm afraid that further engaging the nom in any sort of debate will be a waste of time (e.g. we now have to demonstrate that the H-index is not defined for "words", see Eric Yurken's entry above), but you are of course free to do so. (3) As to the merits of the article itself, multiple commentators here have already demonstrated satisfaction of at least criteria #1 and #5 in WP:PROF. Again, feel free to discuss further, but understand that at this point, you're no longer trying to convince the closing moderator. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment. I endorse the above comments of Agricola44. They should be applied also to other articles this editor has attempted to delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• • My nomination was in good faith. What I wanted was a debate, not a automatic, numerically-based invocation of the h-index and WP:PROF. David Eppstein was the only one here to engage in such a debate, and for that I am grateful. (Heck, I was the one who went to the trouble of figuring one what she actually worked on, not any of the people here or on the article.) I am familiar with conventions in academia, including a very important one; somebody who got her PhD 36 years ago, and has been on the faculty since the late 70s/early80s, judging from the listings on her lab alumni page, might have been promoted to Distingished Prof as a matter of course. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't think anyone here said your nomination was in bad faith. But the notability facts on this person came rolling-in fast and furious – there are some cases that are just very clear-cut. You may not wish to judge merits on the basis of "numbers", but they were overwhelming here. Again, this doesn't reflect badly on you for nominating. As David Eppstein mentioned above, we all feel like there's much WP work to be done, and so we all like to dispose of the "easy" cases quickly. As to your point, I wouldn't say "promoted to Distingished Prof as a matter of course" is the right way to frame this, as it implies that she merely received some sort of "service award". In actuality, these are somewhat special appointments, given usually only to full professors, as special recognition of outstanding scholarship, valuable administration work, etc. – often the underlying (though un-publicized) factor in these appointments is that they serve as incentives to keep the very best profs (most productive, most prolific, etc) right where they're at. It is certainly true that most full professors do not get the "distinguished" title. So, I think it's probably most accurate in this case to presume she was promoted to Distinguished prof because of her notable scholarship. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment I agree, it is unlikely that the named chair/ DP is just for time served. I don't think "the reason WP:PROF was created was to increase the difficulty of having articles on professors on Wikipedia above and beyond WP:N." is a good description of practice. The specialized notability guidelines are rather more often than not used to include rather than exclude. WP:N is vague enough that whatever evidence people come up with for passing WP:PROF can be considered as the substantial coverage needed to pass WP:N.John Z (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both for your considered responses. I feel better now, and more confident that the AfD system is functioning properly, and will reach the correct conclusion(s). Joey the Mango (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all full professors at Duke probably do count as notable. Many of them count as distinguished by any criterion. We judge notability of researchers by the impact of their research, and that is judged by citations. She very clearly qualifies. I'm glad we have the opportunity to educate our editors in the way the academic world works, and we should not blame them for their initial lack of knowledge about the standards of the major research universities. Looking numerically, citation counts such as shown here are always a sure indication of notability, as a definitive and objective way of showing influence on the subject DGG (talk) 04:04, 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. Triwbe (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Sieber[edit]

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

fails WP:MUSIC. He has released an album independent of this band (a solo release) but I interpret "notability independent of the band" as "would he be notable due to this solo release if we discounted all his work with the band?" The answer is "no". Ironholds (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Adrian Sieber has made a solo release. Being on the swiss charter list with his song: The Healing. Lovebugs album, In Every Waking Moment, has been platinum awarded. Sieber wrote all its songs. Musicvideos directed by Simon Ramseier. He has been the main vocalist in Switzerlands most wellknown rockband in 15 years. What more notability do you want? Highest Heights (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have expanded the article a little bit with info taken from german wikipedia. Highest Heights (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom withdraw charting solo single is certainly a claim of notability. I wasn't informed of this before (and I don't speak French, German and Italian) otherwise I wouldn't have brought this up. Ironholds (talk) 03:59, 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. Tan | 39 05:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition's War (Omni Books)[edit]

Coalition's War (Omni Books) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article on a non-notable fictional war Passportguy (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, maybe even Speedy delete for a total lack of context. Article makes almost no sense at all? I presume it ties to some fictional universe, but it isn't linking to anything...seeming unnotable fictional war of whatever that fictional work is, which apparently isn't that notable either.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A fictional history/setting article on a self-published novel by a non-notable author. More info here and here (note that the publisher is Omni Universe Press, which to date has only published Omni History Begins, the novel to which this article refers). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable book. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BK. Nick-D (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the remaining articles for this same "series" are now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioforce (Omni Books). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 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 no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 01:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oil and Gas Industry metering and control system[edit]

Oil and Gas Industry metering and control system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bit of a tagfest going on here. What's the purpose of the page anyway? Presumably, if someone cared a great deal, they could have done better than this incessantly messy page. Shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia in this form, I feel. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if you're wondering why I didn't just prod it: I guess that they might be room for an article about the topic, just not this one. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with haste, so overloaded with jargon that it's impenetrable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per rescue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is our editing policy to improve such articles, not delete them. Having looked at couple of sources upon instrumentation, the matter seems quite notable - such devices are used throught the world's oil and gas fields. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a seemingly knowledgeable person, can I ask you whether it's talking about a specific product here, or a general system that is used throughout the Oil and Gas Industry? The article could really do with some context, and I still have no idea where it fits into the encyclopaedia. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no particular knowledge of this field so I searched for information online. This is what you should have done before bringing this matter here - please see WP:BEFORE for details of the process. As for your question, the article is talking in general terms, not about a specific product. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article now has a reference and many more exist. I don't see any "jargon" in the article, it uses industry standard terms and the intended audience would have no difficulty in understanding the material. I've added a number of wikilinks but it could probably use a few more. Tothwolf (talk) 17:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pointless fork, with heaps of unverified information on a subject that doesn't require this kind of iodsyncratic treatment. Eusebeus (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is this a fork of? Tothwolf (talk) 17:23, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable (not sure where others have looked, but google only shows 1 hit for "gas well metering system" and only 4 for it's suggested verion "gas well monitoring system". Also, appears to me to be original research, is more a of a comparison between the two systems rather than an article about a common system.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest trying a different search query as that one is not likely to get too many hits. Tothwolf (talk) 03:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are 4 more books from a quick Google books search [3][4][5][6]
      This isn't simple.wikipedia.org and this is a technical topic. Tothwolf (talk) 04:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I provided my exact search query. You suggested I pick a different one saying it was likely not to get too many hits, which doesn't help me much considering I already described how few hits it got. The query I used seems to be a reasonable name for the overall general topic the article is trying to address, but if you can suggest a better query then please do so (or please improve the article using what you find). My comment about notability remains unchanged, as well as the other issues in the article.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   06:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and that query is so restrictive that it obviously turns up nearly nothing about this topic. I'm not sure what a better "generic name" for this should be but the current article name/title does avoid brand specific names/terms, so it works for now. Tothwolf (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, and hope you'll understand mine when I keep my comment at Delete.    7   ^{talk | Δ |}   14:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Keep, improve, merge, fix up. Per Colonel Warden  Chzz  ►  15:06, 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) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karowich[edit]

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

Article claims some notability, but I'm not sure this passes the bar. Passportguy (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Various searches show someone known somewhat by other Canadian architects, but no indication of notability outside of that group. Two things in the article also hint at a lack of notability: his current job (works for the city of Mississauga, a Toronto suburb), and his book is published by a vanity publisher: [7] Hairhorn (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It really falls on the last step. Highest Heights (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suai Kee[edit]

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

With the release of one single that received only regional attention plus another available only on iTunes, subject fails to meet the criteria for notability set forth at Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Subject thus far has achieved regional, not national, recognition. Inclusion on the Obama compilation fundraising CD is a plus, but is not sufficient to warrant a standalone article. As the article edit history shows, a Motown CD album has been forthcoming "soon" for several years; if and when it is released then an article might be appropriate. JohnInDC (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment - An editor with an apparent interest in Keeping the article has been adding keep-type facts and arguments to the article's talk page here. S/he hasn't responded to a couple of suggestions to repost the material here and I feel a bit skittish (probably foolishly) in doing it myself without permission. Hence the link, to be sure that the issues get a proper airing. (For what it is worth I don't think any of the additional facts matter.) JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC) (Editor found the right place.) JohnInDC (talk) 14:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as admittedly having released not one album on a major label. If there's specific RS coverage or charting for her one single, I'll reconsider. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kiwikibble (talk) 14:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the subject has achieved fair amount of national recognition having done several tours including a recent national tour with Solange and Estelle. She has also done several co-productions with Akon. AmLucki (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC) The Allmusic database lists her Come Out Come Out Single/EP released in 2008 under the Universal label. She is the singer as well as the composer of the song. The database also lists Am I All Alone sung by her for the Obama CD. I believe she qualifies on the basis of clause 4 of the Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles which states Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country. AmLucki (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmLucki (talk • contribs)
  • My apologies for having added my comments in the wrong place - a newbie's privilige :) I hope I am doing the right thing now by putting the comments here

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment on the foregoing rationale for "Keep": I doubt that inclusion in the essentially static Allmusic.com database would qualify as "coverage" in a reliable source of a national tour, but even if it did, the actual entry is about as sketchy an entry as possible. The "overview", here, is blank but for her name and the genre "R&B", and the tab labelled "Biography" is grayed out, indicating that none exists. In short, the only information entered on this artist consists of her name, her genre, and the name of two songs she has recorded. If this is coverage, it is trivial, and does not establish notability. JohnInDC (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment on the relisting: are we going by the stated rules or is it something personal? Please read my comments carefully and do not confuse facts. My mention of the national tour had no link with the AllMusic database. Those are two independent notings. To restate my arugument in favour of the artist  : she qualifies on the basis of clause 4 of the Criteria for Musicians and Ensembles which states "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". The national tour which I mentioned has been widely covered by various magazines, radio stations, online music sites, etc. AmLucki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• • • • Comment. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. When you said she qualified on the basis of #4 (non-trivial coverage of her tour) while citing only to Allmusic.com, I assumed that that was the coverage you meant. If there was significant coverage of Suai on this tour (not just "the" tour) - interviews of her, human interest articles about her growing up & discovering music, that kind of thing - then by all means, link to it. Indeed you *need* to link to it. (I briefly searched for articles about that tour and found mostly local newspaper and periodical blurbs announcing or briefly describing it (i.e. "trivial" coverage); and those that said anything further focused on Suai's touring partners rather than on her.) JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. لennavecia 16:47, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Order of Gnostic Templars[edit]

International Order of Gnostic Templars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominator's rational: Does not pass WP:ORG No indication that this organization is notable. No reliable third party sources that are independant of the subject. A google search on the name gives only 10 hits - seven to various self-published websites owned by the org or its founders, one to the Wikipeida article under discussion, and two promoting a self-published book written by one of the orgs founder. Google books only lists that self-published book. The article does contain a list of general references, but these are either self-published by people involved in the org, or relate to the historical Knights Templars and do not mention the IGOT at all. NOTE: While there are WP:FRINGE issues that could be argued, I do make them a part of this AfD nomination. I think the idea that the historical Templars might have had Gnostic knowledge is a notable enough concept to be discussed on wikipedia. This nomination does not focus on that. I focus purely on the argument that this particular organization is not notable. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Something is seriously wrong here. The article is currently full of derision, I get 11 Google News results and way more regular Google hits. Anybody passing by here should read the article. Joey the Mango (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment per the above, I've stubbified the article, the links provided had no relation or did not exist, and most, as you say, (more politely than me) was utter junk.--Alf ^melmac 21:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: Hmmm... Joey is correct, there are more hits on Google (I have no idea what why my initial search ended after the first page).. so I will retract that comment. However, I am not sure if having all these additional hits is much of an improvement. Most of the hits are to websites that do nothing more than mention the name of the org in passing and are really promoting the founder's book. Blueboar (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored verifiable external references inadvertently deleted when this was reduced to a stub, but reading all the comments this seems to be a thinly disguised advert for "Da Vinci Code" tourism and should be deleted unless anyone has a good argument for retaining it.--Simsek (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the only external source which I can see from the google hits which even remotely qualifies as reliable or independent is Coast to Coast AM. I don't think that's sufficient for a separate article. John Carter (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Furthermore, if you actually look at the Coast to Coast AM page in question, it does not discuss the organization at all. It mearly mentions it in passing as means of identification for an image of the group's founder (as in "... In the ceremony pictured left (click for larger) is Mark Amaru Pinkham, the Worthy Fisher King, The International Order of Gnostic Templars.") This is the case with almost all of the Google hits... the IOGT is only mentioned in relation to identifying who Mark Pinkham is. There is nothing on the group itself. Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT. A Google News search only finds passing mentions of the trips organised by this "order" and the only mentione found by Google Books is from a publisher that says its books are grouped into the categories: "Atlantic Studies, Alternative Health, Alternative Science, Ancient Science, Anti-Gravity, Conspiracy & History, Cryptozoology, Egypt & the Pyramids, Free Engery Systems, Geometry & Math, Holy Grail & Templar Studies, Lost Cities Series, Mysterious Phenomena, Mystic Travelers Series, Native American Studies, Philosophy & Religion, Strange Science, Tesla Technology, UFO's & Extraterrestrial and more.".[8] That certainly doesn't look like a reliable source to me, per WP:FRINGE. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both ORG and NFT - The depth of coverage is not substantial and those independent sources seen to be reliable give trivial or incidental coverage. The original contributor may have no connection with the group, but that they are a "made up" organization and have not yet become well known to the rest of the world seems to be the case. Until enough third party sources exist to create at least a balanced stub, the topic should not be covered - I fully expect, if the group continues to exist, that we will hear more of the group in reliable sources, and who knows, maybe not just on the negative side either, at that point we can create a sounder footing for the topic.--Alf ^melmac 22:24, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall[edit]

February 2009 Great Britain and Ireland snowfall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Completely unremarkable event. Every year, England (and I use the term advisedly) has a couple of inches of snow, the entire transport system grinds to a halt, and many people take the opportunity to have a day off work. This year wasn't significantly different from any other. The Winter of 1963 it was not. The Great Storm of 1987 it was not. We should not, IMO, have an article on it. Tevildo (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. Tevildo (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This isn't your average inch or two of snowfall; this was the most significant storm in nearly two decades. The storm was among the top news even in the U.S. Easily passes WP:N. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would (obviously) disagree with that. Should we have an article on last weekend, as The nice warm and sunny Late Spring Bank Holiday of 2009? The UK's climate is notoriously variable within reasonable limits - this February did not significantly breach those limits. How our transport infrastructure deals with it is another matter - but we already have The wrong kind of snow, which _is_ a reasonable subject for an article. Tevildo (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We would not have an article on the recent glorious May bank holiday weekend as it did not break anyrecords or have any proper impact on the UK where as this did Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easily notable as it was the highest snowfall levels in twenty years and that February (admittedly more in places like Kent, and not up here in sunny Aberdeen) was an unprecedented level of snow. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the fact that they had to shut down London for the first time in four years (since 7/7) makes this notable. And not to invoke WP:WAX, but this was actually an extreme weather storm for the UK, unlike the dozens of weather events in the US which have articles, despite the levels of snow being comparable (and the US, as a rule, gets more snow than the UK, thank you Gulf Steam) Sceptre ^(talk) 22:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Re-name - This was a notable event, as confirmed by the amount of press coverage from reliable sources in the refs section. Also, as noted above, it was the ending of an eighteen year run of warmer winters. It may be a little long-winded and could be re-named Winter of 2008-2009. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - It's hard to compare recent events to events more than 50 years ago. This is because knowledge of weather and the quality of homes (to protect people) is much improved. The fact that this storm shut down entire public transit systems is fairly significant IMO. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it's beyond just news as there was a documentary about the event. Such widespread snow is rare across the British Isles. Jolly Ω Janner 23:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - This was the worst snowfall in 18 odd years and thus it is worthy of an article. Jason Rees (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - nominator makes a good point with NOTNEWS, but this was one h*** of a snowstorm for the Brits; I think it deserves an article. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 03:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was the thing on the news, and had a huge amount of press coverage. It was one of the worst snowstorms for years in the UK, as well. The long list of references alone shows that it deserves an article. Also, if you delete this, don't you think that such articles as January 2009 Central Plains and Midwest ice storm could also go? Darth Newdar (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep... Hehe, I'm here all day. Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry to spoil the party, even though when I go against the herd it's usually to defend articles against pile-on deletion !votes. I must say that I'm rather bemused by this article, and by the fact that so many people are defending it. I lived through this, and yes, it was a minor inconvenience, but should it really be considered to be an encyclopedic event going beyond WP:NOT#NEWS? All of the references are to news articles dated from when this was happening, rather than any sources discussing it as a historic event. If equivalent events in the United States have articles then I would question those as well. Many more severe weather events happen outside the Western Anglophone world that nobody would dream of creating an English Wikipedia article about. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This weather event went far beyond routine news coverage. It is rather pointless debating whether this will become a noted historical bad weather yardstick in the future to fully overcome the spirit of NOT#NEWS (which is so often ignored at Afd for absolute rubbish like Muslim Massacre), seeing as it is only a few months since it happened, let alone years. MickMacNee (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Will it get confusing if we invoke the snowball clause on an article about snow? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We've had it happen before: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The wrong kind of snow. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Whilst I agree with the nom, this caused a hell of a lot of disruption in the United Kingdom (at one stage, only two of the seven people that I work with managed to make it in - and I work in Preston), had a documentary made about it, caused London to shut down for the first time since the July 7 attacks (I refuse to call it "7/7") and was even on the front page of WP in the "In The News" section. Surely all that stuff makes it notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I left a bit out: the opening should have read "Whilst I would agree with the nom if it was a usual occurance in Britain". (Also, to the person who alluded to the storm of 1987 - that only affected part of the country: this snow affected most - if not all - of it.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - We don't get weather like this very often nowadays in the United Kingdom (especially the Southern part) so it might not seem like a lot to other people/countries used to heavy snowfall. But it was a lot to us as we are not used to such heavy widespread snowfall. It'll be a shame if this does get deleted. Pebbles1979 —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Per most of the comments above and because the fall out from this is continuing now with criticism of how the authorities handled it - see this BBC article for instance from the last few days. While the roads needed salting then, don't delete and salt this article. (sorry could not resist that last sentence!) Davewild (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That's the first proper argument I've seen for keeping this - some coverage from later than the immediate aftermath of these events. I'm still not totally convinced about the long-term significance of this, so I won't strike my delete opinion, and anyway, it wouldn't make any difference to the imminent snow. The thing that really worries me is that my reading of that BBC article makes it twice in as many days that I have agreed with Boris Johnson. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep (!), per just about everyone else - this is astonishing! It was deemed suitable for the Main Page and survived for days in a section which is now becoming notorious for the number of removed posts. This type of argument would see just about any article deleted a few months later! What I mean by that would be (current example) Air France Flight 447 is only one plane and planes crash all the time and it wasn't a record-breaking incident (which this spell of bad weather was) and more than 228 people die in the world every day anyway (if you want to be extreme). I or anyone could opt for delete in just about any news event if that were the case. --candle•wicke 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I note Quiddity's comment to add in List of G rated films, but as that article was not tagged for deletion, I am not interpreting it as an attempt to make this a discussion of that article as well and have nominated it separately. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of PG rated films[edit]

List of PG rated films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unmaintainable list RadioFan (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Add in List of G rated films too. Delete both as unmaintainable, and/or better suited for a category. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless and insane. Hairhorn (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The lack of references doesn't help, either. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails list guidelines, unmaintainable, unencyclopedic, and too American-centric. Could have sworn this one was deleted before, same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of R rated movies, but can't find one under a similar name so not speediable right now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a bad idea-- there are hundreds of films released every year-- 610 in the U.S. in 2008, according to mpaa.org; of those, G rated films are about 4 percent of that number, PG is 16%, PG-13 is 28% and R is 51%. I'd agree that this would be better served by a category, but the category system fails on this one. Strangely enough, there is no category for a film rating, although the category freaks make a tag for everything else. Go figure. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A sufficient answer to the above argument is NOT PAPER, and a reminder that we have ways of dividing up even the largest lists. There should of course be a category as well. DGG (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorizing films by every rating they received in every country is not a good idea, particularly given the length of the category name that would be necessary to disambiguate the classification (e.g., Category:Films rated PG by the Motion Picture Association of America). Lists for each of these systems can coexist, but categories would compete for each other for space by cluttering individual film articles. Postdlf (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'd hope that all the various ratings information becomes part of our meta-data somehow/sometime, whether through the infoboxes or elsewhere. But a hand-maintained list of films by rating seems unmaintainably large, and very US-centric, and doesn't add the metadata to the articles in question. (See also: many discussions about ratings at Template Talk:Infobox Film point to MOS:FILM#Ratings). -- Quiddity (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These are notable films and, at least to many movie-goers in the United States, MPAA ratings are highly relevant and important characteristics of these films. This is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. I'll note, for example, that List of NC-17 rated films has citations, an explanatory lede, and has been in existence and avoided AfD nomination for many years, generally demonstrating that it's possible for this type of list to meet minimum Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that MPAA ratings are specific to the United States is a reason that in this case a list may be preferable to a category. (U.S. readers can refer to the list, while non-U.S. can easily ignore it.) I disagree with the claim that the list is unmaintainable--16% would be about eight new PG-rated films a month, and many Wikipedia lists keep up with that level of updates. The list does need to be improved, but an editor has done a lot of work and should be encouraged to add references, drop pre-MPAA films, and make other changes to fully meet Wikipedia guidelines. BRMo (talk) 04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List of NC-17 rated films will need to be looked at as well, its basically a mirror of the MPAA's film ratings database. That organization is not known for taking copyright very lightly.--RadioFan (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there was some creativity involved in the selection or arrangement of that list, the list isn't copyrightable—it's just an unoriginal list of facts. Postdlf (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete inane, pointless, not maintainable. Bulldog123 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yikes. How many films would this be? Isn't it like tens of thousands? I would support a tighter list of notable films that meet one of several criteria which are clearly spelled out and maintained like (i) won major awards, within reason as sometime several actors win but the film doesn't etc; (ii) notable for highest grossing in sales (iii) notable for highest attendance, which can be despite low sales figures and (iv) notable for soem other profound reasoning as demonstrated in reliable sources. If the list is cleaned up and refocussed so it's more discriminating I will support it it remaining. All the rest should be categorized, and good luck with all that. -- Banjeboi 21:36, 6 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) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noobish Records[edit]

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

Article violates WP:ORG with no clear evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources that are reliable, and independent of the subject. Also appears to be significantly promotional in nature. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Non-notable company. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-promotion of a non-notable label. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and WP:ORG. JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 7 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 keep. Since the notability is clear, deletion is not an issue here. However, the article needs expansion. Tone 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Court[edit]

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

Non-notable Highest Heights (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - She played for England at an International level, passes WP:CRIN. --Triwbe (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:ATHLETE. Johnlp (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly notable per WP:ATHLETE. JH (talk page) 19:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if expanded, desperately needs sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. International test cricketer. Clearly notable. Nancy ^talk 20:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Isupov[edit]

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

Inpossible to read, maybe also non-notable. Highest Heights (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article was only "impossible to read" if nobody tried to give the creator any help with formatting. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ginormous résumé that they didn't even TRY to make into a true article. Seems they've mistaken this for Résumépedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Did you even TRY to help the editor who was unfamilar with Wikipedia formatting? If you're here to help build the encyclopedia rather than to knock down others efforts to do so then I suggest that you help out the newbies rather than bite them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He does get some hits in Google News, which may or may not add up to notability, but this is not a helpful start to an article. It is such a mess that it would be better to delete and start from scratch. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This has masses of good content that we won't have a hope of recreating if the article is deleted. The only problem is that the creator doesn't know Mediawiki markup - is that a reason to delete an article on such a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. Well done for parsing any sense out of it. I have struck out my delete vote as the current content is effectively a rewrite. It wasn't simply a formatting issue. When a biography or resume is so obviously pasted in from another source it is quite likely to be a copyvio but I am happy that the extent of the rewriting has neutralised any such concerns. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please be civil, assume good faith and refrain from making unsourced negative remarks about living people. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see what's uncivil about my observation that this is a resume. If you think you can improve this article and make it objective, fine, but don't go around throwing WP word salads at people because you disagree with their observations. JuJube (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If you had made the observation that this is a resume then it would have been fine, but accusing the article subject of vanity is not civil. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If I were accusing anyone of anything, I'd direct my comments to the article creator. As stated, it is merely a witty catchphrase standing in for "Subject is not notable given what the article demonstrates and further research obtains nothing. Most likely a vanity page." I don't see vanity as a negative buzzword, but I guess some people do, so I'll discontinue my catchphrase. Too bad, it was witty enough to get quoted in an anti-Wikipedia article once. Wait, I guess I see your point now... x_x JuJube (talk) 06:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per [9][10][11][12][13] and many more. The article creator is obviously unfamiliar with Wikipedia formatting, so shouldn't the reaction be to help rather than pile on to demand deletion of an article about a notable subject? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Maybe if someone re-wrote it with sources, I'd consider changing my vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Maybe you could have looked beyond the article creator's technical inability to format the article correctly and seen that that the article already had loads of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. On formatting this to make it look half-way presentable I've found that right from the beginning it contained many sources, including quite a few magazine articles with Isupov as the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've added another 29 reliable sources on top of the ones the were there to start with, and made a start on formatting/wikifying. I've spent a good few hours doing that, and it's now bed-time in my time zone, so maybe one of the editors above that complained about this being badly written would like to make some further improvements? I think I've used up just about everything that can be viewed via Google News[14], but I haven't even looked at the Google web search results[15] yet. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Multiple works in major museums is notability for an artist. We accept there standards of what is notable in the field. Or are we a better judge than the curators of the MFA Boston, and LA? and of about a dozen others in a number of countries? DGG (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep after Phil Bridger's clean-up.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 18:12, 6 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 Nomination withdrawn (WP:HEY; NAC) Ipatrol (talk) 02:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newbridge on Wye railway station[edit]

Newbridge on Wye railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Minor train station with no sources existent or to be found. Nothing to merge either. Fails WP:V and WP:N. Ipatrol (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Highest Heights (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, decision to go for AfD is a non-sense. Article complies with WP:V and WP:N.Pyrotec (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It is WP:verifiable, which unsupprisingly is a requirement of WP:V.Pyrotec (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources to show verifiability and notability. Quantpole (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unless my memory is defective, I thought it had already been decided that all railway stations are notable. So the only requirement is to verify its existence (which Pyrotec has now done, and much more). --Dr Greg (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, much improved (well done Pyrotec). Bencherlite^Talk 22:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - but still expandable! axp_de^Hello! 07:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Even before the sources were added, how did this "fail" WP:V? A topic doesn't "fail" WP:V if it is currently unverified, but if it's completely unverifiable. --Oakshade (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep, shouln't have been nominated in the first place. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note For everyone criticizing the nomination, here's a difflink on how I found it. I am currently considering closing the nomination par WP:HEY, but I have not make a decision yet so as of now I am still pushing for deletion.

• Keep It existed, so it should stay. [[16]] Alexs (talk) 09:45, 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. BJ^Talk 21:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Grigorieva[edit]

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

This originally had a prod tag placed on it, but it was removed by an IP, who said "I found the article useful. Ms. Grigorieva is noted for > 1 thing." However, she really isn't notable for more than one thing, which happens to be that she had a baby with Timothy Dalton and is now pregnant by Mel Gibson. Mel Gibson's soon to be ex-wife doesn't meet notability beyond that relationship, although she is involved in various charities. The article only hints at brushes with celebrities, consists of mostly gossip and fluff. She simply does not meet notability.

More importantly, I didn't discover that this was an article that had been recreated following a deletion discussion until I'd nominated it.

Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Article is a recreation of previously deleted article. No indication the subject is more notable than before - having sex with notable people does not make you notable. Edward321 (talk) 20:41, 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 Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Whig Party[edit]

Florida Whig Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was deleted two years ago as a non-notable minor party. It has long been traditional on Wikipedia that state parties get redirected to the page of the national party, but my repeated attempts to do so in this case have repeatedly been reverted. There is nothing unique about this state party that is not covered in the national party page. One user has already been blocked temporarily for ownership issues, including ordering people who dare to edit the page to contact a spokesman for the party first. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge Speedy Keep: I opposed the redirect on grounds that I felt this matter should be decided by consensus. I have expressed concerns on the article's talk page, the general scope of which being that while there are multiple, independant, non-trivial mentions in a number of internet publications, I am not satisfied with the sourcing as it currently exists, despite my own efforts to the contrary, and thus cannot wholeheartedly support keeping the article. My concern is primarily with the fact that many of the sources are of questionable reliability, although another editor has helped to temper my concerns by describing the publications in more detail. However, there have also been conflict of interest issues that are deeply concerning, and need to be considered when deciding, although they are certainly not dispositive. While I hope the organization has realized the conflict of interest and will refrain from ownership-type activities in the future, there is certainly an argument for deleting the article on those grounds alone. I would support a merge with Modern Whig Party if that is the consensus, but I can see some good arguments for keeping the article, so I would also weakly support keeping the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 18:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Change: Nom has withdrawn, sourcing is adaquate if slightly unreliable, and most if not all of the COI influence is no longer part of the article. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have mentioned a number of reasons on the talk page. There is merit for the COI issues, but the article has been completely redone from its original format so that issue is moot. This article should not be deleted solely because it is an affiliate of a larger organization. This party is unique from the national party because of its novel ballot access scenerio, something that has been distinctly recognized by seven (7) different third-party sources. The fact that seven sources, to include Army Times and Ballot Access News specifically single out this registered state party as notable, is what compels me to recommend keep. In that regard, I have limited this article, as have subsequent editors, to the basic notable elements based on these outside media sources. I will add that while I may not be the most experienced editor on here, the circumstances surrounding this article have completely been unnecessary negative in tone, something that seems to have rubbed off onto the judgment. This article has demonstrated notability, and should be improved and not deleted or merged.Aardvark31 (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aardvark brings up an important note... The organization may now be part of the Modern Whig Party, but according to what I've read on the subject, it actually joined the Modern Whig Party AFTER being officially recognized in Flordia. That may by itself offer a reason why a merge could be precluded. I don't think it necessarily precludes a merge, but it is something that should be considered. I also don't think that the mere fact that this is a state party should automatically preclude inclusion if the sources are there. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed as being a state party on the national party's article until I removed it and redirected all of the state party pages to the main page. It uses the same logo as the national party. That makes this a state organization which, as I said in the nomination, says nothing unique about the state party which makes it unique from the national party. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if it was listed on the national party's article as a state party then that was inaccurate. For example, Ballot Access News (a print publication as well as online) does not even mention the Modern Whig Party when covering the issues surrounding the Florida Whig Party. Another source states that the "Modern Whig Party and the Florida Whig Party jointly announce..." While there is an obvious affiliation, the Florida Whig Party in its state registration and in various sources holds itself out as a separate entity. But as was mentioned above, the fact that the Florida Whig Party was registered before the Modern Whig Party lends credence to the fact that this situation and state party is unique. Also, it's not the "Florida Modern Whig Party" as was the incorrect case on the national party site, but Florida Whig Party. Regardless, the Florida Whig Party is notable via multiple sources as a registered state party with ballot access, a candidate and some distinct notability for being a unique party on various levels.Aardvark31 (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query:Who then was a gentleman?, can you provide some AfD/merger/redirect examples for the assertion that state parties are traditionally redirected? I've looked, and we have articles for pretty much (if not all) 50 states for the Republican and Democrat parties. I'm not arguing that is a reason we should keep the article (I'd have to smack myself if I was), I just think it would be helpful to this AfD to have examples. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er. I'm going to have to look. That really surprises me, as it hasn't been my experience in the past. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'm looking too, so far I haven't found any, but there are quite a few to check through to see if they went up for AfD or were ever redirected...Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look as well to give this a fair shake, although I think the fact that there are some notable elements to what appears to be an independently registered, albeit affiliated, political party makes this a bit moot in light of the sourcing.Aardvark31 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything to suggest that there is such a tradition, despite picking through the histories of various state party articles for the GOP and DNC, as well as numerous third parties. I may have missed something, but so far I just don't see it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also picked through the discussions at WP:ORG regarding political parties, and I can find no suggestion of such a tradition there, either, although many redirects wouldn't make it to AfD, and probably then wouldn't become at issue on WP:ORG's discussion page. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It has references and sources that make it independently notable. Article is stripped of any fluff and sticks with the sourcing. Enough said... It's notable so recommend keep.Danprice19 (talk) 02:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.

 -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The issues with this article had to do with ownership and conflict of interest, not notability. Such issues are not valid deletion arguments. The party was on the ballot. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 11:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Other than my concerns about the reliability of the sources provided, I would tend to agree that there is no longer a sourcing issue. Also, my understanding was that the party *will* be on the ballot in 2010, but has not previously been on the ballot. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw this nomination. I know that I have seen many past AfDs were state parties were redirected to national parties, but I cannot find them now. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:10, 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 merge to Holiday Bowl. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Bowl broadcasters[edit]

Holiday Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A user created this article as a sub of Holiday Bowl. I merged them together leaving a message at his talk page and Talk:Holiday Bowl, and he undid without any explanation. Since the main article is only 19kb long and this stub list is only 3kb long, the main article, which is mostly lists and tables, is in no way so long as to require a split per WP:LENGTH. There is absolutely no reason why this stub list cannot be merged into the main article. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user once again, never split the article. The user simply started another article. Please go back and look at the history once again!--Levineps (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; maybe not on this article, but for some of the others you did, and that's beside the point that you're undoing me without reason. I WP:MERGED the two together because there is no reason for them to be separate. You simply undid me without any explanation. It's also slightly deceiving and confusing to be speaking in third person there. It was Levineps who made the article. And you have yet to tell me why the two pages must be separate. Reywas92^Talk 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if deemed necessary. This list is not notable in its own right. Quantpole (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is an excellent experiment as a chart, it isn't an article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by that? We know it's a table/list, not an article, but it can and should be easily merged into the related main article. It does not have notability on its own. Reywas92^Talk 20:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to Holiday Bowl.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:41, 6 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) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Winnett[edit]

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

The article was (improperly) PRODded with the reason "Subject is not noteworthy, page has been created as a joke as "Winnet" is a slang term for faecal adhesion." The person does appear to exist through a Google search, though. My reason for deletion is that I don't think this person is notable per the Wikipedia guideline of notability. Tinlinkin (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources don't show notability. Being exhibited on its own doesn't show notability. Searching only gives blogs and the like. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but don't salt - this is a real 22-year-old artist, but who is just not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Might be notable one day, but not today. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even the "home" web site is a set of free pages via his ISP, and in the name of Tom Winnett not Sebastian Winnett.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gator Bowl. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gator Bowl broadcasters[edit]

Gator Bowl broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A user split this list from Gator Bowl a while back without reason. I merged them together, and he undid without any explanation. After leaving messages on his talk page and Talk:Gator Bowl, he undos again. Since the main article is 35kb long and this stub list is only 3kb long, the main article, which is mostly lists and tables, is in no way so long as to require a split per WP:LENGTH. There is absolutely no reason why this stub list cannot be merged into the main article. Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge Doesn't need a delete. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge - But Afd is not the appropriate place for a merge discussion. Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rey always likes to put the delete option up for articles that this person does not like (as opposed to the merged purposal). Look at this person's history, it's a repeated pattern--Levineps (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you read my reasoning, I do NOT support deletion. I HAVE proposed merge, but you are the unreasonable one who seems to refuse to have ANY discussion about these! There is absoluely no reason why these articles must be separate. When YOU will not respond to my posts but instead just UNDO, then my other option is AFD! Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and Merge to Gator Bowl.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:39, 6 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corpus Christi (band)[edit]

Corpus Christi (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't assert notability beyond being on a (supposedly) notable label. Absolutely no non-trivial coverage found. ((Db-band)) declined because a previous one had already been removed by an admin (which I find to be process for process' sake). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was me who declined the speedy (the second time). I did a quick search and discovered that AbsolutePunk.net had reviewed the band's album. That's not enough for the general notability guideline but it was in my view enough to think it shouldn't be speedied; time can be taken to see if other sources can be found. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Coverage of the band found in this review from Thrash Magazine, and a couple of other reviews found. There's also this from Cross Rhythms, and this and this from blabbermouth.net. There's als an interview here. I see no reason to doubt the notability of Victory Records, the label that released the band's debut album. And if a speedy is declined, that makes it a controversial deletion so adding another speedy tag is really not on.--Michig (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't aware that it had already been tagged when I tagged it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passed WP:MUSIC#C1 for the sources that Michig found and this, and this as well. And one from Italy too.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 10:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient number of reliable sources have been found. Royalbroil 03:38, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who 2009 (fan series)[edit]

Doctor Who 2009 (fan series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Unreleased fan series of questionable notability. No reliable sources - only blogs, forum posts, and YouTube links. Google search turns up no major reliable third-party coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Much as I am inclined to give Doctor Who related material the benefit of the doubt, there is nothing here to indicate notability yet. If they do ever complete a whole episode (never mind a series) then I can see it standing a chance of becoming notable but it certainly should be deleted for the time being. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only remarkable thing so far is that the BBC hasn't shut it down - presumably because it's raising money for charity. No idea whether it's ever going to appear though - one of the blog sources says that ep 1 was pulled because the FX were still in post-production, which doesn't bode too well. Delete, and recreate a much better article with proper sources if this proves to be a successful enterprise.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Bad sources, WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Certainly get rid of it here on the basis of no legitimate sources to establish notability; no coverage whatsoever making this anything better than crystal-balling. Ironically, its very presence on Wikipedia may bring it to the attention of the BBC, who will in all likelihood crush it anyway as a breach of copyright. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Outpost Gallifrey haven't picked up on it; no reason for us to either Sceptre ^(talk) 22:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I started this page because this project is gaining a lot of attention in the Doctor Who fan community. The BBC copyright stuff seems irrelevant, as the BBC has a track record of allowing and even supporting Doctor Who fan projects. I understand the issue that it has yet to be released and has no definite release date yet, but the creators say the release date will be announced very soon. I totally understand if this gets deleted, but I honestly believe this has the potential to be nearly as big as Star Trek: Phase II, which has an article here. That article has slightly better references, but not by much. The fact is, the Doctor Who fan film community is a growing one. It doesn't necessarily have major coverage yet, but I still think this project is worthy of an article. Ronson87 ^(talk) 22:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non=notable fan future maybe film series? Like a vio of SPAM, BLOG, NOT, CRYSTAL... sheesh. del and burn. ThuranX (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless some reliable source reporting on it can be found. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reasons: 1. (Good sources) The Doctor Who 2009 fan series has been covered twice by Fan Cinema Today, a reputable site which is ran by the author of the internationally released book "Homemade Hollywood", and the entry references the site 2. (Good Sources) This article cites more sources than the article for the "Star Trek: Phase II" fan series and many other fan series articles. 3. (Good Sources) Google search turns up numerous articles and info on the project for me. 4. (Not crystal-balling) The article only reports in a non-bias manner on events or coverage that has already occurred and references materials that have already been released. 5. I found out that members of the Outpost Gallifrey Staff work on the project, and this may be a reason it has not been covered by them (i.e., so as not to appear to be bias), Doctor Who Online (which is as notable as Outpost Gallifrey) asked the producers through The Doctor Who Forum to contact them about promoting the series. 6 (Notability) The project's facebook page has nearly 700 fans, the video of the first trailer received over 25,000 hits, and the series YouTube Channel became #14 Most Subscribed of the week the very day it went up. This is all evidence that it is a popular fan series that has general awareness. 7. The series website links to third party articles written about them. These articles range for short snippets to full on interviews with cast and crew, many of which have not even been referenced here yet. 8. The producers of the series have stated in several places that the first episode is finished and awaiting release on the new date they have voted on. They have just not pubically announced the date because of their marketing plan.MegabyteModem (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)— MegabyteModem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Much of what is written above is covered by WP:AADD. The Phase II argument is a classic example of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Facebook/Youtube argument is a classic example of WP:BIG. The entire article is based on WP:CRYSTAL as the film/potential film has yet to be released and covered in any reliable sources; note that none quoted above classify as reliable sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seeing how the trailer and other publicity materials exist for the production it is not WP:CRYSTAL because the article reports on those. Fan Cinema Today falls with the description of WP:RS (In fact all the references outside of their own website fall within the description that's given with in the rules IMO).MegabyteModem (talk) 22:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is utter nonsense. Not all websites outside of the one in question fall within WP:RS; in fact, the vast majority do not. This is why commercially-published print sources are what you should be looking for for preference, as absolutely anybody can set up a website and decalre themselves an authority. I see no evidence that Fan Cinema Today falls within WP:RS; has its content been published ina third-party source for instance? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYes, SciFiCannel Magazine among a dozen others. Clive Young and Fan Cinema Today are an athourity on Fan Films.MegabyteModem (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:BIG says nothing about citing an item's popularity at other sources, it only says that an item's popularity on Wikipedia is not relevant. So the YouTube/Facebook argument is not covered there. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem relevant either, because this project is not merely speculative, it is in production, and nothing mentioned in the article is based on speculation. If I had written, "The first episode is going to come out soon and is going to be hugely popular," then yeah, that's crystalballing. But writing that a project is in the works and scheduled to be released this summer is not crystalballing, especially when this information references major sources for the medium. Fan Cinema Today is definitely a reliable source according to WP:RS, where it says referenced authors must be considered "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Ronson87 (talk) 2:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment You appear to have totally failed to read WP:BIG. WP:CRYSTAL does apply, as the notability of this fan film is yet to be determined as it hasn't even been released yet. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're right, I was accidentally reading WP:POPULARPAGE when I posted that response. Sorry about that! As for WP:CRYSTAL, according to your logic, every page for a movie/album/TV show that has yet to premiere should be deleted. Doctor Who 2009 has already gained notability due to the trailers and the hype surrounding the project. Regarding WP:RS, if Clive Young of Fan Cinema Today is not a notable source for a fan film, then a notable source does not exist. This guy literally wrote the book on fan films. Ronson87 (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You keep saying that the series is notable, yet aside from one source of questionable relevance, you have yet to show this. Where are the multiple sources? If this thing is as notable as you say, it should be getting coverage all over the place from multiple reliable sources, like, for say, The Hunt for Gollum - I'm not seeing that... MikeWazowski (talk) 10:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Completely and utterly non-notable. Angmering (talk) 09:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No notability established. Appears to be chiefly speculation about things that have yet to happen, and may not ever, all cited from either primary source or a few forums, not reliable sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mushir Redjeb Pasha[edit]

Mushir Redjeb Pasha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Yes, this is a hoax. The interwiki links are fake, and no actual citations are provided. Moreover, we're supposed to believe this man was born in Prussia, served Turkey in the First Barbary War (which ended when he was 6) and the Second Barbary War (which happened when he was 16) as well as in the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War (when he was almost 80), that he was a leader of the Young Turks at age 108, and finally that he was serving as a government minister at age 109 when he was assassinated. Sorry, I'm not buying this. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 21:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nothing on google web books or scholar for this subject.--Dmol (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And don't forget to warn the creator and delete the corresponding image from commons. Dahn (talk) 10:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no mention anywhere that i can find and a probable hoax.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:55, 6 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) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors of the Light[edit]

Warriors of the Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable, unpublished book, written by pseudonym, with the major cooperation of another pseudonym Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why both prod and afd? Highest Heights (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because 2 different editors both thought it was deletable, and had 2 different opinions as to how this should be accomplished. The ProD and the AfD were both posted within the same minute, and neither I nor the other editor had any idea the other was proposing deletion. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An unpublished book would have to be pretty significant to get a page. Also, why invoke "privacy"? Little of this article makes sense. Could probably be speedied. Hairhorn (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Under what criterion is this speedyable? —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon me, I didn't realize A7 did not apply to books; only thing left is G11, which is iffy in this case. Hairhorn (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Please recreate if and when book is published and mention in a reliable source. --Mblumber (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I was the editor who prod'd the article. In any case, the reasons listed here for why the article should be deleted are pretty much what led me to prod it in the first place--as such, the article should be deleted. TheLetterM (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. In addition to the notability/verifiability issues, based on the username of the article creator, this is likely also original research. —C.Fred (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. With no names for the authors, no publisher, and no sources, this book is indistinguishable from any other randomly chosen piece of fan fiction. Bluntly put, I couldn't tell it apart from a hole in the ground. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:03, 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 both speedy deleted WP:CSD#G7 by Anthony.bradbury - non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigfried Vollmer[edit]

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

Either a hoax article or competely unverifiable.

This was tricky for me, I'm not that familiar with heraldry. Subject is supposed to be "current head of the cadet House of Hohenzollern-Hechingen, the former ruling house of the Hechingen and the Kingdom of Prussia." These regions no longer exist, although families of course can live on. In this case, though, I have found several sources, including wikipedia, that say that the Hohenzollern-Hechingen line died off in 1869. Several of the relevant wikipedia pages have since been edited by the article author to mention Sigfried Vollmer and the House magically starting up again, with no explantion of the missing century. See Constantine, Prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen for an as yet unaltered page that explains the end of the House of Hohenzollern-Hechingen (the region was absorbed into the Kingdom of Prussia, and the heirs died out). Another unchanged page is Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, which says clearly that the line died out in 1869.

A Google search for "Sigfried Vollmer" brings up only the new wiki pages, a wiki mirror, and one person not claiming to be a prince. Google suggests looking for "Siegfried Vollmer", which brings more hits, but nothing relevant to this case. Similarly for Google Books and Scholar: no relevant hits. So I have to conclude that this is a hoax. Even if it's not a hoax, it's a completely unverifiable fringe theory, which would also merit deletion.

I left a note on the author's talk page, hoping for clarification, but got no response.

Also nominating a page by the same author for Sigfried Vollmer's alleged son:

Kessler Vollmer, Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern-Hechingen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hairhorn (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete likely hoax. The 1910 Brittanica says the line became extinct in 1869 as does this book and, less reliably, Appleton's. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete both WP:CSD#G7 - at 07:29 this morning the author blanked both these pages. They were restored by another editor, quite properly because the AfD template instructs that the page "must not be blanked"; but I think, as detected hoaxes, blanking by their author can be taken, per G7, as a request to delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, CSD A7. (non-admin closure) Redfarmer (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Knight[edit]

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

Some kind of advertising for a non-notable skateboarder. Wikipedia isn't a webhotel. Highest Heights (talk) 15:59, 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) 19:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellatron[edit]

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

A non-notable piece of software for the iphone. Article was created by user:Omenie - the company that produce this product. Speedy requested as spam but declined. There are no google news stories on this product. Smartse (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Highest Heights (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not notable--Rmzadeh (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if there's a standardized format for this dialog that I'm not using - but again, in Ella's defence, re. 'notable' - one of the world's leading - if not *the* leading rock keyboard player - has picked up this software, unprompted, contacted the company to work on improvements and is going to be using the software on stage for the band's upcoming world tour - does that not itself make the software notable? And where the synthesiser and mobile blogospheres meet - matrixsynth, synthtopia, palmsounds - there is a lot of interest, so they (as long-standing synthesiser people) seem to regard the software as notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omenie (talk • contribs) 08:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]