< 21 November	23 November >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. nomination withdrawn Rettetast (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardanger Sunnhordlandske Dampskipsselskap[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable company. I could not find significant and independent coverage. Link given in the article is to the company's website. George (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:POINT. I believe this nomination was made in ill faith as retribution for my involvement in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FLV Video Downloader, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Batch Image Processor, and Talk:Biorhythm#Software. Furthermore, this is not a contested prod; there have been no prods on this article. Haakon (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the nomination looks a bit pointy, since the nomination is basically copied from one of those AFDs. However the nominator may actually think the same problems applies to this article. and the nomination is correct in that the article did not link to any reliable sources at the time the nomination. The prod thing is wikipedia-lingo that new editors probably misunderstand. Rettetast (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Definitely a notable company. Just check "What links here". Here is an entry in the traditional paper encyclopedia Store norske leksikon. Rettetast (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, this is a non-debate really. Geschichte (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant operator in the Norwegian transport industry. decltype (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Is this a joke? The company operated 41 watercraft and hundreds of buses, was listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange and was one of the largest public transport companies in the countries. It is inherently notable even without any sources (which, of course, should be added). Arsenikk ^(talk) 13:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The nominator has denied my request to withdraw this nomination. I have moved from Keep to Speedy keep. Rettetast (talk) 14:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason for the nomination for deletion was based on my inability to find any verifiable and independent sources in the article, and the fact that I was not able to find significant coverage for this organization on the web. Hence my nomination for deletion based on apparent failure to meet notability requirement. Thus the nomination is by no means pointy, as Haakon have suggested. In fact, Haakon have created numerous articles where the only reference that is listed is the "official website" of the article's subject. That is not an independent and verifiable source by any means!--George (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but lets get back to this article. Have you reviewed the article after sources was added? Rettetast (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the article was improved by adding references, that I could not find there before, nor on the web, I do not object to removing this article from the articles for deletion list. As I said my decision for nomination was based on the lack of any acceptable references.--George (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wimpy FLV Player[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nor can I. Delete. Crafty (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you guys talking about?? Google "wimpy player" and you get 121,000 results. How could that not be "significant coverage"? Please be advised that when people (like you) happily and quickly erase other peoples' work, just like was done with Jimmy Wales' own contribution recently, it creates a disincentive for the writer to create any more new pages. That's why I stopped creating any more new pages, as a matter of fact, even though I continue to make dozens of grammatical corrections to existing pages. User:Markus451 —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Read WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Two sentences that don't even claim notability. Miami33139 (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a couple of google news hits in German. Polarpanda (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you post the links? Joe Chill (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A couple of Google hits doesn't make it notable. Anything can be posted on the Internet and get Google hits. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erika (singer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer with no claim to notability. A Google search (despite her name making a search difficult) reveals no writeup in reliable sources, and no charted music. Seems to only appear on Youtube, MP3 sites, social networking sites, etc. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Astronaut (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for thios musician. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Here is what appears to be an interview in Italian, but to meet WP:MUSICBIO, there needs to be more in the way of significant coverage, and I can not find any. Gongshow ^Talk 23:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not yet attained the level of notability required for Wikipedia inclusion. JBsupreme (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

French Roast[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable short film, does not meet WP:NFF (there is no commercial release for this title, just minor animation festivals). Warrah (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find no evidence of notability. No significant 3rd party coverage. Does not come anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (films); e.g. "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics", "The film has received a major award for excellence", "The film features significant involvement ... by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career", etc etc: this film fails them all by miles. Essentially a spam article by a COI editor (Article written by Fabriceojoubert: director of film is Fabrice O. Joubert.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Keep proposal by Fabriceojoubert deleted by Fabriceojoubert]

Note Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages editors from participating in deletion discussions involving articles related to their own work. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacAmp[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable and long-time orphan that is completely unsourced. Some trivial mentions in Macintosh related books, and kept around as a sentimental download on several sites, but no significant coverage from looking at the first 50 results from news.google.com (set to pre-y2k archive search), books.google.com and scholar.google.com. Miami33139 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nothing has changed since the first AfD. Apparently the software represented an important "first" in MP3 decoding software applications. Racepacket (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why aren't there independent, reliable sources about the subject as references? Importance is a reflection of a subjects coverage outside Wikipedia. These two sentences could easily be placed in the WinAmp article under the section of historic or derivative works. I thought of this after nominating, and may withdraw the AfD if others agree this is an acceptable solution. Miami33139 (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given the scope of the article and that no new information appears to be forthcoming, a logical outcome may well be to merge this information somewhere appropriate. Shereth 19:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- In reply to Shereth, I have moved any relevant information to the Winamp article as a historical and related work. MacAmp was done before Nullsoft actually existed, but that's why there is a historical work section. Miami33139 (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From the looks of it, this article should had been deleted the first time around. It got a free pass then and still has yet to be adequately sourced! Fails in notability. JBsupreme (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of changes make by Milowent. This has nothing to do with IRC at all, by the way. P.S. should this be renamed MACAST? JBsupreme (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I realize this one isn't about IRC. I appreciate the reconsideration, JB. I think the name should stick for now, I have to go through some other sources, but it appears they returned to the original name later on.--Milowent (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the present article seems adequately sourced for notability. (I note that in the previous afd, started by a different ed, he stated right out front that the motivation was a content dispute about priority; fortunately, that is no longer the issue. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Since Article Overhaul[edit]

Keep: Bad nom. I just added 11 references to the article, and there are more. There is No explanation for why consensus has changed from first AfD, and keep per DGG's comment there.--Milowent (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected by nominator to Yaaruku Yaaro. I know i !voted here, but it's a procedural close, since none of the participants including the nominator have any objections to this action. (NAC) -SpacemanSpiff 17:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Sam Anderson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WITHDRAWN per below Very few Ghits and no news hits whatsoever for "Sir Sam Anderson." His movie debut starring role is in Yaaruku Yaaro, a low budget film. Of course, the problem may be that Anderson simply doesn't show up in English searches. But the article reads like a WP:SOAP piece I'm doubtful about this one. I will add to the appropriate discussion board to try and get some Tamil input. There's also this strange (to me) reference in the film article: "Sam Anderson also has a large mock-fan following on social networking services like Facebook and Orkut." A lot of the Ghits do seem to be strange effusive stuff about Anderson on blogs, but the above line makes me think he's been embraced as some kind of viral, so bad he's good, kinda thing. Anyway, all I'd really like to see is some WP:RS, in any language. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. He went viral a year ago and yarukku yaro was picked up by the Tamil TV Channel Zee Tamil for broadcast on 11 july 09. And his interview during the film's broadcast itself went viral. Could do with a rewrite to remove the mocking tone.i want to keep it . Tamil wikipedia has a stub for him [1]. Here are a few Reliable Sources for the film being made [2] [3]. --Sodabottle (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if he's notable as a viral phenom, that's still notable. I'll gladly withdraw this if others concur. And Sodabottle, even though you declare yourself neutral you write "I want to keep it," so I think what you're saying is Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cant find any Reliable Sources to back up the viral phenomena. Sad thing is he is indeed a viral phenomena ..:-(. There was an earlier article on the same person which was deleted by CSD [4]. So what to do?. add a citations required template and leave it or delete it. I can't make up my mind. argh..--Sodabottle (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's a strong consensus to delete from other editors, I'm gong to withdraw this and slap a RS tag on the article as you suggest. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ He seems to have a pretty huge following in the blogosphere (English and Tamil), but I haven't been able to find anything at all in media coverage in either language in online Indian news sources. He may be bad and therefore have a following, but not bad enough to have received media coverage. At best, I think a redirect to Yarukko Yaro might not be a bad option. -SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WITHDRAWN To save further effort for everyone, I'm just going to do ahead and redirect as Spaceman suggests. If anyone has a problem with that, please revert the redirect and let this AfD continue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Express Detroit - Downtown[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reason to believe that this Holiday Inn Express location is any more notable than the many other Holiday Inn Express locations. Appears to fail WP:CORP. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nowhere in the article does it say why this Holiday Inn would be more notable than any other individual Holiday Inn location. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Dog poster 20:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Non-notable, but I would say that for almost all the entries in the category Category: Hotels in Detroit, Michigan. I can't say I really care for this type of nomination, along the lines of "I don't think we should have an article about 571 (number)". It's kind of like stepping on one ant. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Individual locations of a hotel chain, unless they're well known and therefore notable, shouldn't have their own articles. Dalekusa (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building was built where Detroit's second skyscraper (219 Michigan Avenue) stood, and is next to various other notable buildings within the downtown core, like Book-Cadillac Hotel, Industrial-Stevens Apartments, and the Book Tower. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 21:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't really address why the facility is notable. You've cited WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, plus regarding the previous occupant of the site, remember that notability is not inherited. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it is on the site of a now demolished notable building, then maybe it can be mentioned in that building's article. Being next to other notable buildings does not make this building notable. Notability is not transferred by such relationships. Astronaut (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CORP and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No way in hell is this notable. Hehe. Oh well. JBsupreme (talk) 23:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. If there is something remotely interesting about this hotel, just add it to Holiday Inn. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bohan[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable "celebrity." Occupation listed as "Actress, model, DJ," does meet WP:N for any of those. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 19:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO, seeing some google news hits but doesn't apear to be the same person. RadioFan (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bohan is a published author, runs Club nights in Camden London dj ing, and is a former International athlete and has represented her Country at athletics from 1992- 1998. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.3 (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can you provide references to the claim of notability as an athlete?--RadioFan (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://beautiful-books.co.uk/253.html
http://booksanctuary.blogspot.com/2009/07/take-girl-like-me-by-amy-bohan-no.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.5 (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your references are both about her book,and yet she does not meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria, nor does her DJ work appear to make her notable under WP:MUSIC. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 01:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sO CAN WE CALL HER A PUBLISHED AUTHOR ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.3 (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can call her that, but being a published author does not make her automatically notable. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 12:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looked at the article and did a quick google search. From what I saw, I don't think the article quite meets WP:BIO or the WP:GNG, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G4 delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Rosen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted just a couple of weeks ago, and there's no more evidence of notability now than there was then -- the vast majority of references are to her own articles, and the few that aren't by her get us nowhere near to extensive coverage in multiple independent sources. Cute, but not notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeylina Ever[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist, article written partially in the first person. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I will assume the switches of grammatical gender derive from the original thoughts being in French (where there is no clear distinction between 'his' and 'her'). I can't see anything that makes me think this subject particularly notable. As far as I could get in Google (four pages), the overwhelming impression I got was a succession of myspace, flickr and blogs. The article appears to be by the subject, and to be promotional without showing me that there is anything of notability to promote. Peridon (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although there's no mention of gender in the article text, the page is in the (nonexistent) category "Transsexual artists". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was being polite. Even a transsexual should stick to one gender at a time... Peridon (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I deleted this as an A7 earlier today, after duly searching for significance, let alone notability. Perhaps there is verifiability to be found in French? Once again I have searched for a reason to not delete this and have found none. No significant 3rd party coverage. Dlohcierekim 19:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always search 'all languages' not just English language pages (and with family filtering off). There is also no article for this subject on the French language Wikipédia. Peridon (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. But, Je ne parle Francais. Just covering for the sake of thoroughness. I got not an inkling, in any language. Dlohcierekim 20:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Note the use of first-person pronoun through the articleToddst1 (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Broglio[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Athlete that didn't win any collegiate awards and didn't play professionally fails WP:ATHLETE. JaGa^talk 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite a bit of name dropping and claims of greatness, but nothing to prove any of it. DarkAudit (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even if it did meet WP:ATHLETE, this is a peacock and weasel-riddled piece of original research. The only thing even vaguely reminiscent of a reference is a referral to "the guys on the 1948 Maryland Football team", Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7/G11, no credible assertion of importance and also self-promotion. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O-Zone (singer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references, no relevant Google hits. Cannot verify that article's subject meets notability guidelines in WP:MUSICBIO. PROD removed by author, who appears to be the artist in question. Singularity42 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. No credible assertion of notability. No credible proof that J (Album) exists, either. DarkAudit (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based entirely on this statement left on the article page: "This article should not be deleted because it is about a person that i am related to (ME).", which brings up COI issues. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not MySpace and you don't own the articles you create. Article never asserts or sources notability for subject. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dog poster 20:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6)#Jamie Archer. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Archer[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). Since I created this article, I have decided to create a deletion nomination to settle this, and leave it for Wikipedians to decide whether the article should be kept. Hassaan19 (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability outside of ths show in which he appears. The list of finalists article is there so we can still write about the finalists while there is no need for them to have separate articles. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. No independent notability outside of the show, per AnemoneProjectors. I42 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), and lock the redirect. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP. Unlike the other finalists in this year's X Factor, Jamie has previous form with his band Jalexis 11. Suggest keep separate entry until end of Tour and review then. halloweenbabe 23:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — halloweenbabe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wintercore[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is currently proposed for deletion with the reason "rock genre neologism. Can't find evidence that it exists". ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete looks like someone was just looking for an excuse to link a bunch of Myspace bands. Otherwise totally useless. DarkAudit (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete utter nonsense J04n(talk page) 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of internet marketing gurus[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:DIRECTORY. A list of names under the ill-defined heading of "gurus". For added good measure, the majority of them are red-links. Contested PROD. Favonian (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where should this list go? There's a well-known circuit of internet marketing speakers, and I'm trying to document it on WP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ill-defined criteria with mostly redlinks - maybe recreate at a later date if the criteria for inclusion can be properly defined and the people on the list are proven notable. noq (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm building the articles off the redlinks as I go along. I'm not done yet.Andrewjlockley (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well may I suggest you build it on reliable sources? You're missing the point of the AfD. There's no definition of why these people are gurus and no credible sources to back up your definition. For example, Theo Paphitis, while perhaps not an "internet guru", is well documented in reliable sources as being a successful businessman and someone qualified to give business advice, thus notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Contrast with the people in your list...HJMitchell You rang? 02:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above and per nom, it's an ill defined list of loosely defined "gurus" most of whom are redlinked. If this list were to be kept, it would need some kind of prose explaining why these people are notable and how they are defined as "gurus" but, in most cases, if they were notable, they wouldn't be redlinks. HJMitchell You rang? 17:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete arbitrary and dubious criteria for inclusion. Created primarily to justify existence of Armand Morin. -Drdisque (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original ((prod)) endorsement. The list is based on dubious criteria. The "cart before the horse" argument mentioned on the talk page applies: if relevant articles can be created with reliable sources (note that Armand Morin has been deleted for lack of WP:RS), and the term "guru" can be defined in such a way that isn't purely subjective, then such a list may be legitimate. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only two remaining articles, both nom for AfD. . DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even removing the word "guru" wont help, as the list criteria are simply too vague. someone who makes money talking about the internet... nope, i cant see it as a list. there MIGHT be a category lurking in this idea, but i really cant say how you would define it. the internet itself is hard to define. would you be an expert in using the net for marketing, or an expert in laying fiber optic cable, or an expert in tcp/ip implementation, etc etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the term "guru" itself is enough to raise doubts about the validity of such a list. Perhaps internet marketers (or something) would work - and that "or something" is the problem. I'm pretty much restating what's been said above, but I think this was a genuine attempt at defining something undefinable; the chances of success there are never good. SMC (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenfu Tea College[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertising. No indication of significance or notability. The college's website doesn't even appear to have an English language information page. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion G11. Dalekusa (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must take issue with the nomination rationale. Why should we expect a Chinese college to have a web page in any non-Chinese language? Should be delete articles about colleges in anglophone countries that don't have web pages in Chinese? The only bits of the artice that could be said to be promotional were the word "devoted" and the contact information, which I have removed. Here's one reliable source in English - let's see if anyone can find any more in Chinese. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was only one part of it, and the reason is that the English Wikipedia prefers English-language sources. Tenfu Tea College gets only about 1000 Google hits, and is apparently a training arm of Tenfu Tea Company (according to the article you found), which we don't have an article on. I don't see much in the way of notability so far. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The language of sources has no bearing on the suitability of a subject for an article. The preference for English language sources is part of verifiability policy which doesn't apply "where an English equivalent is not available". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's another story in English here, a different romanization turns up a few local Xiamen sources in English, and there are plenty of gnews and general google hits in Chinese. This story in particular, saying it's the first college in China to be allowed to recruit students directly from private colleges in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, suggests some wider importance in recent East Asian educational history. If all high schools are notable, this certainly is. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly an ad. The creator User:Icetea8 is a teacher/trainer at the school! (WP:CONFLICT) And 99% of Paularblaster's Chinese Google Hits are ads. According to those Chinese Information, the school is indeed founded by the company and the "students" can go to "intern" at the company and receive job placements after they "graduate." Per WP:ADVERT & WP:CONFLICT, delete. TheAsianGURU (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even with 99% of hits being advertising, there seems to me to be enough grain in amongst the chaff to justify a stub on this institution - or have I missed something about the COI policy that would override the existence of RS? (That's a serious question - I'm no policy expert; if there is I'll withdraw my "keep") --Paularblaster (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 99% of hits are advertising, that certainly suggests that the place isn't notable, and that there aren't sufficient reliable sources about it to support an article, especially given we don't have an article about the parent company. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source is a reliable source, regardless of however many unreliable sources there might be about. On a point of information, we do have an article on the parent company, at Ten Ren Tea. It's pretty major. --Paularblaster (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Paularblaster's discovery of more reliable sources. If this is "clearly an ad" then where are the invitations for students to apply to this college, or the claims that this is better than any competitor? What this "clearly" is is a factual description of the subject. What on earth does the claim that students can go to intern at the company and receive job placements after they graduate have to do with the subject's suitability for an encyclopedia article? Just putting words in scare quotes doesn't demonstrate anything. Surely all colleges, and in particular vocational colleges, help students with job placements, but how does that make them unnotable? And, just for completeness, Paularblaster is perfectly correct that it doesn't matter how many advertising sources can be found as long as enough non-advertising sources exist to pass the notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, then please explain to me since when ad hits = WP:N? Since when WP:CONFLICT can be ignored?! I standby my statement & you don't need to be an article critic here, picking out how I write my stuff. In fact, I don't care what you think. Let's hear what you say about those 2 points first. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that ad hits = WP:N. I said that we should ignore the ad hits when evaluating notability, and base our judgement on the non-advertising sources. As regards WP:CONFLICT, it is not by itself a reason for deleting articles written by people with a conflict of interest, but a reason to edit articles to ensure neutrality, as I have done with this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Willking1979 (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best of Slipknot[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Such a greatest hits album doesn't seem to exist. None of the sources provided in the article are reliable or prove existence of the album. In addition, a search for reliable sources covering the album turns up nothing. When searching for an album with the name "Best of Slipknot", the first (and most popular) thing that comes up is this book, which contains transcribed scores from the band and presumably would be less popular than an album released by the band itself. Tim meh 16:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no realiable sources that refer to the album anywhere. black ngold29 17:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blackngold29. If it existed, we'd know about it. Even if it does, it isn't official. Andre666 (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any reliable sources for this album. Gongshow ^Talk 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I, the creator, think it's also fake, after trying to find more sources. I had already made most of it, so I decided to post it and see what would have happened. So I say Delete. CrowzRSA 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've nominated it for speedy deletion under CSD#G7, since you've requested that the article be deleted. Tim meh 18:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not an easy close at any rate: the article has serious problems regarding a neutral point of view, but the discussion has bent towards fixing rather than deleting. In this case, the article will need swift and continued attention regarding the issues brought up by DGG and others, including bias and original research. Warmly, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfulfilled religious predictions[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article attempts to list failed religious predictions. At present, it is biased towards failed Christian prophecies, but that can be fixed. More importantly, there is no clear guidelines for what counts as a failed religious prediction and inclusion here seems utterly arbitrary. Moreover, even were such guidelines available, the list would be invariably incomplete and arguably arbitrary. Finally, the topic seems utterly unencyclopedic, serving no purpose aside from a one-stop page for skeptical resources regarding prophecy. There is (and should be) no page about successful religious predictions, so why have one about failures? Phiwum (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is quite an interesting subject. All those Millenarianist the end is nigh predictions in the 20th century, are certainly worth noting, for a start. Its unfortunate that its currently limited mainly to Christianity, but that's likely to be due to the English speaking world being mainly Christian, and not having much cultural knowledge of other faiths. I'm sure it will improve given time. Newman Luke (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would think a "failed end of the world predictions" article (with a better title) might be interesting, too. This isn't that article, however, and that article would not have the appearance of POV issues because it would not be limited to religious predictions. (Nor would anyone wonder why there wasn't an article about successful predictions!) So, by all means, rename this article to something like that and change the article appropriately and I'll withdraw my objections. In the meantime, my objections are about this article. Phiwum (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the article was renamed to include other religions back in July 2007 (see Talk:Unfulfilled religious predictions). Two years later, I still do not see any non-Christian entries (unless Theosophy counts) and so I'm somewhat less sure that it will improve given time. Phiwum (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy Keep Forty sources, easy keep. I'm sorry, but this seems more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me. The nominator's description of this as "a one-stop page for skeptical resources regarding prophecy" kind of sums up what an encyclopedia article should be, "a one-stop page" for resources. The objections seem to be over the name of the article (i.e., how do you define "unfulfilled"? what religions does "religious" encompass? how do you define "predictions"?) Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that it is relevant to the merits of the nomination, but I happen to enjoy the subject matter of the article, especially when it comes to contemporary televangelists. It just doesn't strike me as encyclopedic. And, no, my complaint isn't primarily about the name, but about the arbitrariness of any attempt to list failed religious predictions. It just strikes me as an unavoidably arbitrary list and moreover gives a distinct impression of bias. Why list only failed predictions? Surely, everyone must agree that some predictions have come true (by chance, say), yet we have no article for that. Do you suppose we should have such an article? (I don't.) Phiwum (talk) 21:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I think that we should have an article about specific instances where a religious leader set a date for the Second Coming, and that person's followers then relied upon the date, and then they had to figure out what to do with the rest of their lives after having given up all their worldly goods. There have been many notable instances of this over the years. Essentially, that is the only thing that this article has actually been about, and it's gone through a series of silly titles. Originally it was called Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy and then changed [5] after some debate to the somewhat more accurate Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians; then, somebody decided that it should be called Unfulfilled religious prophecies but didn't care to make it more than Second Coming predictions; and then it became Unfulfilled religious predictions. It's still essentially a list of predictions about dates and a spin out from Second Coming. When you get right down to it, that's about the only unambiguous Biblical prediction anyway, i.e., that Jesus will return. Everything else falls in the category of "this could mean..." Mandsford (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply If we pruned it down to end-of-the-world prophecies (perhaps with Second Coming prophecies) and named the article appropriately, I would be happier. If we had clear criteria for which of these end-of-the-world prophecies were notable, all the better. Contrary to your claim, the article does not restrict itself to these topics. (See the Benny Hinn entries, for example, as well as the entry under Presbyterian Church and the Kamm entry.) Phiwum (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be correctly referenced and it does not push an anti-religious POV. Expanding the article to include non-Christian faiths would provide greater depth to the subject. Warrah (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A great article in every way. Saying the article should be deleted because the "topic seems utterly unencyclopedic" is complete and utter ~~bullshi~~ balderdash! - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you agree that an article on "Failed psychic predictions" would be perfectly encyclopedic? How about "Successful religious predictions"? Shall we expand this article to include Jeane Dixon? Shall we include Oral Roberts failed predictions about the success of his hospital? If not, why not? What criteria is are suitable?

I call this topic unencyclopedic because I don't want an entry for "Failed X predictions" and "Successful X predictions" for every X and I don't see anything special about "Failed religious predictions" that justifies this subject and not others. As well, this list could never be complete — for every entry here, there must be a hundred other predictions by famous twentieth century evangelists that haven't made the cut. It's not that the list is not complete now. It never will be (unless we change the list to be about failed end-of-the-world predictions, but even then, why focus on religious end-of-the-world predictions?). Inclusion in this list is currently arbitrary and, near as I can figger, always will be. Phiwum (talk) 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article could be improved, but the suggestion that it is unencyclopedic is silly. HairyWombat (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks almost certain that the article will stay, but I must say that calling something "silly" when I've given explicit reasons for my comment is, well, silly. Phiwum (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's skewed towards Christianity because much of it was merged from another article after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians. To be honest, I'd forgotten I'd even created it. Black Kite 07:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I were about to write that the rationale "serving no purpose" is POV etc, but Mansford and Ret.Prof already said it better Power.corrupts (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Intrinsically POV, which is something I almost never say. Indiscriminate, with an assortment of well -known and obscure predictions (there are a few hundred more to choose from). As an example of the extreme bias, the section on Martin Luther is pure SYN, from a remark of his that "the day is near', which could be paralleled in almost any Christian sermon at least before the mid 19th century . The Assemblies of God section has a similarly vague remark. The Baptist section has a unsourced speculative OR judgement, about whether the specific doctrine has a biblical basis. Normally I would say, fix by editing, but frankly, I regard that so many of the sections of OR and SYN as marking the entire article as ill-conceived and essentially hopeless as the start of a decent article--which at any rate would need to be titled so as not to have the POV so apparent. A fork of Second Coming, one removed from the necessary background. User:Phiwum's approach is one way to go with it, but it essentially amounts to starting over. DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with much of what DGG says. People will get emotional about this topic. ~~I tried to make some edits and all my references were deleted.~~ It will take a lot of reading and work and tact to deal with this topic. Yet the topic is an important one to readers. It just needs to be done well. I hope this article will be Kept and good faith editors will help me write this from a NPOV. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Unfulfilled religious predictions ‎as per request from Phiwum

Keep - this article needs to be seriously reworked (probably starting by renaming it to Unfulfilled religious predictions by Christians, or something like that, as that's what it actually is), but I think the fundamental concept is acceptable as an article. I agree though that there are serious issues here with what claims to include and how to arrange them. I'd say the fairest way to present this content would be in chronological order, to avoid highlighting any particular claim by putting it first; in fact, this article could probably be greatly improved by returning it to its older form, Timeline of unfulfilled Christian prophecy. But I don't think deletion is the right answer here. Robofish (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would you be similarly happy with a page listing fulfilled religious predictions by Christians? In any case, seems to me that "unfulfilled religious predictions by Christians" is far too broad and vague for an encyclopedic article. How many predictions does the average television preacher make each year? Should they really be listed with predictions by founders of protestant movements? (Note: I am not, in principle, opposed to restricting this page to Christian prophecies. The lack of clear criteria is worse than the appearance of NPOV issues, to my mind.) Phiwum (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You make some valid points. These can be worked out by people of good faith. (Like Us) - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You say that these issues can be worked out, yet no one has offered the least response so far. No one has suggested proper criteria for inclusion in the article, no substantive changes have been made, no discussion regarding the appropriateness of unfulfilled religious predictions while "fulfilled religious predictions" and "unfulfilled psychic predictions" are inappropriate, and so on. The article has been in a very bad state for at least two years and I think that this is a symptom of a broader underlying problem, not a simple lack of attention. By all means, prove me wrong. Let's start with a discussion of why this topic is appropriate, while my other suggested topics are not. (I assume we all agree that "fulfilled religious predictions" would be an inappropriate subject for an encyclopedia article.) The discussion is on the talk page. Phiwum (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The basic concern is that the article is a little harsh on Christians. One concerned editor put it this way: "Lets face it , the only reason for this article is Anti-Christian Bigotry. All of the articles are so twisted that a third grader can find the flaws. For example, no where does Chuck Smith make a prediction of a time or date but the Christian haters at Wikipedia twist what he says to try & make him look like a kook. The same can be said of the Martin Luther part. Boy I guess you Christaphobes have nothing better to do then vomit up your anti-Christian hate. No wonder no one trusts Wikipedia anymore. It is just a mouthpiece for the loony liberal God-hating left" However this not a reason to delete the article, rather, to work on it. If this article is kept, then we will work to improve it. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)..PS - I am not part of the "loony liberal God-hating left"[reply]

Reply: Perhaps you can find the time to read what I write. That is not my basic concern at all. It is a concern, but I regard the lack of any clear criteria and the obvious impossibility of creating a complete list of (notable) unfulfilled predictions as more basic to this issue. I also regard the arbitrariness of this article as an indication that it does not belong in Wikipedia. I take for granted we don't want to get into the business of listing fulfilled prophecies, so why should we be in the business of listing failed predictions? I just see no principled distinction between the two. I do think that there's a clear probability of NPOV issues with this topic, but that is not my primary motivation in nominating it for deletion. Phiwum (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. I never suggested that you were part of any political or (anti-)religious group.[reply]

I reread your position and have come to the conclusion that it is time step back and let an Admin do his job. Best wishes from a fellow Christian - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated before... the article is intrinsically POV. Saksjn (talk) 02:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject. -- 02:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note! To all editors who think this page will improve, there's just no evidence that this will happen. I've tried to spark interest on the Religions portal and I've tried repeatedly to start a discussion on criteria. If you'll check Talk:Unfulfilled religious predictions, you'll see that no one has contributed to the discussion in any substantial manner. No one is working to change this article and I've certainly no desire to put in the work myself for an article I believe is fundamentally unsalvageable.

What you see at Unfulfilled religious predictions is apparently what you get. It ain't getting better by itself. Phiwum (talk) 13:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am working on it. After I have done enough reading and thinking, I will start editing slowly from a NPOV - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear, but you haven't shown any indication that you regard the lack of clear demarcation criteria to be an essential flaw. I hope that you pay some attention to this essential problem. (Also, I note that not a single editor has even tried to explain why fulfilled religious predictions is inappropriate while this article is appropriate. I really would like to understand this asymmetry). Phiwum (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is fulfilled religious predictions inappropriate? - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took it for granted that it was obviously inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, and so mentioned it as a reductio. Maybe other folk think that article is appropriate. We could certainly talk about that, too. Phiwum (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paulbag[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism (WP:NEO). Prod was removed. Jarkeld (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced neologism. DarkAudit (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO Crafty (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neo. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanthak[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested seconded prod. Non-notable company, sources given are unreliable. Haakon (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP. No references from third-party sources. Tevildo (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 20:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wP:BURDEN, it is up to the article authors to prove WP:GNG. If Joe Chill can't find sources, I won't either. Miami33139 (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry N. MacLean[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~Unsourced bio of non-notable author.~~ Created by an account User:Mawale that claims to be the article's subject, so apparent violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Contested prod. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Sources have now been added to the article which demonstrate notability. However, the WP:AUTO/WP:COI issues remain. WP:AUTO says "Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged, unless your writing has been approved by other editors in the community". Outside of this AfD, I see no evidence that this approval has been either sought or given. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming that you believe this editor to have a conflict of interest because a biography of Harry N. MacLean initially appeared at User:Mawale, and because of the focus of the user's contributions. I wouldn't call these a smoking gun (I've often seen editors create draft articles on their user pages), but I have added a note to User talk:Mawale explaining our conflict of interest policy (with which I wouldn't expect a new user like this one to be necessarily familiar). COI and AUTO, of course, don't set out grounds for deletion in their own right. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Obviously I may have overlooked a more overt claim by Mawale to be MacLean; please correct me if so. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I read the originator's user page before it was blanked as a statement that they are Harry N. MacLean, not as a draft article. But I seem to be in a minority on that. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close, courtesy blank. Subject won an Edgar Award for a book-length work [6] and is obviously notable per WP:ANYBIO and WP:AUTHOR. And if one book wasn't enough, a second book was listed as "notable" by the NYTimes [7]. The search links above produce more than enough results to demonstrate unquestionable notability. This should be closed and courtesy blanked ASAP. That the article was created by its subject shouldn't be ignored, but the subject is clearly notable and the text is not spammy in nature. There was absolutely no reason not to treat the editor as a good faith contributor and provide guidance to him. The sockpuppet claims are pretty much empty, since he appears to have abandoned the original account before doing significant editing under the second one, and abandoning "real name" accounts is hardly unusual here. I'm tempted to close and blank this myself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – The author’s books are the definitive nonfiction source material for sensational crime cases Ken McElroy and James Ford Seale. His book In Broad Daylight was made into a television movie. This nomination occurred after I asked the Help Desk to enforce the rule that speedy deletion prods can’t be reinstated after they have been contested. My intention was to rescue the article but the nomination occurred shortly after I made the request about the prod. I totally agree that it would have been much better if the author was not writing about himself (if in fact that’s the case – we don’t know 100% for sure – I have sent an email. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged for good reason but it is not grounds for deletion if the subject is in fact notable. And yes the articles in question need a lot of work but these debates are about whether the subject is notable and not about whether the article is any good. Americasroof (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete [lengthy personal attack redacted per WP:BLP] over WP:AUTO and WP:COI issues (paraphrase) -Tracer9999 (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep: Autobios are not per se deletable and this article, even if edited by the subject, does not seem overly non-neutral to me. Needs clean up, but that's not a reason to delete. – ukexpat (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree w Hullaballoo Power.corrupts (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: not to pile on, but these references in academic books to MacLean's work ([8], [9], [10], [11]) and these reviews of his work in prominent national newspapers (New York Times, L.A. Times, Chicago Sun-Times (with an author interview), Denver Post (on the movie adaptation), and NYT again, verifying the Edgar Award) demonstrate for me that the author amply meets the general notability requirement for substantial reliable source coverage and the specific WP:AUTHOR requirements for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Gonzonoir (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject clearly meets notability guidelines for authors. Edward321 (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Anthony.bradbury. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George King (Abercrombie)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A single purpose editor "Anfmodeling" has repeatedly removed speedy tags for this article, so I'm now bringing it for AFD and/or a speedy deletion and salt. IMHO, it qualifies as an A7 speedy -- Article has no references, and it appears this is pretty clearly a COI creation by the subject himself or his representative.

~~Speedy (A7)~~ Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Addendum - Said contributor has now attempted to blank this AFD. Additionally, the subject of this article has apparently also created an account and is trying to remove AFD templates from the article after warnings to C&D. Blocks may also be in order.
  - Note: I've blocked User:Anfmodeling indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts, and blocked User:Ge0rgeking94 for 48 hours for repeatedly removing AfD templates. The article does vaguely assert some significance so I haven't A7ed it at this time but it's pretty borderline at best.~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Being a model for a notable brand doesn't make one notable unless the model themself has received significant coverage. ~ mazca ^talk 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. This article is almost more about the brand as it is the model. Neither has a place here. DarkAudit (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Lynch[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted by PROD, although has recently been recreated. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant coverage in the media. --Jimbo^[online] 14:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 14:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate when and if any of these two concerns are met in the future. Giant Snowman 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although (I believe) Chester are a professional side, they play in a non-fully professional league (due to the presence of teams like Histon and Hayes & Yeading), so fails Wp:ATHLETE. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7 by Anthony.bradbury. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbaz music videos[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Not clear how this company meets notability guidelines, lacks any references RadioFan (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Web search only yields a YouTube hit. This one seems unrelated. Nothing on news search. Favonian (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I got the same result as Favonian. Joe Chill (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG
Speedy delete. The article itself says the company was just started. It easily meets WP:CSD A7 and I've just nominated it for speedy deletion. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just declined the speedy - as a contested PROD the article is not eligible for WP:CSD. Nancy^talk 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any basis in the guidelines for this reasoning, so I'm treating it as a mistake of procedure and I restored the CSD, with an explanation. Please let me know if there's a basis in the guidelines for not permitting speedy deletion because someone else happens to have posted a PROD (perhaps not realizing the a speedy would have been applicable) and then the page's author didn't like the fact that a PROD had been posted and removed it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something Made Up at Work One Day. A lot of claims, but no sources to back them up. It looks like someone is trying to use Wikipedia to become notable. It doesn't work that way. Become notable first, then come back here. DarkAudit (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Vokes[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD, no reason given. Youth team player who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play at a fully professional level. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 13:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He hasn't passed Wp:ATHLETE, and doesn't get notability by having a notable brother. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate when and if any of these two concerns are met in the future. Giant Snowman 17:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and tbh seems like a self written piece. Mkdw ^talk 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Although there is some local media coverage of him, I don't think he quite meets WP:GNG. PDCook (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1985 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard enough to defend national network schedules, but a list of what was on TV in Brisbane, Queensland, in 1985? I could probably make a very accurate list of what was on TV in Chicago at any particular time in history (example, 1776-- nothing!) but to what end? Sorry, no. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1959 Brisbane network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't imagine having individual articles for what was on TV in any given city in the world in any given year. I had some favorite shows that were on television in Bogotá, Colombia during the 1971-72 season, but I wouldn't want a Wikipedia article about the schedule for that time and place. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom and WP:WINAD JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G4. Article initially took from Howard Moss (musician) before itself deleted. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Moss (singer)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously speedy deleted, article deleted as Howard Moss (musician) per AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Moss (musician) and per CSD at:

19:56, 21 November 2009 Black Kite (talk | contribs) deleted "Howard Moss (singer)" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Not a G4 (that needs an AfD) but doesn't assert notability)
16:53, 18 November 2009 Secret (talk | contribs) deleted "Howard Moss (singer)" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.showcasecork.com/howardmoss.htm)
16:45, 16 February 2008 SchuminWeb (talk | contribs) deleted "Howard Moss (singer)" ‎ (Speedy deleted per (CSD A7), was an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. using TW)

The author(s) User:Frankintin and User:Frank observer appear to be the same person. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I messed this up. It is the talk page Talk:Howard Moss (singer) that needs deleting. I will contact the most recent deleting admin - sorry. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G8. Talk page of deleted article. Appropriate tag added. This AfD should be closed, I think. Tevildo (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes please close. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny Randomnes (comic series)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable comic, no references. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 12:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nom. No assertion of notability, but A7 and A9 don't apply to comic strips. Tevildo (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. No proof that this or the "DAE Company" is anything more than Something Made Up In School One Day. DarkAudit (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above. I can find no sources for the comic or the company. Gongshow ^Talk 18:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - A google test came back with very little. This appears to lack any argument with in WP:N. Mkdw ^talk 22:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, per Mkdw-Reconsider the static (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to promote your unpublished comic. Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drowned In Blood (Band)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all of WP:Music, they do claim to have one album on the Elektra Records label ( not confirmed ), which still fails 5. Most searched brought up a Mexican band. Pirate^Argh!!1! 12:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find anything at all on this band bar the usual fansite mentions - not even anything significant there.--Michig (talk) 15:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any reliable sources which cover this band; appears to fail WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bochon[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All searches only found this page or mirrors. Pirate^Argh!!1! 12:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is found twice on the French Wikipedia, once used as a source via his essay, once his blog is used as a source. He himself does not have an entry on the French Wikipedia. His essay probably has not been translated into English ( as the title contains a type ), searching for its French title I still didn't find anything new. Pirate^Argh!!1! 12:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. fails WP:AUTHOR, nothing notable found anywhere.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ClubOranje (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO. No evidence of significant coverage; Google search finds very few results other than Wikipedia pages, and verifies that his essay was published but no other information. snigbrook (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obi Tenaka[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable singer or actor. No significant coverage to be found. Cited references are either blogs or primary sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I live in Japan. I have seen this person multiple times on TV. he is a tarento according

to his TV Bio. Have you checked Japanese Websites also? person. TBS TV — TBS TV (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment This is the "he's notable because I know he's notable" argument. Verify it with references. If TBS TV (talk · contribs) can provide any on Japanese websites, that would be welcome. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Right now there is no indication of notability. I feel like there is some potential here, but unless the Japanese refs (or more refs from anywhere really) can be provided, delete. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FLV Video Downloader[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Non-notable software product; I could not find any significant independent coverage. Links given in the article are to trivial download pages. Haakon (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - First of all there is a reference to at least 1 independent review - [12]. Secondly, it is published on numerous download websites, just as half of all software product articles. For instance, I could not find any independent reviews for any of these: VideoGet, Net Transport, ReGet, Orbit Downloader, NetAnts. In fact some of these articles' only refernces are to simple download pages. If that is any standard, then there could be easily tens of references to FLV Video Downloader. IF this article is to be deleted, then all others that are similar should be deleted as well - that's nearly half of all software stubs on Wikipedia, and I think it's just plain wrong.--George (talk) 12:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — George585 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- "At least 1" in this case means "exactly one", and the source is not significant. Also note that other stuff may exist. Haakon (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, that one source will review anything for a fee, which fails the "independent" critera. Haakon (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's another independent review of this (1st version in this case): Review on Software Informer. Though I doubt that all reviews at FreeDwonloadsCenter are paid, as you imply.--George (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is just yet another download page with a small review attached by it. It's not significant coverage. As for FreeDownloadsCenter, we know that they give reviews for a fee, and while that may or may not have been done in this case, this makes them unreliable as a source. Haakon (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I could not find anything wrong with it as per notability guideline. Also, why does review need to be large as you imply? If the software does exactly one or two things and a review explains it, what else can it address? Dive into how the software is programmed? Also, these are general notability guideliness. Are the software notability guidelines? Also, what should be done then about the other articles I mentioned, provided this gets deleted? --George (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It fails the general notability guidelines because there is no significant coverage by reliable independent sources. Reviews don't have to be long, but they have to come from a source that fulfulls the general notability guidelines. There are no guidelines specifically for software that I know of. I think somebody should nominate the articles you listed for deletion; I agree that those products are not notable. I don't have time to do all that myself, unfortunately. Again, other stuff exists. Haakon (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry about the other articles, they will be reviewed eventually. LoudHowie (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 13:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A download site is not independent. A site that whores itself out to do a review even less so. DarkAudit (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete freedownloadcenter.com is not an RS. Miami33139 (talk) 05:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Download websites are not a notable source. Can't find significant coverage. LoudHowie (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Coulson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable sources for this person. All the google references seem to be about various Internet based "get rich quick" schemes. Lots of advertising but nothing independent. noq (talk) 11:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article includes references to Sun (newspaper) and the New Musical Express.Andrewjlockley (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the Sun link is a passing reference to Coolplay appearing at Glastonbudget - not substantial. The NME link is not even clear that it is the same band - I don't think Coldplay did anything about Malaysian independence fighters. noq (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability as an internet entrepreneur; appears to be part of WP:COATRACK which also contains now-deleted articles on the non-notable band Coolplay and fellow entrepreneur Armand Morin. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not any more notable than any other part of the "internet guru" coatrack/walled garden -Drdisque (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate evidence of notability. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not reliable sources, unless he's this guy: jailed for attack on Lincolnshire taxi driver or works for Avery Dennison Josh Parris 04:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finball[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page itself directly admits that it is a violation of WP:NFT, as something some university kids made up a month before the "article" appeared. Violates WP:COI - the majority editors are clearly the students/competitors themselves, as the bulk of the edits by most of them are them adding their own names as new "champions". Violates WP:V and WP:RS, in that it not only cites no sources, there appear to be none in existence (exhaustive Google searches on things like "Finball pool -Wikipedia" and "Finball billiard -Wikipedia" find nothing relevant). Violates WP:NOT in a couple of ways, as the page is being used as a promotional web page for the new game, and the flurry of personal updates means the page is essentially being used as something akin to a blog and a clique message board by a group of friends. In short, this isn't any different from any other entry that WP:CUE has added to our list of previously deleted bogus cue sports articles, the re-creation of which we keep an eye out for. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a WP:NFT violation. No reliable sources seem to exist to establish notability. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Something Made Up in School One Day. DarkAudit (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NFT. Bored uni students make up games all the time, I'm sure they'll be bored of it by Christmas and nobody will ever hear of it again. Remind me to tell you some time about the cricket variant that my flatmates and I invented when I was a first year student, which we were dead keen on for about a week...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear example of the "not something your friends thought up one day" part of WP:NOT. SMC (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Batch Image Processor[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Many download sites list the program along with the standard manufacturer product description, but the only possibly valid source so far provided is a less than objective rehash of the standard description from freedownloadscenter.com -- a site that will review anything for a fee. I have not been able to source any other independent mention of the program, as would be required by WP:GNG. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly non-notable and author seems to be a SPA. Haakon (talk) 11:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is listed on numerous download websites (which is an apparent criteria for inclusion of at least half of all software stubs at Wikipedia): [13], [14], [15], [16], etc.; received numerous awards and independent reviews: [17], [18]. If you do believe that I am spamming, please include specific examples as to how I am breaking Wikipedia's policy.--George (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — George585 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The sources you list are all examples of the kind of sites pointed out by User:Electrified Fooling Machine as not valid. Please see the notability guidelines of Wikipedia. Haakon (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As you should be aware of, from the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biorhythms Calculator, being "listed on numerous download websites" is in itself irrelevant. The first "review" you list is the one I commented on in my deletion rationale. The second one you provide is not a review at all: it's a blog post containing the description copied from the manufactures website. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment First of all how do you know that the review from FreeDownloadsCenter is a paid and thus unacceptable review? Secondly, the additional review I provided is not from a blog post but from a photo news website. And how do you know whether that post is manufacturer's description or not? These are just your guesses, in my opinion, that have little to do with the facts and specific guidelines, to which you are referring. As far as I see, both of these sources match the guidelines.--George (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We know that FreeDownloadsCenter gives reviews for a fee, and while that may or may not have been done in this case, this makes them unreliable as a source. Secondly, asserting that [19] is a verbatim copy of [20] is not a guess; it's a repeatable observation that anyone can make. Haakon (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry about #2 then - I should have checked the website first. --George (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Observation confirmed Photo News Today is not a reliable source. They just take info from vendors and repeat them on the blog. Not independent by any means. DarkAudit (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really?!? An argument that freedownloadcenter.com is an acceptable source? Really. Miami33139 (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret ^account 16:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imager technologies[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, WP:Conflict of interest, borderline WP:SPAM. Previous proposed deletion contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is promotional and there is no indication of notability. Haakon (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unnotable company (with 1 employee. . .) Galloping Moses (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am reminded of an old saying about too many chiefs and not enough Indians... I know that modern technology replaces many workers, but only having one employee is a bit too far for notability. Peridon (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7. No sources. No credible assertion of notability. Based on it's founding of just three weeks ago, I doubt it's had the time to become notable. DarkAudit (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Butler (surgeon)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not particularly notable figure within my field Droliver (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Per this search. He is definitely notable. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since every article for over 15 pages is about him, I wonder if the nominator searched for sources. Joe Chill (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill, this one looks worthwhile for retention. JBsupreme (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor of Plastic Surgery at UCL. Certainly adequate references. Seems a clearly major figure in his field. I'll just remark that our standard is "notable" not "particularly notable", so there is actually no valid reason given for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

replyGoogle hits on a news story about face transplants does not = notability in the field. There is no particularly significant contribution in plastic surgery to Dr. Butler's name and you could find thousands of such nodescript surgeons in academic appointments all over the world. For a surgeon to be wiki-fied for academic achievemnt, IMO they should really be recognized as one of the outstanding figures of the generation. Droliver (talk) 07:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hits does not confer notability. As mentioned above, those hits might not refer to the article in question. --Jimbo^[online] 10:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Santibanez-Gallerani[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely non notable figure in my field. This is a vanity bio for PR Droliver (talk) 08:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I see 13 articles in peer-reviewed journals, which is not that much, but not negligible. Very spammy, but i removed some of it. I ask the nom, what criteria is he using to evaluate? Perhaps he can help us judge more accurately. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, wikification of surgeons should be reserved for truly outstanding figures in the field rather then part of someone's marketing campaign (as this entry is clearly aimed at Google searches). Keep in mind that this MD has been in practice 3 YEARS and the references are mostly journal filler done during this person's medical school and residency years.Droliver (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to findings of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 by Anthony.bradbury. Non-admin closure. Tevildo (talk) 16:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See salt[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed prod. Advert masquerading as an article about salt with a black additive. See salt appears to be the brand name of a non-notable product. Nancy ^talk 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - product not notable. Crafty (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with aboveDroliver (talk) 08:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like an advert. The idea seems feeble. The concept, rather than the product, might merit a mention on a disability aids article. No evidence of need ore effectiveness.--Brunnian (talk) 09:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an advertisement. And at least I can see normal white salt perfectly well. JIP | Talk 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advert, the sole reference cited points to a website registered to an email of globalblue1@xxxx.com, which matches the username of the article's creator, according to WHOIS. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 14:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as spam. DarkAudit (talk) 16:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per CSD G11 by User:RHaworth. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 05:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pur3x[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This non-notable energy drink company has received no coverage in reliable sources. Additionally the only contributor may have a conflict of interest (see a post by "goextreme" to this site), and has been warned repeatedly for advertising on Wikipedia. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN MLM spam. Ronabop (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the above reasons. Haakon (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as spam. DarkAudit (talk) 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under criterion G11. Dalekusa (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable image wiki. The article appears to be written by the creator of the site (who also removed a prod tag placed by another editor). While there are some citations used to claim notability, none of them appear to come from reliable sources (all blogs and the like). I couldn't turn up any other sourcing that would suggest that this appears to pass the notability standard for websites. Bfigura ^(talk) 06:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defer - I'd give it a year or so to see how it gets on. Removing references to something that might be seen as a competitor could be controversial if it later turns out to have achieved some weight. Lets have a bit of goodwill. The links to media announcements make sense at an early stage.--Brunnian (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom... in reply to Brunnian: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball... we should not keep an article based on the potential of future notability - we cover subjects that have already become notable. An article on this website can always be (re)created if and when notability can be established through reference to reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence this passes WP:WEB Triplestop x3 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucid Chart[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I see no notability here at all for this product. The blogs given as a reference are hardly enough, and a close look reveals that there is less than meets the eye: 1. appears to be submitted by the company, and it comes via the blog in 5. Both are brief mentions. 2. also comes via 5., and is brief. 3. merely lists what the company has on its website. 4. is just as brief. In short, the product is not notable and I propose that we delete it. Drmies (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:CORP. Steven Walling 04:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment user:Blue.eyed.girly appears to have been adding links to this article from quite a range of wikipedia articles.©Geni 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's how I got to this one. Thanks--feel like cleaning them up? Drmies (talk) 04:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:WEB. Article is likely spam for the website. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn (non-admin closure)

AfDs for this article:

PBS idents[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

~~tagged with original research, missing footnotes, and tone issues for years. Unencyclopedic.~~ RadioFan (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article has not been significantly improved since last AFD, issues still exists RadioFan (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SOFIXIT. We don't delete articles merely because you are not willing to do the work. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The history of a logo is most certainly encyclopedic, and many of the subsections have links directly to the topics. The article on the Public Broadcasting Service simply cannot contain this discussion. Hundreds, if not thousands of reliable sources supporting this information can be found, including Google News. This is not original research in any way, and I suggest the nominator familiarize himself with how WP:NOR is defined. There is no idea, theory, or agenda being promoted here, but rather a list of logos used by PBS, easily verified and described. I'm sure the article can be cleaned up and sourced, but it requires editors willing to do the work. The original version of the article was based on TVARK (www.tv-ark.org.uk) a classic TV website which continues to get favorable reviews in the press.[21],[22], [23] Granted, this website alone isn't good enough for our purposes, but the links to the Google news sources above and other books and PBS documents can be found to support this information. If there is anything outlandish or unusual in this article, I don't see it, but the dates definitely need to be checked for accuracy. Previous two nominations resulted in snow keeps. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with Viriditas on this one. Drmies (talk) 04:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The level of detail in the article seems excessive, but on balance, keep. Newt ^(winkle) 07:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NOTPAPER, and tagged with improvement templates is not grounds for deletion. Ronabop (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn there seems to be strong feelings that this article should be kept. Instead of continuing this discussion, let's focus on improving it, especially with the references above. I'll leave it for a few days. Anything left unreferenced after that can be removed from the article which will resolve the concerns about excessive length and details in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Earth[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Online game with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 03:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 03:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm Army001 the author of the article “Army of Earth” proposed to delete and I'm fully agree with those who proposed this article for deletion, but on the other hand, I can say the following: although maybe this game is not well known, it has over 500 registered players and some elements of originality, I play this game for several months and without being accused of partiality I can say that this game has something special, fact which encouraged me to write this article among the other dozens of articles on computer games. I am very sorry and I apologize if I'm wrong. Thank you for your time and if you think this article should not exist on Wikipedia there is no problem, otherwise I will ask for help to improve this article to meet at least a minimum of requirements for a good Wikipedia article.

Best wishes, Army001
Army001 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Speedy G7. Army001, thanks for your comments. In order for your article to be acceptable, you need to show that "Army of Earth" passes WP:WEB - it must have had substantial coverage (such as a review) in reliable third-party sources. If it's successful, then I'm sure it'll get some reviews (they don't have to be _good_ reviews, just reviews that mention it - see Evony), and you can re-create the article then. However, it doesn't have such coverage now. If you agree that the article should be deleted as it stands, you should add the G7 tag ((db-author)) to the article, so that the process can be completed now. Tevildo (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robkaay[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSIC. having difficulty finding any reliable third party coverage of this artist [24]. google search mainly reveals directory listings. LibStar (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a very spammy autobio but he was a member of both Full Scale and Sunk Loto [25]. The latter was in the bands last year ~sep06 to ~may07, after the height of their fame. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Fails WP:MUSIC. Not a bad article, but about a musician of limited success. Ronabop (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Priest[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Future album for a band that looks like it might fail WP:MUSIC. Ronabop (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No confirmed title, release date, or track listing. There's not enough "sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release" at this time to warrant a separate article. Gongshow ^Talk 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Gongshow's argument above. But I only see a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The band itself seems to have some notability, which can be improved if someone adds supported references to their article. Someone has already added the appropriate tag over there. In the meantime, there is not enough information on this "upcoming" album to merit a separate article. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Vidrine[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One event Cynof Gavuf 12:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except there's two events... his involvement in the corruption allegations and his public murder. Weak keep - BalthCat (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BalthCat is right. There are two events here, and notability can be established the usual way. This source, specifically, convinces me that an article on the subject is appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every murder is notable. There are insufficient references and this is definitely not an encyclopedia article. Newt ^(winkle) 07:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Christ the King[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost all references listed for this article right now lead to their website with four of them repeating the same link. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - First, the article needs reliable sources that are independent of the subject to establish notability. I can find none on this particular Church. Second, if such sources do exist and can be provided, we would need to disambiguate (a google search shows multiple churches with this name... in multiple denominations. After a quick scan of the hits, some of them seem far more notable than this one.) Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with comments - When I was researching List of places of worship in Brighton and Hove, for which I used a wide range of online and offline sources, I could find no independent sources about CCK. It was one of the very few in that list for which I had to cite the church's own website. The church wasn't established very long ago, and I don't think notability has been established at the moment. (I should add that a new, updated edition of Carder's Encyclopaedia of Brighton and Hove—the best starting point for research on anything to do with the city—will be published next year, replacing the 20-year-old first edition. If it contains substantial info on CCK, a properly referenced new version of this article could perhaps be kept.) Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 18:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no WP:RS can be found. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I oppose deletion. the article do meet the notability criteria. enough references are available on google....... please consider changing the template to ((improve)) and ((wikify))...

name change is inevitable as many churches are called Church of Christ the King. It should be renamed to Church of Christ the King, Brighton. Prince Waters (talk page) 17:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looking at the google search pointed to, once you get beyond the Church's own website and the Wikipedia article, you quickly get into on-line directaries with little more than a passing reference, non-reliable sources and references to other Churches by the same name. If anything, the google search supports the idea that this church isn't notable. Blueboar (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 09:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FuzzFind[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website ranking >600000 in Alexa. References are not significant. Haakon (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, looks more like cheap advertising. I would agree with the statement of low Alexa rankings, but as a webmaster myself, Most web rankings are meaningless as they are inaccurate most of the time. I have several sites that have more traffic than sites ranking higher on Alexa. I can also show sites ranking on Alexa that haven't been online in many months. Don't go by rankings! Alan - talk 05:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not edit the article instead of deleting it? There are so many other search engines in the List of search engines that have similar entries.Lildev (talk) 15:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable meta search engine with no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Existing sources do not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spazzles[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a disambiguation page, but with no valid entries – Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a directory. snigbrook (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now. The hat accessory might stand a chance of passing WP:CORP - see [26] this reference, for example (not that I know what a "glick" is - we don't have an article, but it's presumably something similar). They're also well-represented in on-line advertizing (not a guarantee of notability, of course). I would give the article some time to develop before deleting it - on the assumption it's going to be about the hat accessory, of course. Tevildo (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do I smell a newt? Tevildo (talk) 15:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt it – the same user also created an apparently autobiographical page (now deleted); there is also the fact that the dictionary definition was included in the page – WP:NEWT participants often create poorly written pages, but the content they create is encyclopedic (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and is (usually) able to meet the relevant notability guidelines. snigbrook (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. I've expanded the article to include some information about the company - however, I'm not altering my opinion at the moment. Tevildo (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Apparently the author had quite a coi in this matter: [27]. Google hits for the company are fairly low too, no significant non-promotional entries out of only about 700 hits for "spazzles hat" at all. De728631 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good point. "Catspaw" seems remarkably appropriate at the moment. :) However, I'll leave my opinion at Neutral, such a level of cunning deserves a fighting chance. Tevildo (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possible hoax, or at the least, cheap advertising Alan - talk 05:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient sources to show notability of the product. No prejudice against recreation if the product later becomes notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus sonce the recent relist has only become clearer. Kevin (talk) 23:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Morin[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article, along with article List of internet marketing gurus created by WP:SPA to promote Morin as an "internet guru". No neutral third party sources establishing notability. Drdisque (talk) 22:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional. Keep pending rewrite with third party sources, per Phil Bridger's excellent point below. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability can be established from reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the article creator is not a WP:SPA, there is no indication of notability. noq (talk) 00:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable Alan - talk 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending improvment Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still building it, please don't rush to delete. More material will be going up in a few days. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Moved to correct position. Tim Song (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did any of the delete !voters look at the Google Books search results helpfully linked at the top of this discussion, which include sources such as [28][29][30][31][32][33] amongst the first 40 or so hits? Let's not let personal distaste for the field in which the subject operates get in the way of judgements of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please add to the discussion page ideas about how to best introduce such sources into the article? Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to alter my recommendation if someone can be more explicit in indicating how the subject is mentioned in these books... it is hard to tell whether these are merely cursory mentions of who he is, interviews with him, etc., versus substantial content about his actual notability as an internet marketer. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is follow the links that I provided above to see how the subject is mentioned in these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the links, of course, but I am still unsure. Some appear to be cursory mentions in that he is an example of the field as a whole (without qualifying his "greatness" explicitly), how others have approached marketing in ways similar to him and others in the field, and some appear to be interviews. None of these seem to actually be secondary sources about him or his marketing methods, per se, so I am still somewhat skeptical. Granted, the problem may be that Google Books isn't letting me see the entirety of the text which talks about him, so I'm going by what I can see in the books' previews. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: I've relisted this debate to generate more discussion about the depth of coverage in the sources provided by Phil Bridger (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Sourced mostly to personal website equals non-notable. Phil Bridger's sources either 404 (for me) or inconsequential. Newt ^(winkle) 07:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I recognize that this man may be a successful entrepreneur and has talked about his experiences, but all in all he still fails WP:BIO in every criteria. None of these books are even truly written about him other than reference in a long list of names. Mkdw ^talk 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resoa[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Software that appears to be non-notable, unable to find reliable sources to verify notability. Frmatt (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to find any reliable sources to assert notability, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in third-party sources. Unable to locate any evidence to suggest WP:IAR should be applied to this case. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Toby Ross. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Father Knows... (film)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 04:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google News Archive search for the title, combined with either the director's name or the star's name, turned up nothing as far as I could tell. (The title itself is too common a phrase to search on its own.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to director's article; deletion is not needed here. I'm open to WP:Heymann clean-up keep although for porn films that seems less likely. -- Banjeboi 22:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per Ban.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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