< 24 September 26 September >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Userfy. Moved to User:KrebMarkt/Bitter Virgin (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Virgin[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N; no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "I believe it is notable. Discuss in an AFD if you wish" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Prior to the apparent undiscussed blanking of the page and subsequent nomination for speedy deletion and double nomination for AfD the content here was a redirect. As the blanker was not the original author, and there was no discussion anywhere that I can find, I am restoring the redirect and sending this to RFD on the nominator's behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rsd[edit]

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

nonsense Afaprof01 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Can be restored if somebody wants to write an article about the Associação de Professores de Matemática.  Sandstein  05:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProfMat[edit]

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

I can't find signifciant coverage for this term. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overstat[edit]

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

NN software, previous version of article nommed for speedy by me as blatant advertising. Sole sourcing is to some blog, total of three Google hits, one to the blog and two to the company website. →ROUX ₪ 21:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenJot[edit]

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

Ambiguous spam, could be spam, but doesn't meet G11. Only ghits are download sites. Ipatrol (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The sourcing used to establish notability has been challenged, and editors favouring retention of the article were not convincing in their defence.  Skomorokh, barbarian  06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Prayer Network[edit]

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

Non notable organisation, article appears to have been created as a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD [[1]] Pontificalibus (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's reliably sourced. The "old" Ted Pike article which you mentioned was deleted in 2007, so it doesn't make sense to invoke that discussion anyway. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember Wikipedia: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. This page is less than a day old and I am currently in the process of finding other reliably sourced information to add to it. I don't think the NPN can be described as non-notable, either. It's at least as notable as Michael Collins Piper, who is considered notable enough to have his own article (and, incidentally, has ties to the NPN).
Finally, just because an article (or a closely related article such as Ted Pike has been previously deleted as non-notable doesn't mean it isn't notable. The previous deletion very well could have been made in error; another possibility is that the original incarnation of the article simply didn't provide enough explanation why the subject was notable.
I'd also like to comment on the user who posted on [[2]] that "Wikipedia is not Klanwatch". That may be true, but you could also say that Wikipedia is not FishBase; despite this we still have one-sentence articles on obscure topics like Chromis limbaughi, so I'd say this article is on pretty safe ground, in terms of notability. I'm currently in the process of finding more information on Harmony Grant and the organization in general; I admit that this article right now is mostly about Ted Pike but I plan to expand it in the near future. It's not just "a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD", as you said. Remember to assume good faith, please. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I rewrote the article to remove the emphasis on Pike. ttonyb (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has the Anti-Defamation League been a "non-RS"? It's a widely respected organization that has been around for nearly a century and specializes in the study of anti-Semitism-related topics; as such, it's one of the best sources possible for an article like this. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sources? You'd argue to keep an article on the strands of dog fur gumming up my keyboard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
come on, TPH, start looking at what I do . I say delete here about 30% of the time, not 1% of the time like some other editors you may have in mind. And that's only because I don't bother with the clearly obviously deletes, which make up half the workload here. My general view is that of the articles that come here, most should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said there were more, and there are: just from GNews (search on the term without limiting to oregon, and then sort out the ones that are actually about this network. it's more tedious, but otherwise things get missed.) Atlanta J & Constitution (a major regional newspaper); 2 articles in al-Jazeera, an international RS which is not likely to share the bias of the ADL [3], [4]. I agree about the ADL's bias, but they wouldn't be devoting this much space to it if it were truly trivial. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said, one is good (the Atlanta paper), one is an editorial (the al-Jazeera one that has both opinion & editorial in the URL), while the last one didn't show up when limiting it to sources that mention Oregon. But, that one too is an opinion piece as it says at the top. And yes al-Jazeera doesn't share the ADL bias, in fact it is often considered to have the opposite bias (which in many ways is represented in the second opinion piece), see an example of their political cartoons from the ADL. So, like I said one good source from Atlanta, one from Portland, = not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
even biased sources show notability, especially when they come from sources on different ends of the spectrum. Opinion pieces about an organization in major sources show notability, though they are not necessarily reliable for facts. There's enough here for an article. I wish they didn't exist. I wish at least they weren't notable. But that doesn't affect their actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care one way or the other if they exist, I only care about the notability guidleines, which say independent, reliable sources, thus unless they are a reliable source, they actually do not count. Here, as opinion pieces, they cannot be considered reliable sources on the subjects, as opinion pieces can only be used on articles about themselves. So, again, doesn't meet the criteria at this time. Maybe if they issue some press releases a paper or two will pick up the story, but until then, no dice. User:Aboutmovies 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandviken (municipality)[edit]

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

Sandviken has never been a municipality. Not mentioned here (a statistic on all current and historic municipalities in the region) nor here (a paper on all municipality mergers). I believe it was a part of Bergen landdistrikt. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge Angel[edit]

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

Procedural nom for IP editor. Rationale: Unreferenced neologism, prod removed by article creator without address the problems. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC). My opinion is below. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story[edit]

I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Carosello). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geri X[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EcoDater[edit]

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

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is questionable. It looks more like an advertisement to attract more members. I think that having ONLY 500 members and 50 new members per week is not enough to have an article on Wikipedia compared to the other dating websites where there are millions of members List of online dating websites. It is just one of the many many normal dating sites in the world. Nothing indicates that it is notable and that it can distinguish themselves from the other normal dating sites except being eco-friendly, which is not enough. Also, the references provided are mostly news releases. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entry for EcoDater. I am a blogger with a focus in the online dating industry. EcoDater is a dating site that represents a massive demographic in the eco-friendly/green dating segment. Viewing the list of other dating sites listed on Wikipedia and represented in the List of online dating websites, it is clear that traffic and number of members are not necessarily valid criteria for exclusion from Wikipedia without considering other factors. Note that SprayDate, ShakeMyWorld, and Compatible Partners are far down both Alexa's rankings and number of total members compared to the big dating sites, yet deserve an entry due to their specific associated demographics and/or otherwise notable features. EcoDater is the fastest growing online dating website for the sizable eco-friendly demographic and there is plenty of non-press release third-party content available to cite and support its relevance (which I am pleased to apply in editing the entry if so needed). Its blog and social networking tools also differentiate it from the hundreds of other non-segment-specific dating websites. Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you without equivocation that I am not a paid advocate for EcoDater, or paid in any other role by EcoDater or by any other dating site. I am well aware of the obvious conflict in producing an entry for Wikipedia were I accepting payment and am confident no information exists to prove otherwise. I advocate on behalf of sites that I believe present value to the online dating community without ever expecting or receiving any kind of compensation. The eco-friendly/green demographic of the online dating community has been under-served and neglected; my motivation in writing the Wikipedia entry was to enhance awareness of a service that many online daters would welcome. Here are two examples of several I found during searches that review EcoDater from an unbiased and original perspective: http://www.blisstree.com/articles/green-dating-find-your-eco-soul-mate/, http://ecohearth.com/eco-zine/social-and-connections/901-finding-eco-love-a-survey-of-the-top-green-dating-sites.html.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy is forbidden on Wikipedia, paid or not. Fences&Windows 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The style and content of the entry are not intended to advocate the website and I am surprised that it comes across to you in this way. My motivation in writing it could be conceived as advocacy in the same way that someone with an affinity and interest in rock climbing writes an entry on carabiners - this is advocacy in the sense of promoting and disseminating knowledge for the benefit of the public, and inherently informed by an underlying interest or passion. I don't believe that this is a concept discouraged by the tenets that govern Wikipedia entries, but if the EcoDater entry is deemed to be irrelevant and/or inappropriate at this time, I accept this judgment and won't comment further.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I also just started working with a new dating site for eco-friendly singles called EcoDater. There is a small group of us working to build it up." Fences&Windows 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was affiliated with EcoDater when it started and strictly on a volunteer contributory basis - an acquaintance of mine started the site and asked me for some content due to my writing skills and my interest in the green movement and online dating. I complied, believing in the concept and hoping for its success in benefiting both the green and online dating communities of which I belong. I don't see how this should necessarily preclude a neutral, compliant, third-party-referenced Wikipedia entry on an organization that is unlike almost any other with an online presence and is extremely relevant to both the green and online dating communities, neither of which are small in number. Regardless, if both the entry and my justifications for it are ultimately deemed unacceptable, I do not have a problem supporting the entry's removal and hope that it may be reentered at some later date under more appropriate circumstances, whatever they may be.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particle Programmatica[edit]

Particle Programmatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" comments mostly fail to address the sourcing requirements of WP:N and are accordingly given less weight. "Plenty of sources out there" is not enough, they must be provided here and now.  Sandstein  06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psyced[edit]

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

Not notable. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. is the project page - not independent
  2. has "supported by psyced" - not about the software itself
  3. is by the project - not independent
  4. is a forum
  5. describes the CPAN client, so I would accept this as a decent reference, if there was evidence of significant coverage elsewhere, and assuming Arne Gödeke is independent of the project, otherwise it is from the project
  6. is about the WikiMedia Extension that allows Psyc to be used - useful to show that it can be used with WikiMedia, but not significant
  7. appears to be a forum/blog
  8. is by the project - not independent
  9. confirms it was used by a Danish-hosted MTV award - but only says "The event featured a PSYC backstage video chat hosted by Juliette and the Licks." - not significant coverage, no details given beyond that one short sentence
  10. Does not mention Psyc at all, from what I can see
  11. Is a project page - not independent
  12. confirms the existance of a gateway, but not number of hits, when last used, etc
  13. is a project page - not independent
  14. confirms the name change, but is from the project team, to a mailing-list, so is not independent - also no responses shown on the archive
  15. is another mailing-list/forum - again, no response seem to be present. Also, beyond showing the name change, it doesn't give other information
  16. (German) - This is about a lecture given last month in Germany, which will "show the current state of development." This at least confirms that the software is still alive! However, if that is the case, the arguments below about old software not having many references online is moot - if it is still beign developed, there should be something out there...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The discussion demonstrates convincingly that coverage of the subject is superficial, not independent and/or unreliable. Userfication declined because what the article needs is sourcing, and that does not require userfication.  Sandstein  06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PsyBNC[edit]

AfDs for this article:
PsyBNC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, sourced to newsgroups and documentation. WIkipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You didn't add the AfD tag correctly, go back and add it correctly.
  • Request DO NOT DELETE. Move to my user space if the outcome is delete. Although I'm fairly sure it will be kept. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning through play[edit]

Learning through play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not cite the reliable independent sources that they claim exist, and the article as is is indeed sourced only to "wikis, blogs, and documentation". Ad hominems don't help, either. This means that I have to give the "keep" opinions less weight than the "delete" opinions, which make reference to the well-established sourcing requirements of WP:N.  Sandstein  17:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZNC (IRC bouncer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Sourced to wikis, blogs, and documentation. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was userfy to User:Mokhov/Psotnic as notability has not been credibly established.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psotnic[edit]

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

Not notable. No sources. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Any redirect is an editorial matter.  Sandstein  17:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social evil[edit]

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

Lacks references, and is basically a dictionary definition, while Wikipedia is not a dictionary. and is an almost unavoidably subjective one, as would be almost any additional content one would write for this generic term. The inclusion of particular items in the See Also list is likewise subjective. School leaving age involves a social evil? Gay rights: some people will call homosexuality a social evil, others will call homophobia one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. The discussion provides several references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [27].  Sandstein  07:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Own Editor[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Joe's Own Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Applying WP:ONEEVENT is seldom a clear-cut matter; reasonable people can disagree (and here they do) about whether this is indeed a "one event situation" or whether the subject warrants an article of her own essentially for the reasons provided by Ronnotel. At this time, there's no consensus for deletion, but with a few months' hindsight, it might be easier to evaluate whether "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one".  Sandstein  17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Giles[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. John Asfukzenski (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWhile it looks like the story is big enough to allow for an article on this person, i think this article should be relatively small, as its about HER (she hasnt actually done much yet), not the sting and its aftermath, which should be the major article, along with the ACORN article. and, whoa, you just showed your bias here. ACORN is a bit player on the national scene, and their previous "scandal" was a politically hyped up non-event. Ms. Giles as person of the year? thats beyond the pale. Even if this results in the total takedown of ACORN, and even if ACORN has organizational complicity here, so what? Unless we find evidence that ACORN is a branch of al-qaeda, or space aliens, etc, this is not that important. Ms Giles is NOT that notable. if ACORN was so vulnerable, this would have happened eventually. shes not woodward and bernstein. and WP IS documenting this event, and we DO have to debate this. How about articles for each of the defendants, or the lawyers on either side, or the cameraman shooting the film? there is a threshhold for notability for each article, each judged on its own merits. WP is doing fine, thank you.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment Perhaps I was a wee bit over the top (attempt at hint of sarcasm ;\ ). However, the beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to freely expose both sides of an issue. The idea was simple, but then again she did follow through, etc. My desire is to make sure that the originator of an idea is documented. I do concur the article should be small and relate relevant bio info and appreciate the feedback. I sense a consensus forming. Thanks for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
above moved from talk page to project page by Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the irrational biases shown here. the lawsuit is not "bogus", and anyway who are we to say that its bogus? last time i heard, i cannot record someone without their knowledge unless i am a police officer or govt agent with probable cause. ever hear of the constitution? it applies equally to those we agree AND disagree with. there is validity in theory to the lawsuit, just as there is a political reality that could mean ACORN is shut down regardless of their culpability, or the fairness of it. thats all reportable and notable, and can be reported with NPOV fairly easily. and i never said the whole subject is a single event. its not. but she is still not notable beyond her role, though that, as i said, at this point justifies a small article, but not a puff piece.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see. You are pointing out that, in your opinion, other people biases are "irrational". Does that imply that your biases are rational? Everyone has a bias, whether they admit it or not. How do you know the lawsuit is not "bogus"? What evidence do provide for your conclusion. You provide a conclusion without evidence. All you have provided for your conclusion that in your opinion (not fact mind you) that you believe the lawsuit is not "bogus." On top of that you provide the conclusion that other people's biases are "irrational". Of course, you do not provide any evidence or even an example of other people's biases as irrational. You don't even make it clear what "biases" you are referring to. You just proclaim without evidence or fact that other people (I'm assuming anyone that does not agree with you) have "irrational" biases. Under this form of illogical argumentation, I could argue that you biases are "irrational" also. I don't need evidence or support of any form or fashion--just my opinion. This is known as the "I said it, it must be true" argument. It is a very, very weak form of defense. Also, you comment that "you can't record someone" without their knowledge is simply a factually incorrect statement. It has NOTHING to do with the article about whether the Hannah Giles article should stay or go. It is also factually flat out wrong. Now, in most states of the Union you CAN record someone without permission completely legally. That is a fact. Probable cause only applies to government officials, not to private citizens such as Hannah Giles. It does not apply to Hannah Giles. That is fact. And "probable cause" is not even the focus of the lawsuit. Now, there is a law in the State of Maryland that may or may not apply to her. That is the focus of the lawsuit. What you state above is a misrepresentation of the lawsuit's substance. Yeah, I read all about the constitution in law school and I heard correctly, unlike you, that the Fourth Amendment applies to cops, prosecutors, and others acting on behalf of the state, etc--not private citizens such as Hannah Giles. So your argument concerning "probable cause" is "bogus" to steal a phrase. So please don't attack other posters when you comments are "irrational" and your arguments are "bogus".--98.196.129.137 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the lawsuit wasnt bogus. i said it appeared to have some theoretical validity. I dont care if youre justice roberts, your opinions are not fact here. you said "bogus lawsuit". until a reliable source describes it as bogus, or until its thrown out of court or decided entirely in ms giles favor, its neither bogus nor legit. so thats the bias, saying its "bogus", without sources to back it up. of course i have a bias, and its clearly pro acorn, but i would never dream of adding to the main article or commenting here without seriously considering all points of view. I would welcome any sourced comments on the lawsuit.i have already agreed that she deserves her own article, given the degree of coverage. I think its important that our language in the talk pages show our ability to have an NPOV despite any personal bias we may have. Its also important to not misrepresent sourced comments and try to make sources say what they dont. thats an endemic problem at WP, people from all sorts of perspectives do it, and its wrong no matter who does it. I hope that we can keep to a minimum undue coverage of any of the sides here. and im sorry for using the word irrational, and apologize for that. that is not civil.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm not Justice Roberts, but then again I never claimed to be, therefore, your comment above which references Roberts is merely weak sarcasm and of course your comment is off the subject and irrelevant. It does not boost your argument in anyway. Now, I want to point out one more time. What I wrote about the underlying lawsuit is NOT, as you seem to imply, merely my opinion. It is fact. Probable cause is not the focus of that lawsuit. Probable cause is a term that comes directly from the Constitution and it applies to government officials, not private citizens. You stated otherwise and you were incorrect and I called you on it. The lawsuit is about a specific law in the State of Maryland and the jurisdiction of Maryland is in the minority on the issue of taping a discussion without consent. That is also fact. It is NOT opinion. I repeat: Your stated the lawsuit was about "probable cause" and it is not, and you are wrong. That is a fact. We will see if the lawsuit is valid or not. As the article is written right now the reader would get the impression that it is an open and shut case for ACORN, but that is NOT true. The real question is whether the ACORN workers had a legitimate expectation of privacy and Giles can argue quite strongly that the ACORN workers did NOT have an expectation of privacy. In the videos it is clear that the door was open. People were coming in and out of the room. Some of the ACORN employees were yelling through the open door to other ACORN workers, etc. Also, the information that Giles released is clearly the topic of a public discussion about public policy and that also diminishes the ACORN employees expectation of privacy. Expectation of privacy and the interpretation of a recently passed law in Maryland will be focus of the lawsuit, not as you incorrectly stated probable cause. You were wrong and I called you on it.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the words of the Washington Times: Hannah Giles, the young woman who dressed up and posed as a whore in the BigGovernment.com ACORN child prostitution sting videos, is an aspiring investigative reporter and National Journalism Center intern. You can read her Townhall.com bio here. Not familiar with NJC?. . . Actually, I shouldn't say "aspiring," as she's already accomplished something nobody from 60 Minutes, The New York Times, or any other mainstream media thought to do, and that is find a way to expose the dirty truth behind the closed doors of ACORN. She was able to do that because she asked the right questions, unemcumbered by the liberal conventional wisdom that blinds so many Mainstream Media journalists.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that's not from the Washington Times... it appeared instead as an editorial in a daily paper called the Examiner, which Wikipedia mentions was initially the subject of some controversy for being delivered free exclusively to white affluent neighborhoods while "majority-black neighborhoods" were not served. Doesn't mean the information is true or false, just worthy to note it's all a matter of perspective when we're talking about an editorial. If you're curious, here is a link to the entry. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct it is the Washington Examiner, my mistake. However, your editorial comment about the distribution of the Examiner is not without error either. The Wikipedia article that you directed editors to did NOT state that majority-black neighborhoods "were not served." That is simply incorrect on your part. It pointed out that they may or not have received distribution and if they did get distribution that distribution might have been light. You misrepresented the comments of the a competing paper to the Examiner, the Washington City Paper. Clearly the The Washington City Paper has a economic interest at stake to deride the reputation of the Examiner since both the City Paper and the Examiner are the two free papers in the D.C. metro area, as opposed to the Post and the Times. Moreover, not only is your comment a misrepresentation of the so-called controversy outlined in the Wikipedia article it very, very far from the point of this particular discussion page--which of course is about whether or not the article on Hannah Giles should stay or go. You did NOT comment on the substance of the quote from the Examiner which is quite straight-forward and speaks directly to the substance of the debate here. That editorial states unequivocally that what Giles did was scoop 60 Minutes and The New York Times and every other mainstream newsroom in the country. I think part of the argument on this page to support the removal of her article is that she is in school, a mere student of journalism. But that is bogus argument. Yes, she is in school and she is young, but she writes articles for the Townhall.com and BigGovernment.com and she is doing original journalism that is beating the holy crap out of the old guys on the block such as 60 Minutes and The New York Times. And her real journalistic work has brought an old corrupt Washington D.C. institution to its knees. That is fact that you choose to ignore. Instead you focused on a bogus complaint by the Washington City Paper, a complaint that really just boils down to the fact that the City Paper is having some of its customers taken by a competitor. Yeah, it is just sour grapes on the City Paper's part and does NOT in anyway diminish the unbelievable accomplishment of Giles who scooped 60 Minutes, et. al. Once again, removing her article would be wrong.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I did read the editorial; my point was that it's actually an editorial from a newspaper of somewhat lesser stature than the Washington Times, and like all editorials, it's just an opinion. No offense, but I didn't find it convincing in terms of the overall argument being debated on this page.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. What did not find convincing? That the Washington City Paper is a cheap rag? That's true of course, but it is not the topic of discussion here. What is the topic of discussion is that Hannah Giles brought down ACORN in a way that neither the Washington Post, The New York Times or 60 Minutes did not do. That's a fact. Now, she is being sued by ACORN under a probably unconstitutional law in Maryland--a law that limits free speech--and she is still in the news and will remain in the news.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Popped on Wiki one last time just to check this page before I head out for five days where I won't have access to the internet. No time to respond in great depth, but essentially my comments near the very top of the thread sum up my take on the issue (please read them if you're interested). I still think that everything that is happening (the video tapings, the release on the internet and the news stories that followed, the acts of Congress and federal entities, the lawsuit, etc) are basically all part of the same event, the "ACORN undercover videos controversy," and that if the article on Ms. Giles only contains a sentence or two of non-notable information (that she is student at X school, majoring in X, doing work for X), then people searching "Hannah Giles" on Wiki should probably get a re-direct to the other article instead until such time there is more notable personal information for her, or there is a second event not a part of the ACORN videos controversy. Otherwise you end up with two articles just duplicating 97% of the same stuff. Just my take on the matter, now I'm out of here, courtesy of the USAR... --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If we're gonna have an article on her, the fact that she's hot is notable. --Milowent (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW applies here... Tone 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli theft of Arab cuisine[edit]

Israeli theft of Arab cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as stands isn't NPOV; with a title like that I'm not sure it's likely to become so. The synthesis of the article reads like original research. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is Lazy Yoga ?[edit]

What exactly is Lazy Yoga ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More of a how-to page than anything else; somewhat promotional; and no evidence that this is a notable topic. Tagged for speedy under A7, but that really doesn't fit here. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G3 by Tnxman307. Blueboy96 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution-[edit]

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

Contents entirely unencyclopedic, and name of article downright disruptive. An editor other than the original author removed speedy deletion nomination for some reason. Move for a speedy delete. Favonian (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonoke Medical Software[edit]

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

Promotional article for not very notable company. Rd232 talk 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Galvan[edit]

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

Unreferenced article for marginally notable dancer. Have tried to redirect to Dance on Sunset, but article keeps being recreated by unregistered accounts. Some GHIT activity, but appears to be lacking substance. Some local, hometown, GNEWS hits. ttonyb (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neusport F.C. Green 98'[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Neusport F.C. Green 98' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish the notability of the particular soccer team. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the "98" in the title refers to the birthdate of players and therefore signifies that this article is specifically about the under-11 team, which only reinforces how non-notable it is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article says "U11/12". GiantSnowman 11:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. GlassCobra 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldman (utopian)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Notability issues, only sources from local area GlassCobra 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for not checking in on this sooner. It appears that the creator of the article has gone around this process and moved the article to a new title and added sources, effectively rendering this AfD moot (though also changing the focus of the article considerably). I'll give this more consideration shortly, but I would like to state for the record that I was given no notification about the changes to the article, nor offered any chance to collaborate on improvements. GlassCobra 20:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, but you may want to withdraw this nomination as what is there now seems well sourced. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cusgarne Community Primary School[edit]

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

The article is extremely short and doesn't convince a person why it is important to keep listed. It doesn't really provide any information to one. LouriePieterse 14:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite extended discussion, only two credible users (that are not clearly meatpuppets or the like) came out and argued for a Keep. The result withstanding, all users here are reminded that the WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL policies are mandatory throughout the project, including here at AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Hertz[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, this article has absolutely no case for notability. No real sources- just self-published material and vendor sites (amazon, etc). King Öomie 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What would be involved in "citing" the albums? Vendor sites selling them? Luminifer (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Though the language in #6 is ambiguous, I'm inclined to interpret 'notable musician' to mean 'notable as a musician', which Wolven certainly doesn't meet- he's an author. A gig band composed of Tony Stewart and Kevin James would fail this similarly, unless they fit one of the other criteria. The 4Front article is entirely without sources to support ITS notability (unless you count the circular notability from Pain Hertz itself), which makes me unsure about Kaplan's notability as well. --King Öomie 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also mentions independant notability, which I believe in this case eliminates notability-by-association of simply being in a notable band (so Stone Sour wouldn't warrant an article on 6# alone, despite the inclusion of Jim Root and Corey Taylor). Again, this is open for interpretation, as it's rather ambiguous. --King Öomie 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I don't agree with your interpretation there. In fact, I believe the reason for that clause is as follows: if two members have their own wiki pages, it is unclear where to put the information for the band. For this reason, it makes sense to create a single place for that information to go - otherwise, we could always merge this with one of the articles - but which one? Does that make any sense? (The 4Front page does kind of stink - Joe Bergamini is the most notable member there, and HIS notability is established a little better - but not much - on his article... but in that case I think it's just a poor article - this guy's pretty famous, at least in the music scene he's involved in). Luminifer (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having a Wiki article doesn't really fix notability. I'm kind of approaching this from the standpoint of properly referencing and dimensioning an engineering drawing. I'm fairly confident in my interpretation of that language (and again, I'm referring only to #6). Perhaps I should open a discussion at WP:VPP. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a wiki article doesn't fix notability, but it does present the logistical problem of where to put this information, if not here... (putting aside other concerns on notability for the moment) Luminifer (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thought I completely forgot to actually say it, what I meant was, "I'm not sure all of the people involved here meet the criteria to have articles themselves", which may result in the multiple-locations issue being moot. --King Öomie 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you arguing against the interpretation of item #6, or are you actually questioning the notability of 4Front, Joe Bergamini, etc? Luminifer (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure anymore @_@ --King Öomie 07:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, would you mind stating the basis of your claim that this doesn't, at the very least, satisfy point #6 at WP:MUSIC? Are you claiming that the associated acts are not notable, or is it because one of them is notable, but not for being a musician (despite the wording in the policy not stating that explicitly). Again, my belief is that point #6 is there so that the information is not duplicated across numerous articles, leading to serious maintenance issues. This would apply regardless of the reasons for the subjects' notability. Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Meh" and yes. #6 doesn't really state anything explicitly- it uses a number of adjectives that appear unnecessary if 'famous for being a musician' isn't a requirement. And I'm reasonable sure 1-12 are there because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --King Öomie 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. It has two independant and distinct phrases, describing the two separate cases it applies to. (1) "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (the one I say applies here), and (2) "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (this IS meant to apply, I imagine, to a supergroup setting, where members of notable bands form a band that is not yet notable in its own right). Luminifer (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is the supergroup part, I'd venture. The second part I believe refers to solo projects of already notable musicians. And again, I'm referring to the language used, "independently notable". --King Öomie 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That language applies here perfectly - all of these members are notable for their works independent of Pain Hertz. How is that not clear? Luminifer (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a circular reference issue. If a member of 4Front is notable in part due to his work with Pain Hertz, but Pain Hertz is notable due in part to that member's work with 4Front... I'm saying that the term "Independent nobility" is intended to avoid this. I might need a graph. --King Öomie 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how that would be a problem, but it simply isn't the case. I stated at the beginning here, Carmine Guida is a noted instructor and musician, who's actually very famous in his circles and has been the subject of numerous print articles. Nick Wolven likewise is a semi-famous author - clearly this has nothing to do with Pain Hertz. 4 Front I don't know much about, but if you look at Joe Bergamini's page (the founder of 4 Front), this guy has been around - he's involved with the Movin' Out Billy Joel musical, has worked with Bumblefoot of Guns n Roses, is the subject of print articles... None of this has to do with Pain Hertz.. Luminifer (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this is getting a lawyery for my taste (read: really don't want to make that graph). I will concede the point that they just might pass #6, but I'd prefer to not close this AFD while there are existing Delete votes. --King Öomie 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you make the graph, you'll find no circular notability - all of these people are _independently_ notable. Luminifer (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



((Not a ballot))

I'm sorry, but was there a reason to add this here? This page isn't exactly flooding with SPAs. If this is going to be boilerplate, perhaps it should be in the AFD header template by default. --King Öomie 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was added because you sent a message to a user which seemed to be asking them to take part in the discussion because you knew they would support your side of the debate, although this is not strictly against policy, I reserve the right to add Not a Ballot if I see necessary, as could anyone, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some light sleuthing likely would have revealed that he asked me to put the article up for AFD (if I felt there was a case for it). I linked him the created report in the interest of him not having to lurk my contribs page. I don't mind if the template stays, I just didn't appreciate the implication. --King Öomie 07:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I did indeed ask Sir King's opinion on the notability of the subject. He looked at t and felt it was worthy of this AfD and, as he should, gave me to link to show me his reponse to my query. The boilerplate above is foolish and un-req'd. As for the AfD, Sir King put his reasons in the opening nomination statement and, after reading his lead-in, I must say I concur that the page is a...
  • keep (edit conflict)(edit conflict) I've seen this band several times live, and was one of many, many people at their shows. I would presume that it lends some credence to their claims of notability, not withstanding some of their original interpretations of mash-ups (two songs, same chord progression, performed simultaneously) which they've become quite well known and liked for. It strikes me as clear evidence of 7, in addition to 6, especially considering what the ex-keyboardist Michael Kaplan has gone on to do since his departure from the band. --amalthya (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)— amalthya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • King (who tagged this here), that seems to be true enough. However, I thought this was "not a ballot", so if they have a valid thing to say, it should not matter if they haven't done much on here before, and if they don't, then even if they were a major contributor, it would not matter... or am I missing something about "not a ballot"? Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get defensive. 'Not a ballot' is not a free pass for SPAs (in fact, nothing is). Three good arguments from three accounts pull more weight than the same three from one account. You'll notice I tossed the standard template up there for a user who's SECOND EDIT is to an RFA- I didn't strike it, I didn't demand a CU. I just tagged it. --King Öomie 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not getting defensive, I was genuinely asking. Their post isn't all that helpful anyway in that it's full of anecdotal stuff and a light claim to WP:MUSIC policies. Luminifer (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A CU would not be completely out-of-order here though. It is an odd-duck edit from a dormant account. They tend to have a meaty odour to them. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, checkuser isn't magic, it needs something to check against. --King Öomie 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was birth'd by an IP. The check would be between the 'potential pork', that mother IP and any other accounts that were created from that IP. I think the convo is going off-topic. Chat should stick to the merits of article subject and its keepability. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skater I presume has my page watchlisted, and involved himself without either of us asking him (not that there's a problem with that). If you have a specific issue with either of our behavior, I suggest you do something about it, rather than pointing to it to attempt to make your case whenever someone votes delete. So far we have your Keep, and two others from very new accounts. Mozucat appears to be a new account from an experienced user (User:Mozucat/workshops), but the other is an obvious SPA. And by the way, Libs didn't ask me to come here and vote Delete. He asked me to make my own judgement, as he's done in the past- and in the past, I've disagreed with his vote. --King Öomie 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "do something about it" because so far, I was WP:AGF. Canvassing does not require that you ask an editor to get involved - it simply involves posting it in forums in which a biased outcome is expected, or with non-neutral language - which COULD be applied here. I am not sure what I would do about it in any case. Regarding your claim that I dispute every delete vote - this in fact my first comment on the matter (it was Spitfire who took issue before), and this is in response to libs' personal attacks on a user and lack of WP:AGF. In fact, the opposite is the case here - every single keep vote is being challenged as being from an SPA. As I said, so far, I have been trying to WP:AGF. Luminifer (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are questionable because they are 'out-of-the-blue' from accounts which have contributed nothing. Look through the entire AfD listing for every subject matter... votes are questioned all the time when they come from editors who have never done anything before. You can smell the meat on this one from a mile away. Hey King do you want a similarity?... Luminifer is a member of a band called Pain Hertz. Mozocat has posted here about the band 'Brooklyn band, Pain Hertz, has done this great 'mash-up' cover of Danzig's Mother and Michael Jackson" ... And Mozocat is linked as a "friend" of Luminifer on pretty much all of his LastFM profiles. AND... surprise, surprise... Luminifer is listed as a friend on Mozucat's Last.FM profile pages.links galore Ooo Ooo that smell... ? The Real Libs-speak politely 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. Very interesting, but I think you are reading too much into the closed network that is underground New York City music, and the internet... Luminifer (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amalthya is as well. Suddenly allegations of canvassing ring hollow. --King Öomie 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you expect to be commenting on a page besides people who are very familiar with the band (see my complain below). Regardless I've now figured out how to get outside input so we should see what happens from here. Luminifer (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need outside input, as the personal attacks have gotten out of hand. Never mind that none of the standard protocols at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion were followed when listing this AfD, such as "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history" and "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate.". Luminifer (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, don't start backpedaling into MY faults here (you appear to have found the AFD just fine). You brought your personal friends into this after accusing me of votestacking. They're FANS OF THE BAND- did you not expect them to vote keep? --King Öomie 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is only half of what was not done in this case - and in fact it wasn't the 'required' half. Maybe you assumed (rightfully) that I would find it, but it still is apparently not "civil". As I'm a major editor of this article, of course I am going to vote keep, so that is not neutral either. You did none of the steps required to get outside input - and I was unaware of these steps until I did some reading recently, thanks to Spitfire's notice above. Also, please don't assume people are my friends because they added me on some social networking site - I will accept anyone's add. Finally, I never accused you of votestacking - you have been quite reasonable in most regards. I suggesting that Libs' actions could be perceived as possibly unintentional votestacking. Luminifer (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who do I expect to comment? I don't know, maybe someone who can possibly vote neutrally. Someone who will read the article with reference to the notability guidelines, check the sources, all that good stuff. Someone not invited here because they were a fan. --King Öomie 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the implications there. If you do not properly notify the people who can vote "neutrally" (as I've just done and as you should have done when you created this AfD), the only people who will be voting are those who happen upon the page on their own (typically fans) -- and the people who read YOUR talk page (and the person who asked you to nominate it, thus guaranteeing two "votes" - but again, this is not a ballot, right?). Hopefully now this will be remedied. Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In the interest of WP:OUTING, I won't be posting google searches here, but it's generally recommended that you be open with your conflict of interest or involvement, lest users feel deceived when it's discovered. --King Öomie 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well hey, whaddya know. --King Öomie 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you may think, this should be judged on its merits according to WP:MUSIC, and is not a ballot, so the admin will have to decide. I do not appreciate the invasions of privacy so I may stay out of things from this point on. Luminifer (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If posting a link to a section of this website that you wrote is an invasion of privacy, I don't know what to tell you. And don't worry, at this point I am intimately aware that this isn't a ballot. --King Öomie 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to libs posting links that may or may not have been to me on social networking sites. I believe that comes close to WP:OUTING, regardless of whether or not it's actually me (as described in the policy). If that's what's going to be going on here, then I have had enough. Luminifer (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A google search revealed that you had prior contact with two SPAs that appeared to support an AFD that you're vested in. This was in no way linked to your identity. --King Öomie 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links were posted to actual profile pages, again who may or may not be me WP:OUTING specifically says not to acknowledge it), associating similar names to the names involved here, which is not conclusive but is still a sketchy thing to post. I am not saying it is WP:OUTING exactly, but it makes me uncomfortable enough that such things are being posted here. As libs themselves stated, this is all distracting from the actual discussion of notability - but libs continues to post such things anyway. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not affect this discussion, as it is based only on the actual notability as discussed. Arguments can be made, but not proven, for canvassing on either side, but this is not a ballot, as we keep saying. This needs to be decided on the notability alone. Luminifer (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm done with this. The impropriety on both sides was minor. If you really want to, a checkuser can blank out all revisions that contained that link. It's really just a Google result page, which happened to link to a profile page. As far as I can tell, Libs only posted it here. Do whatever you feel you need to do. --King Öomie 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight, I mean. Wow. That only went uncorrected for five and half hours. --King Öomie 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing significant about these particular people forming a band. The members are insufficiently notable to make the band notable merely by association. Triplestop x3 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who, exactly, are the "two or more independently notable musicians" in the band? Also note that passing one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC does guarantee notability, it says right at the top of the criteria, that "A musician...may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Subject of article still has insufficient coverage in reliable sources. L0b0t (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above (in all that heated text), (Carmine Guida is a famous instructor/musician, Nick Wolven is a published science fiction author, Michael Kaplan is now working with Joe Bergamini and Jimmy Wilgus of 4Front... Luminifer (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at all those articles, I have to say all of them should go to AfD, none of those musicians or authors or bands meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia. L0b0t (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing significant about these particular people forming a band. The members are insufficiently notable to make the band notable merely by association. Triplestop x3 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, but will not resolve in time for this debate to finish. Should we have an extension, go with Michael Kaplan being notable (kind of a weak argument), or merge with Carmine Guida? Luminifer (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is already there .... unreferenced, and as far as I can see, really independent references are not available. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question-Luminifer has your band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if you and your band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the implications there. Regardless of your unfounded suspicions regarding my identity, you are not supposed to discuss who you think I am, or might be, in compliance with WP:OUTING. Please refrain from attempting to reveal you who think I am in a public forum, as this is grossly against policy. Luminifer (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase Wiki Libs' question: Luminifer has the band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if the band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I'm not the expert on this band, which is why I created their page (and which is why I created the 100+ pages I have created on here). Luminifer (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You created the page because you are not the expert on the band .. that does not make any sense. However, whether you are an expert or not, you seem to be the most knowledgeable (as you created the page), and are probably of all wiki-editors, you are an 'expert' on this band (again, you did quite some research finding all the references that you did find). I am hence surprised that you did not find any which do satisfy our hunger for independent reliable sources, but found only the dependent or unreliable ones. I hope you can find editors who can help us further, because we are not getting anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so civil in this matter - considering the reactions that occurred above (even down to false accusations of SPA's for User:Mozucat, I really appreciate it. However, I couldn't find anything, and I cleaned out my print sources, so it may be that there aren't enough sources. I created it under the presumption that point 6 in WP:MUSIC was justification for it; if it's not, so be it. Due to the attempts at WP:OUTING and privacy attacks involved here (regardless of whether correct, they are incredibly unsettling), I'll be leaving wikipedia anyway, so if no one else finds sources, I guess that's it. Thanks for your time! Luminifer (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion .. please don't respond to this comment, it's just a quotation. Luminifer (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vukovic (footballer)[edit]

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

Doesn't play for a professional team and hasn't played at senior international level Spiderone 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Sorry but it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that he'll play for Canada and that he'll go back to the First league which isn't even professional anyway. Spiderone 08:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends @ Five[edit]

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

Local newscast. Um, that's it. It's a local newscast. Not encyclopaedic. Not notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with an article on this? Fellow people that watch the show can find it informative. It's not just "local", since it is simulcast on the web. Many of the viewers are either military or have military spouses and use it to keep up on local news when they are stationed elsewhere. Shaw AFB is located less than 40 miles away from the news station. BlueChainsawMan (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Today in L.A. is notable, non-local, and encyclopaedic? I've never heard of it. BlueChainsawMan (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would make it more reliable? Contact with an anchor? So an innovative concept that has actually won an award for such isn't enough? BlueChainsawMan (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To show that the show is notable, find significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You might also be interested in an essay that has been written about TV programming. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 20:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen: 2012[edit]

The Fallen: 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than the single reference in the article, I cannot find this film's existance online. The single reference being used is trivial in passing, and is used throughout the article to give it undue weight (the reference is about a birth of a white buffalo which is how I found this page). This film is not even listed in the IMDB. The author's only edits are to the article, and adding the article to a list of other 2012 doomsday prophecy films. And this in particular just appears to be an indie film trying to cash in on the 2012 phenomenon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thukalamkuzhiyil[edit]

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

Contested PROD. A local family with no evidence of notability Salih (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Murray[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Maura Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. She's known only for being missing. Coverage is local also. So she's limited to local notability. Also fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Lara 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Page has been moved to: Disappearance of Maura Murray - --Cyclopia (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lara is interpreting NOTNEWS too widely here. NOTNEWS says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", but neither of those applies here. The case definitely meets the WP:GNG, as it has been covered indepth in multiple reliable secondary sources. The coverage is national and ongoing, so it meets the criteria for notability of criminal acts, which covers disappearances where the police suspect a criminal act: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Notability of criminal acts. I certainly will write the sources I found into the article tomorrow; I regret not sourcing it properly before. Fences&Windows 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting" and "historical" are just your opinions and interestigness is not an objective criteria. I don't find it interesting either, but the media thought otherwise. BLP1E does not apply since the rename -we're talking of the event. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that her family and friends will read this discussion, please have more respect. Fences&Windows 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sources added. National in depth coverage has included Fox's Line Up, Nancy Grace's Cold Cases, CNN's American Morning, 20/20, and Montel Williams. Fences&Windows 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it falls under BLP1E. WP:BLP is policy. — Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me phrase that better: citing BLP1E as a reason for deletion is not appropriate. The article was always about her disappearance and is now titled to reflect this, so it is in compliance with what BLP1E says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." As the event is notable, we should keep the article. If you want to delete, you'd better not simply cite NOTNEWS and BLP1E, as they aren't valid reasons to delete this article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact it is no more listed as a biography -it has been moved for this reason. --Cyclopia - talk 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. BLP1E applies to any article. Law type! snype? 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Per nom" and a vaguewave at BLP1E isn't reasoned argument. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E applies to biographies of people only known for one event, not to "every article". They way BLP1E applies in this case is the following wording, which I think is being overlooked: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event ... a redirect of the person's name to the event article [is] usually the better option." Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) should be our guide here. This is not a biography of Maura Murray, it is about her disappearance, a notable event covered many times by local and national media over a five year period. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is no longer relevant as the article has been renamed to "Disappearance of Maura Murray". That leaves only the notability concern and I can't see it given the amount of both local and national coverage. I think the original nominator tried to claim all the coverage was local but that is silly as Nancy Grace/CNN are not local. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to the nominator, the sources included at nomination were all local, and national coverage may not have been clear from a quick search. So the claim wasn't silly, just wrong. Fences&Windows 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean that no articles on events where a single person has been the main or only subject involved would be allowed, regardless of the event notability? This makes little sense and WP:BLP1E explicitly says that the article should cover the event and not the person, that is what is happening here. BLP1E is to avoid having "biographies" where all the weight is made to a single event, not to prohibit covering events themselves. --Cyclopia - talk 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benat Achiary[edit]

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

Does not satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:MUSICBIO. He/she has released 1 CD by German label FMP (according to the article) and there is no coverage by reliable third party sources. ƒ(Δ)² 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second site doesn't constitute a reliable source, and the third isn't in English. However the first one might indicate notability. The first source is fine (it's an interview), however that's the only reliable one I could find. He does, in fact, have a collection of Basque CDs to his name, all produced in collaboration with other people, I do not know if that is enough for notability. If I could get a third opinion, I'll withdraw/continue this AfD. ƒ(Δ)² 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. "Keep" in the sense of "do not hit the delete button." Opinions differ about whether this should be retained as a separate article or merged (and where to?), but that is a matter for continued talk page discussion. I predict that this will be seen as "old news" in time and merged somewhere, probably before they switch to Comic Sans in 2010.  Sandstein  17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdanagate[edit]

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

Absolutely non-notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and this isn't news anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred W. Hunt[edit]

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

It's not clear that this painter meets WP:BIO. Coverage accessible through on Google is apparently limited to this AskArt entry, itself submitted by a person from the association he is said to chair.  Sandstein  11:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Bruma[edit]

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

I don't think being an unused substitute against Porto is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE. Also there is a lack of independent sources meaning he fails WP:GNG. If it is kept, it probably needs a bit of cleaning up. Spiderone 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Do you have a crystal ball? What if he gets injured this season and doesn't play? Spiderone 08:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A "full biography" you say? As in the usual run of the mill stuff (age, date of birth etc.) that every club publishes about its own players? That doesn't make him notable! GiantSnowman 10:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- There is no guarantee that he'll make his debut this season or even next season Spiderone 14:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you don't have to rewrite anything, just ask an admin to restore. --Jimbo[online] 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an admin, and I know that you cannot "just ask an admin to restore" without proving that there is a consensus to do so. Undoing the deletion would need another discussion at DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, top clubs like Chelsea don't sign on young players with professional contracts, in order to put them on the bench in Champions League matches for decoration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure there are a few players who have signed professionally with Chelsea and not played. See Stuart Searle Spiderone 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant restore once he plays in a fully-professional competition, not just willy nilly. --Jimbo[online] 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, if there is added material, it doesn't even take an admin to restore, you merely have to rewrite the article. You would need to make it very plain on the talk p;.. how it differs from the deleted article to avoid deletion ass unaltered re-creation, and if it does get speedied, then go to deletion review. But if he does make a professional appearance, I cannot imagine the article would not be permitted there, and I hope no admin would be so careless as to G4. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thats because they were injured during the months of August September. Alex, Zhirkov, Nemanja Matic, and Ross Turnbull were injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyds13 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is in and listed as a current member of the Dutch U-21 squad which should be good enough reason to give him some space. But the article should at least give some facts as date and place of birth and his Feijenoord period to meet minimum standards of other player's bio's.24.207.124.122 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Niang[edit]

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

Already tagged as an article that may fail notability guidelines. The PROD was contested saying "highest tier and youth international" which isn't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG as it stands. Spiderone 08:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xhevdet Gela[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Plays in a league that isn't professional and hasn't achieved enough coverage to meet WP:GNG Spiderone 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Lindberg[edit]

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

Still no assertion of notability made. The PROD remover said the Finnish league is the highest level and therefore professional but this list says otherwise Spiderone 08:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does though! - he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and he hasn't reveived significant coverage! GiantSnowman 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Rock Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. No more notable than any of the other 10,000 concert tours that happen every year, and we don't have an article for them. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Also nominating the following articles for similar reasoning:[reply]

Runnin' Wild Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Legal Tender Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Guts, No Glory Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Despite the nominator's claim, we have around a thousand article on concert tours[60], and tours by notable bands will generally pass the GNG due to published reviews of the concert. Articles like these don't strike me as a whole lot different from the articles on the individual seasons of professional sports teams -- easy enough to document, of interest primarily to the most devoted fans of the team/group involved. Boring the average Wikipedia user to tears isn't grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Nordström[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment he fails both because the league is not fully professional and he hasn't received any independent or significant coverage from secondary sources. Spiderone 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deljan Bregasi[edit]

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

This PROD appears to have been removed as part of a mass removal of every PROD I've made recently. There is no evidence to suggest that he's played a professional match and youth caps, especially under 17 ones, aren't notable. Spiderone 07:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Kadić[edit]

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

Argument for removal of PROD was that he plays at the highest level of Bosnian football. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is professional so he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 07:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorologist George Wright[edit]

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

This is primarily a promotional article about a meteorologist, but even if cleaned up, I'm not sure this meets notability standards. Most ghits are promotional or mentioning a case where he was an expert witness. I can't find any article on him personally. Prod was declined, and not sure if this meets speedy criteria. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I do know that I voted in this, but the articles have been merged into an entirely new article, which will distort things significantly. The new article on Black Widow murders should be renominated under a different rationale if it is to be deleted. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow murders (neé Olga Rutterschmidt)[edit]

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

fails WP:BLP1E; a person notable for only one event. The event itself isn't important enough to justify coverage - while sad, it fails WP:NOT#NEWS by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn (non-admin closure) SparksBoy (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques St-Cyr ballet dancer[edit]

Jacques St-Cyr ballet dancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issues SparksBoy (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources were added during the AfD, meaning that the deletion rationale no longer applies at least in part.  Sandstein  17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshie Takeuchi[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP, questional notability, author appears to be the subject of the article. Eeekster (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Second off, while the article at the moment is definatly failing the notability guidlines, as an individual she definatly meets both WP:GNG and wp:entertainer. Theres a bunch more sources on her Japanese wiki entry (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%86%85%E7%94%B1%E6%81%B5) but its hard to find sources for Japanese people anyway because magazines and newspapers don't archive their articles on the internet in Japan. Even the online ones usually delete stuff after a few weeks.
Anyway, I'm not !voting keep because I would feel hypocritical since I have no intention of fixing up the article, but thats my interpritation of the situation. Maybe someone who knows how that stuff works could post this to wikiproject japan? 123.222.137.153 (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction equipment theft[edit]

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

I believe the subject of the article may at some point meet the guidelines for notability. At the present time, the article has no reliable sources to verify most of the claims contained. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. It also seems to straddle the line of synthesis and original research. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't really be kept as is, because the sources do not match the information contained in the article. If Edison is going to volunteer to edit this article in the direction of having even a few properly sourced, reliable statements, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination... which wasn't based on notability, but rather on being original research and/or synthesis. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Certainly different kinds of theft create different issues for society, which might deserve treatment in an encyclopedic way. Construction equipment theft might (for example) raise issues of public safety, or it might lead to more costly or inferior construction, or it might feed a black market for parts, or what have you. Demographics and sociology of different types of theft would also be interesting, as would police methods. I think a *lot* of types of theft could deserve an article. Gruntler (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. We call them "stubs". I'll put in 10 minutes of work into it. JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs have the same guidelines as regular articles. Wikipedia does not allow introduction of improperly sourced material, regardless of the notability of the subject. Removing all of the improperly sourced statements would have left a blank article. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Term seems to come up at doj, only one matches exactly but many of these seem relevant, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Ausdoj.gov+%22construction+equipment%22+theft&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7960896364bf1ed8 I haven't read the article but presumably it could be stubbed if really bad and leave some search links like this on talk page for a while. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Swanberg[edit]

AfDs for this article:
William Swanberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems the previous AfD was closed on procedural grounds, but that doesn't validate the article. On first glance it falls foul of WP:BLP1E; Swanberg is notable for a single event, specifically shoplifting Lego bricks. Coverage is given by reliable sources but, true to form, is focused entirely around the case, and doesn't justify a standalone article for this chap. An article for the crime might be an idea if it didn't fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS so comprehensively; coverage is all from around the time of the crime, except for a single note in Oregon Live from when he was sentenced. In my personal opinion (which is obviously just backed up by common sense, not any kind of RS) this case is one of the "amusing" human interest stories that newspapers and websites run with, and the news reports are worth even less than they already would be. Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, LEGO theft? Haha, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction equipment theft and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laptop_theft. Hmm. Or perhaps Target theft and merge with Claude Allen --Milowent (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy you are laughing, but what are you trying to communicate, exactly? --Cyclopia (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Levity, and I failed, I guess. Below follows my substantive comments. --Milowent (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, you are !voting twice. Would you mind moving your comment below your previous !vote (or reformatting it, so to avoid it being confusing)? Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been ((rescue)) flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • An actual biography is a BLP1E; this is not really a biography at all, its a documentation of a robbery scheme. We wouldn't have an article on the person if we had an article on the event, but the way the hive mind worked, this is where the event was documented. --Milowent (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fairly trivial mention, and still mentions the subject only in the context of the same Lego theft, therefore still fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29 sentences in a WSJ article is not trivial, and it explains the greater societal significance of the case. It even includes one of the WSJ's trademark sketches of Mr. Swanberg. When an event/person becomes a touchstone for discussion of a topic, I think it becomes notable. E.g., Robert Tappan Morris. --Milowent (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Roland[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. also WP:ONEVENT applies here too. no significant coverage [82]. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hymns for Western Shores[edit]

Eastern Hymns for Western Shores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unconfirmed future album, with no tracklisting, or release date. Furthermore the "sources" are all message boards or blogs. Even if this was a real album, it's notability is questionable, as it is no more than a small collection of b-sides --T-rex 02:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topiarte[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, 1 hit in gnews [83]. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Dance[edit]

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

Contested prod... brand new radio show with no references or signs of notability... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki slang[edit]

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

an unreferenced article that has existed for over 3 years that is full of original research. whilst I don't doubt that Helsinki slang exists, all it deserves is a few lines in Finnish language. Helsinki slang gets little hits in gscholar [84] and gnews [85]. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be notable, does not mean notable...could you provide sources? LibStar (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[[ ohidp996egdkshkjsfdjssfsorpprsfs'sflkksksbs jkjs'gs s' s ksj'''''oerrititfkklgshs;;;;;kl s d r[si w[wro ioi oriwwigirtwrgfgs[hgjiiowo5qw-itjwww50hwwohiw-h kduifyavhks]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.200.185.159 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yuu Watase . Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epotoransu! Mai[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources in any language. Lack of licensing outside of Japan makes it even more unlikely any could be found, and it was a very short lived series. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "It was translated into French, so yes, it was released outside of Japan. 33,000 Google hits means some notable sources are probably out there" but no evidence was provided for French translation and this is unconfirmed by Anime News Network. Obviously Google hits are not an indication of notability at all - scanslations and fansites are not notability considerations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Wilson (murderer)[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Caitlin Crosby. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Have My Heart[edit]

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONGS. SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am not taking into account Roy jyotirmoy's contribution, since it does not address a matter relevant to the inclusion of an article under applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Sandstein  17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GEOSCAN[edit]

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

On-belt elemental analysis is of dubious notability. One specific system for doing this analysis is certainly not notable. Also spam aspects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Ombudsman Association[edit]

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

Contested prod, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Members have been referenced in other contexts but I'm not finding the kind of focused articles on the organization that notability guidelines require. RadioFan (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love in a Lift[edit]

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

Today's "upcoming album" article. This actually has a title, so it escapes the HAMMER, but no track-list, release date or source; fails WP:NALBUMS, which requires a release date "in the near future" confirmed by reliable sources, and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kekkonen[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:PORNBIO. TheoloJ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Awaien Show[edit]

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

Contested prod. Does not meet notability guidelines, lacks references to 3rd party sources. I'm not finding any hits in Google news. RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kubatko[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, and a possible WP:COI. Click23 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. # 09:25, 25 September 2009 Backslash Forwardslash (talk | contribs) deleted "NetMovers" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetMovers[edit]

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

Third-party contested speedy. Although the two references included could be the basis of a valid article (but that probably wouldn't be enough), the current one is pure spam. Speedy delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devamrita Swami[edit]

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

Non notable Iskcon swami. Authorship of a book is not a sufficient grounds for inclusion. Wikidas© 10:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one deserves a keep. Devamrita Swami has received significant coverage in this documentary and some coverage in the US media in the 1980s (in New York Times for example), when he was the president of New Vrindavan Hare Krishna community. Also he's one of the few senior leaders in the Hare Krishna movement, where he is a sannyasi, a diksa guru and a member of the Governing Body Commission.--Gaura79 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absence of WP:RS to support any claims on notability under WP:V. Appears to be a self promotional article. Wikidas© 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above !vote of nominator struck, as it duplicates deletion statement. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gl-117[edit]

Gl-117 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game has not received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, so does not meet the guideline for notability. I am aware of its presence on happypenguin.org, sourceforge, etc, but these entries do not qualify for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celemony[edit]

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

DELETE. This software company is not evidently notable. JBsupreme (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sana-Software[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Notability not established, possible COI editor. Article creator (User:SanaSoftware, definitely a COI, already indef-blocked for username vio) may be the same user as User:Brambo123, who started editing when the creator was blocked. [flaminglawyer] 00:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Verifiability seems to be no longer contested, and we have no consensus as to notability, so default to keep.  Sandstein  17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Sanborn[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Only reference is an unreliable blog. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM

adding that as a source might be COI, but others could find it. Note the claimed age is born in 1895, but the 1896 record comes from census data.Ryoung122 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Ryoung122. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state-local/at-114-one-of-texas-supercentenarians-dies-1.949307 There is a source. 65.81.247.9 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dude, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary --Longevitydude (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have read that. I don't think she's notable now, nor is it likely that she will do anything notable before she dies. Simply being one of the billions of non-dead people on the planet isn't, IMHO, notable. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines are fairly implicit and her longevity is noteworthy and if she keeps living and those ahead of her on the list keep dying, she can end up higher in the ranks and garner further notability. Besides the fact that this isn't a paper encyclopedia and that the guidelines seem to indicate that she classifies as being noteworthy, I've found a few more sources for her [102][103] if it helps KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to say her biography would be the same if she died at 90, if she died at 90 she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be Texas' oldest person. 74.249.149.87 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that part, and if she didn't continue living she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be the oldest person in Texas.67.33.119.28 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted, obvious advertising and unreadable gibberish. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Plasticity[edit]

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

Essay with no reputable sources. The article claims that a book on the topic is being written, but that doesn't establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Clea Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local notability, only covered in one local newspaper over a period of about 8 months. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Lara 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May DaCamara[edit]

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

This person is non-notable and does not meet WP:ARTIST as no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website or un-official websites that are likely to be circular and self published. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person. Wikipedia is not a resource to reprint self promotional literature as if it were encyclopaedic or notable. Ash (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


(note) As part of the normal AFD process the originator is notified and invited to comment in this discussion (see User talk:Sburke) so this has been taken care of.—Ash (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Important to point out the related debate on her collaborator Charles Sindelar, above. This has generated quite some discussion. I feel AfD for these two should be discussed and decided upon together, as the contention--artistic or other notability--is essentially the same. --Whoosit (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tita Datu Puangco[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO , blatant self promotional piece with the only reference being a self published source. hardly anything in gnews [104]. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/znc/files/, click 0.074 near the bottom
  2. ^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/psybnc/files/
More