< 10 January	12 January >

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

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Day[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. This unofficial holiday is not notable in the slightest. So a few papers picked up on it on a slow news day, WP:NOTNEWS applies. JBsupreme (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STRONGEST MONKEY KEEP POSSIBLE. Besides being the greatest holiday ever, the references in the article and a quick google search show this catapults cleanly over the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability with plenty of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", including The Detroit News, Financial Times Deutschland, and BBC Radio. As these sources cover several countries over the course of the last decade, this is clearly more than just "a slow news day." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most sources come from the Detroit newspapers or from some probably primary sources. Even if those sources mention it, that's not the criteria we use. The criteria we use is notability, which means non-trivial coverage, outside of a local area, all of that tempered with the encyclopedic qualities. This clearly is not. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For my geographically challenged colleague above, the sourced journals from Hamburg, Denver, Detroit, Montreal and more are not from the same "local area." Or are you looking for interplanetary notability? --Dragonfiend (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to weak keep - Sheesh, ok fine, drop some of the sarcasm. You have updated it, there were 3 Detroit sources, etc. I'm going to break down the current crop of references though so people have a clear idea of what's there, rather than blanket assertions that there are "multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage across multiple years in multiple countries", because I think that overplays your hand. (note that I've changed my !vote).

Not online
A short, "going out" paragraph with a byline of monkeyday.com, this is a trivial mention
The pdf link is broken, and I don't see any source page.
The Denver link, and an actual real story about it. It also references the website www.monkeyday.com, but this is the best assertion of notability in the group.
An editorial in a nonmainstream paper that asks "Who the fuck would make up a holiday to celebrate monkeys?" It also makes a nontrivial mention, but there is a paper like this in every city, often paid for by advertising. I don't think that editorial articles in these sorts of paper, by themselves, indicate much.
A blog post announcing the end of the blog post announced in 7
The same blog post as 6, except beginning the contest
Not online, but the headline doesn't indicate anything about the day
A short blurb, but a nontrivial mention. A good mention, probably a reliable source.
Mention about a gallery owner that decided to do a monkey day related promotional something.
An advertising blurb about it, much like 2.

All together, it's a weak keep. None of those by themselves is probably enough, but taken as a whole I have to change my mind. Shadowjams (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A topic with multiple reliable sources giving non-trivial coverage across multiple years in multiple countries is notable. Simply reading the article's references, including 15 paragraphs on this holiday in a German newspaper, ought to quiet the above concerns about "non-trivial coverage, outside of a local area". --Dragonfiend (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Keep Plenty of diverse and notable sources available on the subject, there are also additional media sources listed on the website monkeyday.com/faq that do not seem to have even been cited yet. Looking at the media attention, the sources seem to have sequentially grown in just the two years since this article was last nominated and approved in 2007. Definitely notable and should be kept. With as much media attention and sources that it has, I don't really see why this is even up for deletion? SpaFon (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Above Editor has made 3 edits. 2 to Monkey Day, and one to this article.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mauyssane Al-Otaibi[edit]

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

Whimsically, the author has used ((infobox criminal)) but the article is actually about a poet. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google news is coming up with nothing, perhaps it's a matter of being familiar with sources that might be able to support this article but in the end, but thats the responsibility of the article creator. RadioFan (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even the Arabic version does not cite Arabic sources. Google search for his name in Arabic returns Arabic Wikipedia article and a mirror site. Sole Soul (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied under G3 by Smashville while I was AfDing it. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Yvel Nave[edit]

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

Declined speedy (WP:G3, hoaxes). While this is probably genuine and therefore not a hoax, it looks distinctly non-notable. No reliable coverage. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Lahon[edit]

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

An article about a three year old child, where the claim to notability is eating Bhut Jolokia peppers. There are some sources, but I'm not convinced that this is something we should have on Wikipedia. KFP (talk | contribs) 22:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Textbook WP:BLP1E example. This is the kind of thing you would read about in an Uncle John's Bathroom Reader "News of the Weird" section, but little more. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think he made a BLP1E in his diaper. DS (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Horrible BLP article, and a non-notable subject to boot. Keegan (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable per BLP1E. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: A7 No indication of IMPORTANCE, let alone notability. So the kid likes VERY hot peppers, wonderful. Next! Avi (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability issues. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The things parents will do for their children - sigh Annette46 (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LOL at BLP1E in the diaper. JBsupreme (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like a case of WP:BLP1E. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non-notable, BLP1E ukexpat (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama administration health care proposal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article doesn't seem to have anything to do with any specific "proposal" by the Obama administration Rather, it's just a coatrack of quotes and opinions. Nowhere in this article is any actual proposal described (and it is unclear what that proposal would be). There are some opinions stated in the lede and then some "arguments," many of which have little to do with Obama and are more about the health care debate in general. Actually, this appears to be a content fork of Health care reform debate in the United States where these topics are described in greater detail. Loonymonkey (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Note that this is not the second nomination, it is the first. Twinkle conked out on me the first time through and I had to self-revert. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is definitely a coatrack and collection of synthesized material. --Danger (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: this fork of Health care reform debate in the United States is an abomination. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep The subject is notable enough to deserve its own article, but the current version has many problems. Keep if someone steps forward to improve it, otherwise delete. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the issues addressed in the article are notable, but there is already a more extensive (and better written) article about this (see above). Also, it's not clear what the subject of this article is supposed to be, as there isn't any single proposal by the Obama administration. Rather, there is an evolving series of political compromises that are still being hammered out with congress (and will continue to change until the bill is signed or killed). No specific speech or position paper is being referred to as the basis for this so-called proposal so what is the article actually about? --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe subject is obviously notable, and the article started out as a summary of the administration's proposals sourced to the White House website. For a while, it was organized into bullet points: the White House position and argument, and counter-arguments from reliable sources. Then, people started deleting things (e.g., the organizational structure, or arguments they didn't like) so it now looks quite different. Loonymonkey, instead of always deleting, try to add something; you might find it makes for a nice change of pace. Meanwhile, I will try to restore some of the structure so that the article shows there is in fact an administration proposal, with arguments pro and con.TVC 15 (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update: I've made the changes as promised, and added a link to the White House Health Care page where the proposal is titled "The President's Plan"[1]. To those of us south of the Canadian border, his plan is certainly notable. The changes have hopefully met the conditions required by Throwaway85 also. Anyone who based an opinion on the previous version (with many deletions by Loonymonkey - but no additions except tags) will, I hope, read the article as it stands before reaching a conclusion.TVC 15 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability was never the issue as described above. The fact remains that this article is a content fork of an older, more extensive article. As an aside, you might want to read WP:ATA regarding personal attacks, etc. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "extensive article" to which you refer has become so long that WP is automatically suggesting it be broken into smaller articles. If any part of that article deserves its own article, surely "The President's Plan" does. He is, after all, the President of the United States. Regarding WP:ATA, I am trying to assume good faith, but your edits to this article seem irreconcilable: first deleting material as a way of 'contributing' and then nominating the resulting straw man for deletion.TVC 15 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original format of the articles, with bullet points and numbering, was unencyclopedic. We must present articles in clear prose when possible; a list was ungainly in this case. The article was also based almost entirely on primary sources (i.e. the White House website), which was also unacceptable. I changed the article in order to make it conform more closely with Wikipedia standards. --Danger (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another secondary source, bringing the total to 19. Even the 3 primary sources include the CBO and the White House, i.e. somewhat more notable than the average primary source. Saying the article should be all prose because numbered points seem 'unencyclopedic' is a bit like saying all vehicles should look like station wagons, because cars and trucks differ too much from the norm: covering an ongoing debate intelligibly requires a clearly visible organizational structure; different vehicles serve different purposes on the road and on Wikipedia, and trying to delete all bullet points and numbering from Wikipedia would surely be a counterproductive and thankless task. Try re-writing this AfD page without bullet points, and I think you will see it becomes much more difficult to read.TVC 15 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The effort is appreciated, but your recent edits made the article far worse, not better. For starters it doesn't conform to WP:MOS or read like a Wikipedia article in any way. You've simply copied some statements from the Whitehouse website and then "countered" each one with "However...." followed by some attacks or criticism (or, in many cases, your own original research and synthesis). Basically it just reads like some "debunking the whitehouse" website. It's a terrible article, and has no reason to exist as a better article covering the same subject already exists. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loonymonkey, you cite many policies when summarizing your many deletions, but the policies usually don't support the deletions. For example, you cited WP:WTA while removing quotes from (and links to) reliable sources (including Reuters),[2] but the WTA page doesn't condemn any of the words or phrases you deleted, and in fact it says there are no words that can't be used on WP. Now you cite WP:MOS to say the whole article should be deleted. If you think the style should be improved, then improve it, but randomly citing policies as pretexts for deletion does not enhance your credibility. Or, since you have stated repeatedly that your agenda is to delete the article entirely, the least you can do is let it be judged on its own merits rather than distorting it into a straw man for you to knock down. Really, you should take the time to read the sources before deleting them: above, you wrote that "there isn't any single proposal by the Obama administration;" can you please now acknowledge that, according to the White House website, he does in fact have a plan? After he "changed his mind" and announced a plan that contradicted profoundly what he had campaigned on, his approval dropped 25 points, so it seems surprising that you would be unaware of it.TVC 15 (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TVC, this AfD is not a referendum on Loonymonkey. If you have issues with their editing, kindly take it to an appropriate forum. --Danger (talk) 13:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, although there is obviously some overlap. Loonymonkey (the nominator) first deleted content from the article and then created this AfD with a misleading paragraph of, basically, misinformation ('the President doesn't have any proposal'). Assuming good faith, the nominator's overenthusiasm for deletions must have prevented him/her from reading that the article was about The President's Plan, and even that the President has a plan, meaning the AfD nomination was at best a mistake. Although that still doesn't explain the deletions leading up to the nomination, it goes as far as any explanation can while still assuming good faith.TVC 15 (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per arguments above. Highly synthesized POV article whose material is covered much better elsewhere. PhGustaf (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OghamWiki[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It might have been a less obvious call to make back when this article was first nominated for deletion 5 years ago, but at this point it seems clear that this software application (which by the way is called "Ogham", not "OghamWiki") is unnotable, with only one known user/developer, and no known media references. Yaron K. (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GPL and BSD licensed FOSS software. Samboy (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are few books on wiki software out by now, and this software isn't mentioned in any besides this obscure book in Portuguese, which obviously copied stuff from Wikipedia, including the wrong name of this software; the publisher Biblioteca24x7 has as its main site a blogspot blog [3]. Also no significant news hits for this software. Pcap ping 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. Beeing FOSS doesn't equate to automatic notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Young[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Simply trying out for a nomination doesn't make you notable. He loses my vote for apostrophe use alone. Hairhorn (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fails WP:POLITICIAN but passes WP:GNG for the substantial coverage of his primary bid for the nomination in Indiana's bloody 9th. The news coverage of his campaign is very substantial: see here, and here, and as cited by the article itself. Reconsidered, see below. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All seem to be passing mentions of Young. Nothing appears to be substantial coverage. ttonyb (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about him. There's also this. There's a lot of local coverage that I would agree to disregard (eg New Albany Tribune). But there are so many articles about the race, that mention the subject in a fair bit of depth, that in my view it amounts to significant. But I don't think its a clear keep by any means. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Perhaps the race is significant, but is he? ttonyb (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's always a difficult distinction and I don't pretend to argue that this is a clear-cut keep. In my view, the extent to which Young is covered separately (at least two articles on him, and many many articles that cover him as a genuine part of the race) gets him across the line in his own right. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The race would not be significant if it were not for the fact that rather than a grudge match for the fifth time (Sodrel & Hill), there are other very viable candidates. Also, this district is a long-time democratic seat, so having multiple viable republican candidates is significant. It is also significant because Young has had tremendouse fundraising success, raising more money than any non-incumbent in this district. Tschy (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.8.51 (talk) — 74.132.8.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – And how does this support Wikipedia notability? ttonyb (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Because a person "can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."" I beleive the article reflects significant coverage in an important national race. Wikipedia does allow individuals that are running for office, see Rand Paul. He's not a current office holder and the race is not even that critical since it is for a vacating Republican seat. Also meets WP:GNG. Tschy (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC) — Tschy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – I see no evidence that Young meets WP:BIO or any other variation on notability. As stated above Young lacks GHits and GNEW of substance. I cannot speak to the article Rand Paul except to say that existence of another article does not justify this article. Simply put, all articles need to stand on their own merits. ttonyb (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject is a potential candidate for the Republican primary for a congressional seat. Sourcing is insufficient. Article is puffed up with non-encyclopedic information such as his family life and volunteering.
Delete. I've slept on this and reconsidered. The WP:GNG issue is line-ball, and the claim to notability on that ground is therefore quite weak. On that basis, his massive failure to pass WP:POLITICIAN should work against inclusion, as should the improbability that he will win, let alone get the nomination. I also wonder if, even if he's notable under WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E should apply (the one event being the campaign). In any case, I now think this article should be deleted or redirected to an article on the race itself (if one is made). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Clipse#Exclusive Audio Footage (1993–1999). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive Audio Footage[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. The last AfD closed as keep because of an editor saying that they found two articles on it, but the ediitor didn't provide links or post something else that would show that they aren't trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge info and redirect to Clipse#Exclusive Audio Footage (1993–1999), most of it is already there. The album was never released and, as said in the article, the single was not succesful, does not meet WP:NALBUMS. J04n(talk page) 22:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - as argued by J04n above. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Clipse#Exclusive Audio Footage (1993–1999) as it is not notable enough for its own article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Changed to Speedy Delete. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mediaman[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company. I'm not convinced that the awards that it won are major awards. The creator has a conflict of interest. Joe Chill (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:CSD#G3 JohnCD (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Dr. Gill[edit]

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

Non-notable urban legend. No results in web searches. PROD denied by spa IP editor. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax; no reliable sources found or present. Typical schoolboy nonsense to insult a teacher. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Utter rhubarb. Wasn't this up first with the subject as Dr Gyll? 0 ghits for that, anyway. I doubt the teacher being a teacher of philosophy - that would be a Sixth Form subject. If the creator of the article is a teacher, as stated in the talk page of the article, I would hope their spelling in class is better than 'sight' for a website. An IP claims "I have heard this urban myth and have heard many claims of it's reallity [sic]" but doesn't produce any evidence. If no-one can produce refs, it counts as OR. I count it as hoax. (And I admit to having co-created a local 'legend' in the days before the internet and Wikipedia...) Peridon (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terre Haute Rex[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, particularly since it doesn't even exist yet. Ironholds (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While the team hasn't played a game yet, it does exist. As for WP:ORG, a quick Google search finds several reliable secondary sources, ([4], [5], [6], [7]) which also show that the team "exists." Kithira (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're using local media. Quoth WP:ORG; "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability.". Ironholds (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local news don't show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: While the team may not be covered by the New York Times, it is indeed a legitimate team from a league dating back to 1963. You have to consider that it is a local league, and the team is new. It is notable and a part of this family of articles.24.154.29.79 (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That means nothing; coverage of a non-local nature is needed. Ironholds (talk) 05:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: If that were the case, most minor leagues would not be covered here. What's your benchmark? USA Today? Tom Danson (talk) 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just added formatting for references from Indiana State University, an established institution. Also added a national source for the ownership and first line.Kithira (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local leagues can be notable, but not necessarily the teams in them. The degree to which purely local notability is sufficient is an open question; in this case, I think it inadequate. The "national source" referred to above is merely the league's own website, whichis reliable for facts, but not as evidence of notablity. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The national source is not the leagues website. The Rex belong to the Prospect League. The aforementioned source is a third-party media outlet which covers summer collegiate leagues like the Prospect League. As seen on the site's About page, the site merely covers summer leagues and is in no way affiliated with any particular league or team. Also, when did the Prospect League become a "local league"? It has franchises in 6 states.Kithira (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Prospect League. BRMo (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable league, therefore it's a notable team.Alex (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kash Johns[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article lacks references. ttonyb (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Possibly autobiography, certainly WP:COI. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, unsourced flim-flammery, non-notable head of a non-notable company. Hairhorn (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks like WP:ARTSPAM to me. No Google news hits. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I found a reference on someone's Myspace, and that's about it. No signs he could meet WP:MUSICBIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise spacing effect[edit]

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

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified Bragg diffraction. This seems to be another WP:POVFORK by the same editor, created to promote his website and self-published book. It also says nothing about what the "Compromise spacing effect" is, but instead seems to be just a collection of research results, with the supposed article topic an excuse to put them on WP. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an easy one, you don't actually have to be an expert on this subject to see that the article is exactly what the nom says: a POV-pushing FORK. --Crusio (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Material of article is unencyclopedic and appears to be mainly OR and OS and not yet to have attained mainstream acceptance. I make no comment on whether the material in the article is scientifically valid. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete / merge per my comment in the analogous Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modified Bragg diffraction. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - the material might be real, but does look like a re-publication, on WP, a single-hand developed theory. COI is a strong factor here. The article content is based on self-citation of papers published in minor journals (there is a few well-respected citations here, but they only support the general notion of quasicrystal). Materialscientist (talk) 09:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week delete – Although the article isn't that poorly written, it looks like a COI (Bourdillona (the user who created the article) and Bourdillon, A.J. (the author of the first three citations)). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 05:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Sunny Side Up (Paolo Nutini album). Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10/10[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/10/10

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

Prod removed, but no reason given. WP:NSONGS: "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." Adambro (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. The single was just released and will have more information later (as chart perfomance, track list of the physical release, album cover, etc.)--HC 5555 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be accepting that we aren't in a position to assess the notability of this song. That means the article should be deleted because notability isn't established. Adambro (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sunny Side Up (Paolo Nutini album). There is no independent notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. It's stupid to question the songs notability before it's even charted. And also, editors give excuses for articles that have previously been deleted not to be created again once notability has been reached that have gone through this process. In my opinion "Coming Up Easy" is notable enough, which was deleted by the same process Kitchen roll (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You say "It's stupid to question the songs notability before it's even charted" but WP:NSONGS says that "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article" so surely the article shouldn't have been created until the song charted and the notability could be assessed. Adambro (talk) 20:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proteans Software Solutions[edit]

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

Advertising article for a non-notable business, an an outsourcing software services company that's apparently now a subsidiary of a business we don't have an article about. Article is promotional in intent, containing nothing but boasts about certifications and non-notable trade awards. "References" are to case studies and listings in "emerging company" lists that do not provide notability. Google News Search finds no reliable sources: note that the "xtvworld.com" sites that come up are blocked on my browser by antivirus software, probably for excellent reasons. Discretion will be the better part of curiosity here.

This has been deleted three times already as unambiguous advertising. Suggest protection against re-creation. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. Samboy (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Spammy and non-encyclopedic article. I'm not sure that company of this size is that notable in India, even more so if it's a subsidiary. I'd expect some market share numbers, etc. Not case studies. Those awards don't mean anything: they are all business-related, e.g. from Red Herring (magazine), and if you look at list of those, you'll see equally non-notable companies. The only mainstream mentions are in the Business Standard, but that's only about the company being acquired by Camo, and a note in The Hindu, which is extremely short [8] (scroll to the end). Pcap ping 01:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable mentions in reliable sources. If somebody could find other references, please try to add that to this article rather that tag it for deletion. 1. Information Week. 2. NASSCOM. 3. One India. 4. India4u.com. 5. CIOL. 6. Randburg. 7. Value Notes to copy a few. As an inclusionist, I believe that notable mentions in these sources are sufficient conditions for the existence of this article. Vipin Hari || talk 03:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are just press releases or short directory entries. Please see what Business Wire is about. Pcap ping 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any link to Business Wire in the article. Vipin Hari || talk 07:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was referring to your new references. The longest pieces, i.e. this and this are obvious press releases sent out through Business Wire. You can usually tell by how it starts (date+place), how it ends, (short blurb about the company) and anything having the word "wire" in it given as source. Pcap ping 08:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Numbers[edit]

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

Nevada Numbers has been defunct (removed) since early 2009 (www.nevadanumbers.com)and is no longer offered as a keno wager in Nevada casinos. Las Vegas Gaming, Inc., is in the process of selling their keno and bingo business to a yet unlicensed entity in the State of Nevada so the future of the promotion is uncertain or perhaps doubtful. Nevada requires full licensure of keno manufacturers and operators of linked keno progressives. Suggest deletion until such time as the promotion is back on line, if indeed it ever is.

From LVGI's most recent SEC filed financials, "On March 31, 2009, the Company shut down its Nevada Numbers and Million Dollar Ticket games."

Also from SEC filings, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1103993/000111776809000363/mainbody.htm: "We completed the sale of our bingo business, keno intellectual property, and prac (Promotion marketing software) business to Gaming Arts, LLC (GA) on August 19, 2009, for $1,050,000. GA also executed a Nevada Numbers License Agreement for $50,000 for an exclusive license to operate, grant sublicenses and enforce the Nevada Numbers intellectual property in any non-slot application. In addition, GA received a non-exclusive license to operate, grant one sublicense, and enforce the Nevada Numbers intellectual property in any slot machine application for 50% of the net profits after GA or its sublicensee receives the first $100,000 in net profits. However, since GA has not received the necessary regulatory approval to be a gaming operator, the Company continues to maintain control of these assets and manage them on a day-to-day basis for an indefinite period pending such approvals. The gain on the sale of these assets has been deferred pending such approvals. As a result of significant uncertainty as to the achievement and timing of such regulatory approvals, we are unable to conclude that the disposition of these business assets and activities within one year is probable. Therefore, pursuant to ASC 360-10-45-9, we have not classified such operations of these businesses as discontinued." NRee (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)NRee — NRee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Eastmain (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: submitting this in good faith for a non-autoconfirmed user. tedder (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is content that should be added to the article in an appropriate sourced form, not a rationale for deletion. An enterprise that was notable before its failure remais notable after its failure. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable company that becomes defunct does not cease to be notable. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Once notable, always thus. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zebraplop[edit]

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

Obscure, non-notable band that claims to be an Internet sensation. Does not pass WP:BAND, WP:WEB or WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage by reliable third party sources, nothing but YouTube and MySpace, one unreleased album. Does not pass WP:BAND or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 22:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources, couldn't find anymore than J04n did. Article has one link to MySpace that wouldn't open for me and a link to a YouTube channel, that the YouTuber has closed, containing no videos. —Sandahl (♀) 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources in the first 5 pages of googles hits and zero google news archive hits. Totally non-notable. (And also terrible). Yilloslime ^T_C 06:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO badly; YouTube videos are not nearly enough to merit inclusion. Seems to lack significant coverage by reliable third parties. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no coverage in independent reliable sources; does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 23:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotia soccer club[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur sports group. Google News searches do not confirm notability. Warrah (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. There is no evidence of notability. Seems a clear cut deletion to me.Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payback Time (Marya Roxx album)[edit]

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

No confirmed info from secondary sources. Tosses around terms like "recently", no track listing confirmed, only sources are forums. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable unreleased album. Fails WP:NALBUM. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Stop, WP:HAMMERTIME. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priority management[edit]

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

Unreferenced since May 2009. Two links to the company website, one to a search engine result page, and one to a book by trademark creator. Looks promotional, bordering speedy deletion. Abanima (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a system of organizing work. It is a trade mark of Priority Management Systems Inc. "That is my theory, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too." Exists entirely to promote a business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent references are present in the article, and given the extremely common name it's unreasonable to ask for volunteers like us to find some to support an article that's close to WP:ARTSPAM. Pcap ping 11:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Game[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP; sources are not sufficient to pass WP:GNG, one being an unreliable site, one being a borderline-unreliable site which doesn't give enough detail to be useful. Ironholds (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources covering this. Urban dictionary isn't reliable, nor are blogs. -- Whpq (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly just a game made up by, and unknown outside of, a small circle of friends -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Notability seemingly not established by significant coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HyperGraphDB[edit]

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

New software. Not finding significant independent coverage in reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with OpenCog, the only known user so far, which doesn't appear incredibly notable either. Creating a page on new software tagged from the get go with ((primary sources)) is WP:POINTy. Pcap ping 18:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GPL licensed. Samboy (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, being GPL licensed doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion! —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From Author: I'd understand if you decide to delete it. I modeled the entry after the entry on Hypertable which doesn't include any external to the project references either and I assumed that Wikipedia accepted serious software projects regardless of the number of independent publications about them. I'd like to know approx. how much independent coverage it needs? Bolerio —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Some other mentions of HyperGraphDB: A presentation on next-generation databases http://www.slideshare.net/bscofield/the-future-of-data, a blog on databases http://www.viget.com/extend/database-taxonomy/, a listed lecture (but without published material) http://cs.ubbcluj.ro/~studia-i/2009-kept/Studia-2009-Kept-1-KCL.pdf. But yeah, this is pretty much all I could find on google. Bolerio

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 consensus of this discussion seems to indicate that she does in fact meet the bar of WP:N. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pooja[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-delete. This article was already deleted once [9] by way of consensus after a previous deletion discussion, but has since been recreated. I still cannot find non-trivial coverage of this artist from various third party publications. It has been asked once before, and I will ask it again: perhaps she has been reported on in another language? If sufficient coverage still cannot be found then I would suggest salting this page as well. JBsupreme (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Google news hits all seem to be from user-edited sites. Polarpanda (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment i was able to find a track listing for the album romantic jatt, which features Rishi Rich as a vocalist. also this small mention, [10]. She appears to have some notability, just poorly documented. oh, and romantic jatt is released on mp3 only i believe. not looking good.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have had this page watchlisted since I declined a G4 speedy on it in Jan 2009 and cleaned it up. I think that the problem we have here is that Miss Pooja/Gurinder Kainth/Gurinder Kaur (if you are googling then you should google all three) is a "household name"[11] but not necessarily in English speaking parts of the world, hence admitted dirth of reliable sources in English. I think this is a classic case of the effects of cultural bias and on that basis I can't !vote Delete at the moment. Nancy^talk 06:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a ((rescue)) tag help? If someone can show that there are actual reliable sources covering this subject (in more than passing) I will happily withdraw the nom. I do not care what language those sources are in, so long as they meet our standards for reliability as defined in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm kind of shocked that there is nothing printed about her in English, given that all the "pop" songs I've managed to locate by this artist are in the English language. JBsupreme (talk) 07:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - A rescue tag could do no harm. We need someone who speaks Punjabi as I'll bet that is where the sources are. Take your point about the English language songs/lack of English sources - it is a little odd. Nancy ^talk 07:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching for mentions of "Miss Pooja" on the BBC website gives 46 pages of results. Most of these are archived playlists rather than prose pieces but they do show that she gets masses of airplay on a UK national radio station - I don't know if that counts as "rotation" enough to meet criterion 11 of WP:MUSICBIO? Nancy ^talk 08:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her main claim to fame (notability) is this unreferenced puffery in the article "Miss Pooja is one of the best-selling female Indian Bhangra singers.". This in my view is the core issue for retention of this article. Commenting as an Indian, her recording credits with "T-series" and "E-series" do not in any way contribute towards establishing her notability. These recording companies maintain "talent banks" of thousands of "clone singers" for their "audio piracy" legalised by a loophole in section 59 (??) of the Indian Copyright Act which allows anyone to publish a "version" / "cover" of an audio work by paying the original publisher the princely sum of Rupees 5 (about 10 US cents). Annette46 (talk) 13:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a hard-charging and uncompromising interpretation of the notability guideline: either fix this article's references, likely to be written in Punjabi language, within 7 days or it will be deleted and salted. This is at odds with WP:DEADLINE, AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, and, ironically the Notability guideline itself. "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort". With half a milion Google hits for "Miss Pooja" it could reasonably be assumed that RS exist, in Punjabi language or otherwise, and the airing on BBC would also support this assumption. It is certainly not a clearcut Miss Nobody, this is at the very least a case of "unclear notability". The first AfD is also borderline, with low participation, muddled discussion, and reservations concerning possible WP:BIAS -- not the clear-cut community deletion consensus story that JBSupreme tries to sell as a veiled G4. Power.corrupts (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That is not even remotely true. If this were a clearcut "Miss Nobody" then the article would be speedy deleted under CSD A7 criteria. We have strict policies, such as WP:BLP which prevent the ongoing publication of material which is not reliably sourced. There was a discussion 2 years ago where no sources were found. No sources have been found since then, either. I find that telling. So rather than put words in my mouth, why don't you put quality sources in the article? If the article gets deleted and sources are found at a later date, we can re-create the article at that time. JBsupreme (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, I have little interest in sifting through half a million Google hits for some singer, half a globe away, who I would never ever listen to. And neither do you, I suspect, as you prefer other editors do that work. Theoretically, it is possible to recreate an article, assuming you were aware that it existed in some form, but in practice, as Wikipedia deletions work at present, only a select group of less than 2,000 persons worldwide, with Wikipedia admin status, are able to view deleted articles. Your reference to WP:BLP is simply misleading, as the concern there is contentious information -- the concerns of other editors are more mundane, vanity etc. If you would like to invoke BLP, please highlight your concerns about contentious info, e.g. libel or defamation. I doubt you will find any. Power.corrupts (talk) 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - [12] There are plenty more (and for that matter, far worse) potentially libelous/defamatory claims in the page history. I need not highlight all of them, they will take you seconds to find. JBsupreme (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your link points to plain vandalism, as do some of the other reverted edits, e.g. by Hullaballoo, this could be an argument for semi-proctection, not deletion. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Now you're changing the subject. The highlighted link above makes an example of unsourced claim of caste, which is not vandalism per se, although there are plenty of examples of vandalism within the article. The lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications is the reason for deletion. WP:DEADLINE cuts both ways. JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) Right, unclaimed source of caste..., would you really call that contentious info?, comprised by the extremely serious concerns of BLP? I call it trivial vandalism. You are the one changing the subject with your invocation of BLP concerns, when in reality you want to send other editors scrambling for sources in Punjabi language within seven days. Power.corrupts (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep a cool head and WP:AGF. I believe that I have clearly outlined and identified the problems with this article. Should it be deleted as a result and then proper sources be discovered (which would surprise me at this point) the article can and should be re-created from those sources, as I've said above. I have little sympathy for your "7 days" argument given the number of years we've presented this material with zilch to show for it. JBsupreme (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm asking is that you qualify your BLP concerns... Power.corrupts (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm done repeating myself here. JBsupreme (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT FYI, guys, the first Google hit now claims that she has been shot and killed. I'm not sure how that changes things in this AfD, but I suspect it will change how the article will be edited/seen during this discussion. [13]. SMSpivey (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ugh, I found one of those reports that gives a date (they are from July 09), so whoops and carry on.SMSpivey (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep-I remember working on this article when reports regarding her death was in full flourish. Later those reports turned out to be wide spread rumor. But I realized then that she is notable in northern part of India, specially Punjabi speaking region. Her album has a review at BBC Review, there may be more reviews. This BBC article suggests that her hit album proves that bhangra (an Indian genre of music) is definitely not dead. This may satisfy Point number 7 of WP:MUSICBIO. Hitro talk 07:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep Change made in light of BBC sources found by User:HitroMilanese. I've found a readable English-Language site which has a number of articles about Miss Pooja and seems like a legitimate magazine concerned with this type of music [14] . It would be great if we could find some non-English articles, but unfortunately I do not speak any languages they could be written in. Perhaps if kept, we could punt further article citations over to Wikiproject India? SMSpivey (talk) 04:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. See how much press coverage she gets? She is also the winner of BEST INTERNATIONAL ACT at the UK Asian Music Awards 2009, an award which gets plenty of coverage [15] and therefore is considered notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 05:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Power_corrupts gets "half million Ghits" for "Miss Pooja", I get precisely 312, the bulk of which are either user generated or torrent sites including some like these "http://rapidlibrary.com/index.php?q=miss+pooja+boobs". Out of these about 80 are for that fake story about her death. BTW Indians, ie. people from India don't know this Non Resident Indian lady so its no use asking us to pitch in to salvage the article. The "desihits" website is unreliable.Annette46 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a question of whether you or people you know know Miss Pooja, it is a question of whether or not people from India can look for reliable sources to assert (or not assert) her notability that are written in a non-English language. There are plenty of English-language musical artists who I don't know that meet WP:N. SMSpivey (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that she is NOT from India. I am a regular bhangra listener and I've never heard of her in any significantly notable connection. To claim that she is the most famous Indian Bhangra singer is patent nonsense. The sources cited as RS like desihits.com, desiblitz.com etc are UK based websites targeted towards Non Resident Indians. So don't look to people from India to salvage this article. As far as we are concerned "Bhangra" is an exclusively male vocal folk dance form (women dancers are just eye candy) , the female equivalent being called Giddha. "Bhangra Music" however is a UK invented bastardisation. Annette46 (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annette46 is right, if you scroll to the end, the Google hits evaporate, my version of Google returns 333 hits, and if I opt to see also "similar pages not omitted", 999 pages are available. Much less that ½ mio. I then experimented with Google translate, which changes English "Miss Pooja" into Hindi "कुमारी पूजा". Google for "कुमारी पूजा" and you have 32,000 hits, which evaporate to 571 unique hits. There seem to be some respectable RS, e.g gwaliortimes.wordpress.com [16], thatshindi.oneindia.in/news [17], navbharattimes.indiatimes.com [18] - the curled letters are completely volapuk to me though. My experience with searching both Mexican and Danish sources are, however, that many online media actively keep Google out with a NOINDEX tag, and require paid subscription to both searching and viewing. This raises massive systematic BIAS issues, for those who see lack of Google footprint as proof of non-existence. For non-English sources in AfDs under time pressure, I therefore lean on less formalistic approaches, if a singer performs on several continents, if Google indicates an extensive fan base, if she makes so much of herself outside India, a country with a 1.2 bn population, she would at least qualify to be of "unclear notability" and unsuitable for guess-based deletion. If local language editors makes a serious search attempt for that specific location, then I bow to them. Power.corrupts (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I receive 342 unique hits (more than Power corrupts 333). JBsupreme (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that she is a non-resident Indian. While I respect that it is against your traditions, it is totally immaterial how people from India view female participation in Bhangra Music. All that matters is if she meets WP:N; and I cannot see how we can say she does not if we cannot search through articles written in another language. No one is asking Indians to "salvage" the article. I instead hope that someone with the language skills to do so can make a good faith effort to check through non-English sources that could hold information related to a cross-cultural artist. If there is nothing there, there is nothing there, but we can't know if we can't check. And if there are sources and we delete this article, then it is a tragic example of textbook cultural bias that comes from Wikipedia relying on English Google sources for notability. SMSpivey (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion of notability in the article, namely that she is the most famous Indian Bhangra singer is provably false as I have demonstrated. What else survives ? just PR fluff !!! Also since she is based in UK, I believe they speak (and write) a variant of (Google searchable) English there. Annette46 (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With All Respect, in response to Annette46's comment.-- Giddha is a form of folk dance as per wikipedia article and concerned lady is a singer where as Bhangra may have lyrics, its not just only dance. A sourced snippet in wikipedian article Bhangra, clearly says that "Women are turning into Bhangra as way of defining culture" (you may refer to reference number 7). "Bhangra Music" may be a bastardisation but it can not be cold-shouldered, BBC Asian network plays these music in rotation you may want to look bhangra section here. Please give a glance at my keep comment above regarding few more sources. Hitro talk 20:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your comment. Bhangra is a traditional folk dance of Punjab set to a unique beat and male vocals. Yes in UK and Canada a few females may sing bhangra, but this is a bastardisation, and is not bhangra (as purists understand it) and is comparable to the female Elvis impersonator example I cited. Yes they may even be perfect - but its fake -like female Kathakali or Kabuki performers. The BBC is not always considered as an RS for India or things Indian :-) Annette46 (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The "best selling/most popular Indian" part isn't even sourced in the provided reference so it's probably a red herring here and should be removed. The sources seem to revolve around her popularity in the UK scene, and show she meets WP:MUSICBIO. The review of her album at the BBC describes her as "the poster girl of Punjabi music" and the "current Queen of Bhangra", which is evidence of point 7 ("most prominent of a notable style or of the local scene of a city"). The article points to a live session she performed for BBC Asian Network, a national radio station, and here's the tracklisting for that show, where she gave an interview and 7 of her tracks were played/performed live. It takes up roughly half of a two-hour show, meeting point 12 ("has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network"). Another BBC page [19] has a "played by" section listing some of the shows that have played her music, along with the search results linked earlier, which are nearly all from archived tracklistings (11: "has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network"). Finally, there's her "Best International Act" award at the UK Asian Music Awards, which was broadcast worldwide on the B4U Music satellite network [20]. It passes the duck test for me, these aren't signs of a non-notable musician. Holly25 (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Pooja is not a non resident Indian but based out of Punjab, India. She is currently one of the most popular Punjabi singers (male or female). Her songs appear regularly on TV channels such as Alpha TV Punjabi, ZEE Punjabi, JAS TV. There are hundreds of her songs available on YouTube, many of which have almost 1 million views. Her interviews with western TV/Radio media can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNvo0hcYOBM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyRDPGgFiHI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8vwSdsSCgc ~~bal537 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bal537 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All this is very interesting, but you must back it up with citations from Reliable Sources. Unfortunately you are unlikely to get these from Indian sources (which incidentally is another reason why WP is so biased against Indians who live in India). For eg. a Gsearch for "miss pooja" at site:bbc.co.uk gives 740 hits. But a similar search for "lata mangeshkar" Lata Mangeshkar at site:ddindia.gov.in gets ZERO. Annette46 (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite nearly !voting delete when I initially commented on this discussion, with the information that has come to light in the last few days I now am of the opinion that Miss Pooja passes at least one, and possibly two of the criteria at WP:MUSIC. Winning the UK Asian Music Award ticks the box for criterion 8, and the extensive airplay on the National UK radio station - BBC Asian Network - for me satisfies criterion 11. As I mentioned above, and as alluded to by Annette46, I do think this article a likely victim of the circumstances that cause Wikipedia's cultural bias however I think that the sources that have been found are just enough and that a delete !vote would make me part of the problem. Nancy ^talk 09:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The BBC Asian Network would not pass an independent assessment as a "national" RADIO network. On the standard radio frequencies it has incomplete footprint. It only gets its so-called "national coverage" as part of the DAB international radio project of the ITU - nowadays every piffling local station gets distributed globally via satellite. Also the station seems to have only a miniscule 0.2% audience share. Furthermore, I question if the UK Asian Music Awards qualifies as a major music award like the "Grammies", "Juno", "Mercury" etc. (BTW it doesnt have a wiki article)Annette46 (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notwithstnding the above, Miss Pooja does have 2 or more albums recorded /distributed by a major record label (T-series is as big as they come) but as a religious singer (ie. not as Bhangra singer) [21], [22], Guess thats what threw me off=track. Annette46 (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much a national radio network; it's broadcast from the BBC's network of land-based transmitters[23] rather than being satellite based, and they're switching all of their radio stations to that DAB network over the next five years[24]. Holly25 (talk) 13:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[25] shows the "national radio network". BBC Asian Network is not exactly BBC Radio 2 or BBC Radio 4!! A 0.2% audience share is exactly the kind of tokenism which made the Kurims a laughing stock. Yes, by 2013 DAB will be national [26] till then there are huge unserviced patches for the A/N (which is not the case for 2 or 4). Annette46 (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's already very much a national network. The page you've linked to shows the dates when the analogue non-DAB radio transmitters are switched off, at which point DAB will be the only national radio medium. The "unserviced patches" refer to MW (analogue) coverage. The BBC themselves call Asian Network a "national digital radio station" ([27]), it's not just my opinion. Holly25 (talk) 16:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A recording artist with a track record of albums. There looks to be some anti non-Anglo-centric sentiment on Wikipedia sometimes. Of course English references will be harder to find in such cases. Follow WP:BEFORE first. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Weeks[edit]

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

(deletion rationale from the talk page)

I am nominating this article to be deleted.

1. There are thousands of record producers and songwriters, few of whom are notable. This person has not accomplished anything of note in either capacity. Further, none of his songs are referenced in the article. Clearly, this is not a person of note.

2. It is unknown whether Weeks is currently associated with Universal Music Group.

3. The article does not cite any sources.

4. It has been tagged for "sources" long enough to allow anyone with substantive information or sources to add them to the article.

5. The only real "claim to fame" for Weeks is his association with a group, The Imperials, that has done nothing of note in over three decades. The group became an essentially amateur group years before Weeks' association.

6. Since the original "sources" tag was added, a large amount of filler and fluff has been removed (by myself) from the article, rendering it a mere stub.

paul klenk talk 18:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(Finishing nom as a courtesy -- no opinion yet on deletion) Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC) paul klenk ^talk 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per my reasons above. paul klenk ^talk 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have found trivia mentions of subject in articles about The Booth Brothers, but no significant coverage to assert notability. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 significant amount of media coverage seemingly establishes enough notability for inclusion. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Hug Day[edit]

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

Declined speedy/contested WP:PROD. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it exists: [28]. Warrah (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warrah; it is not new and is notable. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it didn't exist, but the coverage is minimal and of a trivial nature, and I doubt any government recognizes it as a real holiday. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - media coverage above is extensive and meets WP:GNG. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - utterly trivial. Bazonka (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destination management system[edit]

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

No information provided. No references or sources other than one company's website. Suspected that they are trying to create a new buzzword or highlight the name of their product. The history of the page also shows that it has had very little information since it's creation. The only thing added recently was a link to a vendor's product page. OMouse (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination: a non-notable neologism supported simply by a handy link to a vendor who uses this description for its product. Will management system come next as a search term after management solution? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Obvious WP:ARTSPAM. Pcap ping 06:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sentilla[edit]

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

Contested proposed deletion (not mine). Advertisement for a non-notable business providing management solutions for data centers. "References" provided are either to press releases and minor trade awards, or cheekily seem to be entirely irrelevant to this business and do not mention its name[29]. Gotta give credit for chutzpah where it's due, at least. None of the alleged sources would appear to have broad readership, either. Google News Archive finds only routine product announcements and similar material. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

Delete Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to indicate notability. The JavaOne piece is about the only such source and its independence is not completely assured. (Disclosure: prodder = me) --Cybercobra (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) Fabrictramp | talk to me 11:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind (2010 film)[edit]

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

Non notable film and possible hoax. I Cannot find anything to establish this as a real film. Article has been speedy deleted twice and a prod removed by anon editor. Article creator also created Essence (2010 film) which is also subject to AFD as a possible hoax. noq (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This pretty much sums up my prod. No entry at IMDb, can't find existence of this film in a google search, much less notability. Trying to AGF and not speedy as a hoax. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. If it's a real film early in its production, it'd still have an IMDB entry, for example. The lack of any mention at all, anywhere, is telling. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax or homemade/local production of some sort. Definitely not notable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: as WP:CSD#G3 hoax created by vandalism only account. Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nimi Visuals[edit]

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

Speedy deletion via CSD#G11 contested and overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 4. Per that discussion the article is being referred to AfD for further consideration. Shereth 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and remove some of the excessive feature list. Reviewed in [30] PC World, included in 2009 Windows Utility Guide PC Magazine, and [31] Techtree. Pcap ping 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the newbie creator inspired himself from Beryl (window manager) and Compiz, which are linked from this article, and have a similarly long laundry list of features. Pcap ping 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement created by the sole founder/programmer. Conflict of interest aside, there's virtually no coverage outside of a blurb in PC World ("And although fun, Nimi is clearly a work in progress" is the sum of the editorialization, a thorough review it is not). Almost all sources of info on this program are disseminated throughout the web by its creator, though Nimi does appear to have a small (couple of dozen users) following on deviantart. That said, the program itself is pretty neat. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to say, I still can't understand why You are participating so actively in this discussion after other administrators reverted Your delete of this article. Mystery for me. On User count - there are many mirrors available, not only one website dA - from which daily downloads and views count is pretty impressive I think overall. On coverage - which search engine were You using? Did You search on websites related to program category? Besides, I've already updated this article - removing those. In summary I would appreciate editing help instead of plain meaningless discussion. By the way did You heard Ego final recension speech from Ratatouille movie? Cheers Sami Samiwieciekto (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Participating here is the next step. Please read Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_January_4; the tone definitely does not suggest that deleting is not an appropriate possible outcome. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the project and its development is impressive, my rationale for deletion is not a criticism of the project but rather of its coverage and current lack of notability. As ErikHaugen mentioned, it is a routine practice for wiki contributors to follow the process of reviewing an article from one venue to another. In examining coverage I used google, including the web, news, scholar, and books search engines. As for the Ratatouille comparison, I can see why you'd think of it, wikipedia editors can appear snobbish at times. Such appearance is based on experience in dealing with thousands of deletions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ All I can find on this subject is copies of our article. I would like to see some reliable third party sources on which we can base an encyclopedic article, rather than a glowing endorsement, about this product. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Copy of what? This is getting ridiculous - what kind of 3rd party sources would You like to base article on? Recently those were forced to be removed as considered unreliable from what I understood. In other words - seriously this isn't helpful at all, words don't cost and it's very easy to critique. Real help appreciated. Samiwieciekto (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copies of our articles is what I have found. See reliable sources for what we consider reliable. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two questions does Your articles meet reliable sources criteria, second don't You have conflict of interest I mean if You state You are the author of those? Assuming that You will reply to those somehow - I think that You are best person to propose look of this entry: I mean if You have idea of something innovative other than software features list, and details - I have a feeling You might come up with some sort of chart or graph - or better music in ogg format.

Anyway, besides, feel free to quote on Mr Chris Pirillo(really great person), LifeHacker.com or at last AskVG.com etc. - those either have world-wide IT recognizability or are certificated IT specialists (like MVP Mr Vishtal Gupta). Of course there are always newspapers sources like PC World and PC Magazine. And of course You can relate to official website if You want to - it's official overall.

Samiwieciekto (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Wikipedia is not meant to be a reliable source, it is meant to be an encyclopedia. I don't know what you are referring to in regards to conflict of interest. If this software has been the feature of non-trivial coverage in magazines then links would be helpful in establishing notability. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep Upon further investigation there are a couple of independent reliable sources in the field covering this, it would need to be rewritten to be based on those sources however. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Share them with us, please :) ErikHaugen (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the two sources above with the networkworld and techktree references given at the top of this page. I don't consider the pcmag source to be a good one as it is only a passing mention. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chillum, I agree completely. JBsupreme (talk) 06:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like I'm spending too much time on try to keep encyclopedic entry - which compared to worldwide statistics isn't even worth for - first that deletion now there is same discussion, but without any positive reinforcement not counting very first arguments here. If that's what this whole system basics are I strongly doubt for its long term run in terms of quality and ethical aspect. I've rewritten this entry today - and still so far there are only problems without any self-initiative: just decide whether You want to keep software encyclopedic entries at all and give a rest too other people. Samiwieciekto (talk) 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the others here are trying to drag you down or are being unethical; please don't take offense here - nobody is criticizing Nimi Visuals at all or trying to detract from the work you have done on it. It's just the policy that articles satisfy the requirements here: WP:N ErikHaugen (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see any compelling sources, WP:N. ErikHaugen (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage, or at least nowhere near enough for notability. Two of the three links seem to be trivial, i.e. to lists with only brief mentions. The third is a very short review - too short to establish notability or to base an article on. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Several comments have shown that this article is being actively worked on and many of the points are being actively address. As a result I'm withdrawing the nomination with the intention of allowing people to work on it for a couple of weeks. After that point it will be revisited to see if it has improved, or if it is still just a trivia list. Remember though when editing the article, that just because something has a reliable source, doesn't mean we should include it in Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft in fiction[edit]

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

A completely unmaintainable and seemingly pointless article. An article on all aircraft that appears in works of fiction? This isn't an encyclopaedic topic. What next, cars that appear in fiction? If certain aircraft have a significant role in a work of fiction then it makes more sense to have that detailed on the article for that aircraft, but having one superarticle for this kind of thing isn't what we're here for. Aircraft appear in fiction all the time, like cars, countries, handguns etc. It's just not a rare or significantly small enough grouping for it to be significant. Seems to me the majority is this page is pure trivia at best, and pointless at worst. Canterbury Tail talk 15:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As explained on the article talk page and also in discussions found on Talk:F-15 Eagle, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#Aircraft_in_fiction and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft/Archive_25#Aircraft_in_fiction creating this article was as consensus solution to deal with the large amounts of text that was being added to aircraft type articles about films, TV shows and especially toys and video games. The volume of this "popular culture" text was in some cases threatening to overwhelm some aircraft type articles and policing it for refs and notability was consuming considerable time by members of WikiProject Aircraft. This article is undergoing daily improvement and discussion and has a consensus to retain it at this point. - Ahunt (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and the majority of that stuff should not be on Wikipedia at all. Pop culture trivia shouldn't be there. Someone made a toy of a particular aircraft is not encyclopaedic. Starscream was an F-15 should be mentioned in the Starscream article, but isn't relevant to the F-15 article or any other. Canterbury Tail talk 16:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree with you. I think the article, at the moment, is full of fancruft for Gobots and Transformers. Again, if you'd read the talk page, you'll see that I've made the argument that Gobots and Transformers don't even belong in this article, since they aren't actually a F-15, but a robot disguised as a F-15. If disguising something makes it become that thing, then after this past Halloween, I'm a Jedi Knight. But seriously, you're saying the same things I said. Please, read the discussions and see, we really are working on this article to make it up to standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So what you are saying is the article needs improvement - I agree. Feel free to help improve it, but for the reasons given above I believe that deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia. - Ahunt (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -In other words, this article is a garbage dump for the unreferenced trivial bilge that was clogging up arcraft articles. While I can totally understand the desire to keep this stuff out of actual good articles, putting it in a seperate article is just as bad and, arguably, even worse. When cleaning up Wikipedia, please remember not to be a litterbug yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As I said the article needs work to improve it, but that work is actively underway. If the AfD is successful I would hope that those editors who supported deletion will join us at WikiProject Aircraft, take on a watch list of aircraft type articles and help keep the cruft under control. The problem is large enough that it is taking up significant time and thus preventing the creation and improvement of new articles. - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Which part(s) of the current article do you envision keeping after you've rewritten the article? Hint: if the answer is "none", then it's actually to your advantage to have it deleted and start over. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is not just me who is working on it and that subject is under discussion as we try to reach consensus on criteria for inclusion. The fact that the article is still in this early stage and still being developed is more reason to give it more time before a hasty deletion. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the past few hours, I've added about 30 reliably sourced entries and about 12-15 more aircraft. I'm only adding stuff that can pass RS. No toy collector sites and IMDB. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator, and the annoying thing is that this actually could be an okay topic if treated completely differently: for example, a prose-based article on how air travel is portrayed in fiction, with realistic and unrealistic aspects. There could be coverage of the general trends of aircraft in popular culture: the early 20th century showed planes as adventurous and heroic (Biggles), the jet age made them romantic and fun: a chance for ordinary people to see the world (Sinatra's "Come Fly With Me"), and the 70s through present have focused mostly on danger, terrorism, and negative aspects of air travel (Airport series, Air Force One, Snakes on a Plane, etc.). There might even be something to be said on how fiction has impacted the actual aviation industry. Nobody appears to have thought of any of that though, so we just get some unreferenced trivia soup: So-and-so appeared on this episode of Go-Bots, blah blah blah. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep. I actually entertained the notion of nominating the article myself. However, if you will look on the talk pages, you'll see that there is discussion about establishing criteria for inclusion. You'll also see that numerous, well sourced additions have been made in the past 24 hours and more are coming. I also posted to the RSN about the sources being used and entries without reliable sources will be removed as soon as the rest of the article is shored up. I've become convinced that this article serves a purpose and it has made significant progress in the past 24 hours. I say a provisional keep, because I agree that criteria need established, but, as I said, that discussion is already underway. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Niteshift and Ahunt. The alternative is cruftifying articles on real aircraft. Per Dark matter in fiction and List of fictional swords's AfD outcomes, these sorts of articles seem to be an acceptable compromise, if perpetual cleanup targets. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stubbify and encourage re-development per Andrew Lenahan above. In-universe treatment seems an indiscriminate list of cruft, but non-listy perspective of the way fictional aircraft are conceptualized, developed and responded-to would be appropriate. --EEMIV (talk) 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There has been substantial discussion within the project about this article, and it is in a state of constant improvement. As [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens] stated, there are plenty of other articles like this that survived AfD (add Black holes in fiction to the list), and this one seems like it has a chance to be much better chance to becoming widely useful than those do (as this is being actively edited). I will say that I think the inclusion of toys like transformers and gobots is ridiculous. The only reference to the aircraft in those belongs in the article for the toy itself, not for the aircraft. -SidewinderX (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Niteshift's comments and the fact that activity is in progress with a group of editors who are making efforts to improve the article. Happy if this is revisted if that effort fails to improve the article. MilborneOne (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the nom's talk page, revisit it in 2 weeks. If there isn't marked improvement, I'll !vote delete myself. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, I think I'm happy to put this on hold and see what happens over the next couple of weeks and then revisit it based on the other comments on this page and elsewhere. Canterbury Tail talk 20:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator, article lacks depth and is straying too much into uncharted territories ever since it was created. --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 02:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, we've added over 30 reliably sourced entries within the past day. We're working on criteria for inclusion, removing the sources that won't pass WP:RS and weeding out the cruft. Even the nominator said he's willing to hold off to give us time. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This work in progress is promising. It has good intentions, and active developers working on criteria. Why throw out the baby with the bath water now? Mathewignash (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft office 2012[edit]

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

Product has not been announced by Microsoft; and despite the source article linked from Ars Technica, only speculative information has been revealed and is available. As such, the article violates WP:CRYSTAL. mhking (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We'll obviously have an article on the next version of MS Office at some point, but this fails WP:CRYSTAL for now as speculation from a single source not affiliated with MS. Pcap ping 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - we can always recreate this closer to launch afer the betas appear. Racepacket (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Admittedly, there will be a point in time when this is notable, that time isn't now. It also currently violates Wp:CRYSTAL. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - crystal balling. Canterbury Tail talk 16:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CHRYSTAL. LotLE×talk 08:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; not enough confirmed information to make this article useful yet. It can easily be recreated when the time comes. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Zero prejudice towards individual renominations - too many factors exist to close this discussion as anything else. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several Colombian voice actors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(View AfD • AfD statistics)

I discovered this list of articles, all of which are basically orphans, and are all about Spanish language voice actors who work for an anime dubbing studio in Colombia and have all been authored by Wolfang (talk · contribs) (who is one of the subjects). These are all effectively non-notable biographies of living persons that have barely any coverage to begin with. The only instances of possible assertions of notability have come about because they have done voice work for anime in Colombia and nowhere else. These people do not have biographies on the Spanish language project, where they have even bigger anime nerds than the English language project as far as I've seen. All of these are unreferenced biographies of people with barely any notability, and there is a severe conflict of interest as the author is a subject and co-worker to the whole list. While dub actors can be notable, there is simply no reason to keep this group of Spanish language dubbers of anime on the English Wikipedia. If these people were in any way mentioned on the Spanish Wikipedia, I might believe they are notable, but their pages were deleted there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. These people all seem to have multiple notable roles. - Eastmain (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having notable roles voicing specific anime characters for the Latin American market does not infer notability. There is nothing to back up this information at all, and they were all produced by a single user with COI issues. I have expanded my deletion rationale to include this.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems to me that it's highly unlikely that any independent reliable sources cover these dubbers in depth. If there are any, though, bring 'em on and add them to the articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, speedy close without prejudice to individual renominations. Group BLP nominations are problematic in general, and the nominator describes the subjects as having "marginal" notability, a strong enough signal that individual consideration should be required. The range of credits the individual subjects claim is considerable, in some cases including title roles in notable productions. The emphasis the nominator places on the dubbing language seems inappropriate, since there is no claim that the Spanish Latin America market is insignificant or trivial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because this is a group nomination does not in any way mean that it should be closed. All of these articles are related (all in the same company, all Colombian, all authored by Wolfang (talk · contribs)), all are unreferenced, and all are equally not notable. Just because I use the word "marginal" should not mean that there should be 30 separate AFDs when one will suffice. Why should I bother with 30 individual nominations when this group nom will serve the same purpose? It seems to me that making 30 nominations is more disruptive than making one group one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Strong delete for all improperly referenced BLP's. A BLP without a valid REF is a nightmare waiting to happen (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ALL and time to fix one-at-a-time. If Columbian voice actors might be difficult to source in mainstream English sources, it's time to get input from Columbian wikipedians. Perhaps ask for an assist from WP:CSB. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not Colombian actors. These are a group of dubbing voice actors who are all Colombian and have no coverage outside of the English Wikipedia and its mirrors, all authored by one subject as they are all his coworkers. The only other instance where I can find that these people exist outside of Wikipedia are their biographies on their websites. There is no use discussing the Spanish language adaptations of anime on the English Wikipedia, as it is not the focus of this project to discuss a Spanish language adaptation of a piece of Japanese language media in the English language.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you much for pointing out my shameful ommision of the word "voice". I have corrected that lapse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundle and renominate individually. Edward321 (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That requires more work than necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carnes[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since creation in 2004, unable to find any RSs (IMDB and this etc appear to be about an unrelated screen writer and the various books are about either Oceanography or new age healing etc) Jubilee♫clipman 12:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no claim of notability. No non-wikipedia hits for "Fantasy Music 1" + his name. Speedy deletion candidate. Polarpanda (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of sources and evidence of notability challenged for four months and no improvement made. --Deskford (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Klein zach 13:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There was a Michael Carnes involved in Composers in Red Sneakers, who seem to be a very notable group. This Michael Carnes was interviewed by the New York Times and the Boston Globe many times and also did work with the Philharmonic Orchestra. I can find nothing in this article to tie the two Michael Carneses together but if it is the same guy he is definitely notable. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Panyd's comment above. He does seem to be the same person mentioned in the NY Times, Boston Globe etc.. See his entry in this book and the information on his official website. Both bios match with the WP article and there's cross-matching of several of the compositions listed in the WP article, the reviews, the book, and on his website (although the website is not yet complete). Voceditenore (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this can be confirmed with certainty it will definately shed new light on this whole discussion. Notability will still need to be established, of course, but if the article is simply horribly incomplete and the vital info about Composers in Red Sneakers and the various interviews is truly missing then we should work on it rather than delete it obviously. Anyone volunteer to verify? I am engaged in another enormous task at present (look further down that page too...) --Jubilee♫clipman 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Panyd and Voceditenore. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update ♫ Cricket02 and I have now formatted and expanded the article with multiple references. I could probably add more, but I'm not going to while a "delete" is hanging over its head.;-) It may well be the consensus that what's been added is not enough, although I think it probably is. Voceditenore (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB:Withdraw AfD - per extensive work by Voceditenore and ♫ Cricket02 . Article is now substantial and verifiably about a notable subject. --Jubilee♫clipman 13:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused about this one. Which reference verifies him? Composers in Red Sneakers seem to have been reviewed and should be notable, but Carnes? Maybe I'm missing something? --Klein zach 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The entry in Blotner, "Michael Page Carnes", The Boston composers project: a bibliography of contemporary music is for the same full name as given in this article. His official website biography is the same and his works section lists the same works as in the book, e.g. "Fantasy Music I for Flute and Computer (1981, 5'50") Composed for MIT Experimental Music Studio and dedicated to Fran Carnes. Recorded on Northeastern Records (LP, NR-220)." The piece is on the "Composers in Red Sneakers" recording reviewed in the Philadelphia Inquirer (and several other specialist publications) and played on Music from New England, New Sounds, WYNC, 1 June 1987. The Red Sneakers NY concert reviewed in Holland, "Composers in Red Sneakers", New York Times, 13 October 1985 discusses his two songs for mezzo and marimba based on texts by e.e. cummings, also listed on his official website. To see his list of works on his website go to this page and click on the various genres to get the works in each type. Some of them have review excerpts. He now lives in Utah (which was in the WP article but removed by an earlier editor as "irrelevant" [32]), hence the world premiere of his Trio for flute, clarinet, piano which premiered at the Salt Lake City Festival in 2005. According to this, which also matches the bios in the other sources, he is Principal Engineer at Harman Music Group in Salt Lake City, although WP would not consider it a reliable source. I have subscription access to several more articles in Deseret News about concerts where his works were played in Utah. Some of the early Boston Globe reviews are unavailable on that service, though. They'd have to bought through Proquest or Newsbank. Now it may be that what's available doesn't establish his notability, but it definitely establishes who is he is and what's done. He is not this Michael Carnes. Voceditenore (talk) 07:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That little tour took me a few minutes . . . I guess the short answer is no, there is no such reference establishing notability for the man as opposed to the group. So once more I say Delete. --Klein zach 08:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo Two[edit]

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

A Demo tape by a little known band is not notable. A separate article exists for a previous demo as Demo One. This article has been through the PROD process which expired but the template was removed without explanation by the article's creator Malcolma (talk) 11:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article doesn't have the sources needed to support WP:NMUSIC and I can't find any others. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete demos are almost never notable, and in this case the band Sounds of Swami itself doesn't even seem to pass WP:MUSIC. They're in the process of recording their debut album. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a demo by a band that questionably passes WP:BAND does not satisfy WP:NALBUMS. Demos by established artists are often iffy, and this is even more so. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negara[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY, also "negara" still means "state" Davidelit (Talk) 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Negara is the Indonesian word for country. WIkipedia is not an Indonesian-English dictionary. And, the usage shown here is but one usage. This could be much better explained in many of the existing pages on Indonesian history. --Merbabu (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article as it stands is an unnecessary replication of what is already in United States of Indonesia Satu Suro 14:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pelopor[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY Davidelit (Talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: - per nominator - Wikipedia is not a Indonesian-Dutch-Indonesian-dictionary. Pelopor has many related meanings in Indonesia - why chose just one to write about here? --Merbabu (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' - perhaps merge info into a foot note into a relevant existing article - and keep as redirect on the context Satu Suro 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harpreet Singh (Harvard)[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. With regards to PROF, I find can no articles by Singh with citations on Google Scholar, so his impact on the field of Comparative Theology is yet to be demonstrated. The Sikh Coalition is demonstrably notable but the sources for Singh in Google News appear to be limited to quotes in his role as a trustee ([33]) of the Coalition rather than being about him or establishing his notability. Trustees of such a non-profit advocate group are not automatically notable in an encyclopaedic sense and any relevant and unique information here about Singh would be more appropriate if merged in to the main article along with information about the rest of the board. Ash (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not show notability with multiple cases of reliable, independent coverage. Merge idea to organization article is interesting in theory, but this article should not be kept on the basis of gathering additional information for the merge (as proposed by Ash, it would also require details on other boardmembers). NB: In the interim, I've added him to the Harpreet Singh disambiguation page, since he wasn't there. If article deleted, that that addition should also be removed, or is should be adjusted if this article is redirected somewhere (e.g. the organization's article). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cant find anything in Academia (journals, citing etc.) to suggest notability. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everybody. Subject is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Singh is an emerging scholar. For a scholarly work, see his reference work Harpreet Singh, “Sikhism,” in Yudit Greenberg, ed., The Encyclopedia of Love in World Religions, Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2007. Singh co-founded the largest Sikh civil rights group, the Sikh Coalition, with offices in New York and Fremont. His academic work and the fact that he is a founder of a national organization are sufficient to meet notability guidelines. The opinion above, "The Sikh Coalition is demonstrably notable but the sources for Singh in Google News appear to be limited to quotes in his role as a trustee," fails to take into account the following Congressional source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CREC-2003-02-07/pdf/CREC-2003-02-07-pt1-PgE173.pdf. The Harvard Crimson quotes him as the founder: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2006/8/11/sikhs-sword-seized-by-school-a. jc 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- With regard to these sources; the Encyclopaedia you quote does not have him as an author or editor, just one of (presumably) many contributors; The gpo.gov source includes a quote from him but does nothing to establish his notability apart from calling him director; the Harvard Crimson states that the Coalition was started by him but again says nothing else to establish his notability. To paraphrase the nomination, the Coalition is notable, this does not make the directors, trustees or founders necessarily notable, to have biographic Wikipedia articles they should be notable in their own right with supporting independent sources to demonstrate this, otherwise the resulting article is just a content fork of the article about the organization. With regard to scholarly notability, he may be "emerging" but until he is established and verifiability cited by other scholarly publications, this is not a rationale for notability.—Ash (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are wrong; the encyclopedia lists him an the author of "Sikhism" with affiliation with Harvard. You are engaging in subjectivity that has no firm basis. Rather than engaging in this kind of rhetoric, I would suggest simply following the established guidelines. The guidelines clearly state *"Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."* I strongly disagree with you that a founder and a director of a major civil rights organization is not notable. Your opinion is subjective and if we engage in this kind of a dialectic, we can remove thousands of existing biographies. The multiplicity of achievements that are verifiable is sufficient reason to retain this article.jc 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    - Josephcunningham (talk · contribs), thanks for quoting the guidelines. I was going by how the book is catalogued with Google Books and Worldcat as I can base my opinion on little more than the evidence of the sources. If you dismiss my explanation as subjective then there seems little point in explaining any further. Good luck with your argument.—Ash (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! As you have only been contributing for a few days, you may find the guidance of WP:SPA useful.—Ash (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One trouble with Sikhs is so many are surnamed Singh.... If this is the same one, it could be a sign of some notability: "Harpreet Singh, Director of Community Relations for The Sikh Coalition, sang and explained the meaning of a (Sikh prayer) at a ceremony marking the opening of the 57th session of the United Nations (U.N.) General Assembly on September 11, 2002. Other speakers included President of the General Assembly, Mr. Jan Kavan and Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Harpreet Singh was subsequently interviewed by phone during a live program by BBC in London." Other than the Coalition (whose site doesn't seem to mention anyone as a founder, unfortunately), I can't see much. He does a lot of good work, is probably very intelligent, and I wish him success with his PhD, but no real notability. Yet. There probably will be, but that's not now. Peridon (talk) 19:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is the same one, indeed. He is the only one at the Sikh Coalition.jc 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete. This graduate student has not yet had time to qualify for any aspect of WP:Prof. Article created too early. I could be persuaded to change my mind by multiple independent reliable sources about his religious activism. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Rather presumptuous of you to impute that "this graduate student" created the page. Those who know him can tell you that he would not have the luxury of free time that you apparently seem to have to engage in such an exercise. Arguments can be made either way for the existence of this page--you provide no convincing reason why the page should disappear, while thousands like it can stay.jc 03:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

'This graduate student' refers to the subject of the article, not its creator about whom I know nothing. It almost never happens that graduate students satisfy WP:Prof. As well WP:Other stuff exists has never been found to be a plausible argument. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Some 32 additional international, national and regional sources citing Singh's civil rights/advocacy work for everyone's review:
- Cheng, Victoria. "For Sikhs, reaching out is no easy task." The Boston Globe. June 24, 2007.
- Majmudar, Nishad. “In the U.S., Indians Gain Political Clout.” The Wall Street Journal. August 17, 2004.
- Rukavina, John. “Body-piercing and other Title VII troubles.” Fire Chief. September 1, 2003.
- Sangha, Soni And Richard Weir. “Drunks Beat Sikh Family: Anti-Arab Slurs in Queens.” New York Daily News. August 5, 2003.
- Kong, Deborah. “Arabs, Muslims Report U.S. Hate Crimes.” The Associated Press. March 29, 2003.
- Singh, Harpreet. “Voice of the Bar.” New Jersey Law Journal. March 3, 2003.
- Smothers, Ronald. “Steadfast in His Turban, a Lawyer Raises Awareness.” The New York Times. January 27, 2003.
- Kaur, Anju. “Lessons We Learned From Hitman.” Sikhe.com. December 3, 2002.
- Fernandez, Lisa. “Sikh followers file suits to overcome dissension.” San Jose Mercury News. October 15, 2002.
- Mozumder, Suman Guha. “Fired NYPD officer takes complaint to EEOC.” India Abroad. June 21, 2002.
- Coppen, Luke. “Faith News.” The Times (London). June 15, 2002.
- Gardiner, Sean. “Sikh Files Bias Suit Against NYPD.” Newsday. June 11, 2002.
- Author, 2002. “Sikh Officer Charges NYPD with discrimination.” The Press Trust of India. June 11, 2002
- Author, 2002. “Discrimination Charge Filed Against NYPD by Sikh Who Was Barred From Wearing Turban.” PR Newswire. June 10, 2002.
- Din, Suleman. “Protecting the innocents.” India Abroad. April 26, 2002.
- Chivukula, Som. “FAA issues directives against racial profiling.” India Abroad. December 14, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “Guidelines protect turban wearers' rights at airports.” St. John’s Telegram. December 9, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “U.S. Sikhs announce security guidelines to protect turban wearers' rights at airports.” The Canadian Press. November 27, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “New Sikh guidelines protect turban wearers.” The Washington Times. November 24, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “U.S. Sikhs issue guidelines.” Chicago Tribune. November 23, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “Religion News in Brief.” Associated Press Online. November 22, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “U.S. Sikhs announce security guidelines to protect turban wearers' rights at airports.” The Associated Press. November 21, 2001.
- Barfield, Deborah. “America’s ordeal: Hate crimes scare, sadden Sikhs.” Newsday (New York), October 27, 2001.
- Kong, Deborah. “Advocates say reports of hate crimes slowing, some considering legal action.” The Associated Press. September 29, 2001.
- Kong, Deborah. “Muslims in U.S. Consider Lawsuits.” Associated Press Online. September 29, 2001.
- Disley, Jan. “War on terror: Reprisals: Two killed in race revenge attacks.” The Mirror. September 19, 2001.
- Kong, Deborah. “America's Sikhs find themselves targets of backlash and violence after terror attacks.” The Associated Press. September 18, 2001.
- Kong, Deborah. “America’s Sikhs become Targets.” Associated Press Online. September 18, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “Arizona slaying blamed on anger.” The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC). September 18, 2001.
- Author, 2001. “Slayings increase fear of backlash: President calls for restraint.” St. John’s Telegram. September 18, 2001.
- Irvine, Martha. “Attacks increase fear of backlash.” The Associated Press. September 17, 2001.

jc 03:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

- - Are any of the articles about Harpreet Singh or say anything to establish him as a notable subject apart from speaking for the Coalition? Many statements from company PR managers are in the press, the quantity of such statements does not make any particular PR manager notable.—Ash (talk) 08:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Small non-profits cannot afford to hire PR managers or agencies. But to answer your question, see the March 19, 2003 event at http://pluralism.org/events/interfaculty2003/schedule.php and also see the third item at http://www.sikhcoalition.org/NewsletterW09182003.aspjc 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      - Thanks, a mention for him in a meeting notice and a group newsletter are not considered reliable sources in order to support a biographical article. Ash (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That is funny. Since when is Harvard University not a reliable source? You were the one to introduce the removal of this person's page, so you have some teleology behind your statements. It's incomprehensible that 32 independent news articles, and other details are all unacceptable to you--speaking engagements at the United Nations General Assembly, Harvard Law School and Harvard Faculty Club are all unacceptable to you! 65.96.161.250 (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
        To clarify, a mention for him in a meeting notice and a group newsletter does not demonstrate notability, as such they are not suitable sources to demonstrate notability, they may be reliable sources for other things but not notability of Harpreet Singh. If you can find articles that are actually about Singh rather than brief quotes and tangential mentions then this may be a rationale for a biographic article. Ash (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        By way of comparison, the following disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpreet_Singh) lists two other Harpreet Singhs (a boxer and a police man); pray tell us, which of the two entries has even 5% of the supporting material that people have marshaled on this page for this individual: - we can find hundreds of entries here like this--you are being argumentative based on guidelines as you have perceived them and not as they are practiced on Wikipedia.65.96.161.250 (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, topic needs to be evaluated under the WP:GNG, not WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AskMoses.com[edit]

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

Online chatroom and religious advice service.

Since its creation in 2006, this article has never contained an assertion of notability nor reason why this website is notable. A speedy was declined on the basis that "it gets a reasonable number of Google Books hits". There are currently 22 of these, none (as far as I can see, some are restricted access) covering the subject in any depth. pablo_hablo. 09:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 09:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In its current form, it fails to satisfy WP:NOTE and WP:RS --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 10:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTE has been achieved through expansion and addition of WP:RS --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 19:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty of coverage of this site in a lot of big newspapers. I've added a few there but there are many more. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a non-notable website. Yossiea ^(talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the main problem is lack of reliable sources I'm sure it can be fixed [34], [35]. M0RD00R (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a few reliable sources.—Sandahl (♀) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the first three references. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A well-used site, covered in lots of press reports. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMore than adequate reliable sources. Meets WP:WEB.—Sandahl (♀) 21:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable web-site. It may have gotten some notice from news due to its oddness but I feel it passes Notability (web) only on a technicality. A chunk of the article also violates Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET.Joe407 (talk) 09:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient saources to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:OTHERSTUFF only. If that is not a good reason, delete. --Shuki (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a particlarly good reason, no – could you be more specific about what you think rather than what that essay says? pablo_hablo. 00:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it's informative, which is what an encyclopedia is about.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DuPont Registry[edit]

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

Non-notable publishing company that produces a few for-sale magazines. Article doesn't even assert notability, really. Speedy deletion was turned down on the basis that a cited source did allege notability (not sure I agree with that sort of rationale, since the assertion wasn't in the article, but the point is moot, as a third editor removed this source as non-independent, based on company's own press release). Presently the would-be article cites no sources at all, seems to serve no purpose than to promote the company's website, and was created by what appears to be a single-purpose account, Spilchards (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that has done nothing but create this article and add closely related spam links in other articles referring to the company the article is about, upload images related to the company, and create another now-deleted article for another non-notable publication that the editor is probably also directly associated with, as seems to be the case here. Also, this article is itself re-creation of previously deleted material. This version of the article was de-((prod))ed, after the speedy was rejected, on the basis that the company turns up a fair number of times in Google. But nothing has been done by any editor to establish notability with multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. PS: The fact that the publications are unusual (they target only the ultra-wealthy) does not make them or the publisher notable, and neither does the fact that some of the listed properties, yachts, etc. may themselves be notable. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Re. "nothing has been done by any editor to establish notability with multiple instances of non-trivial coverage", following WP:BEFORE could have dealt with that. The first 2 pages of results from the Google News Archives throw up all of these: Chicago Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Orlando Sentinel, Orlando Sentinel, Herald-Journal, Miami Herald, Chicago Sun Times, TransWorldNews, DM News. Needless to say, there's a lot more coverage beyond that. Similarly, Google Books shows plenty of coverage ([36]). As for it being "re-creation of previously deleted material", if the same content had been previously deleted at AFD this would be a reason for deletion, but it was previously speedy-deleted as "unambiguous advertising or promotion", but I see little more than the basic facts about the subject in the current version. The article can be improved with readily available sources, and should be improved rather than deleted.--Michig (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most of the coverage appears to be by local newspapers, and the gushing articles don't seem like real journalism in some cases, but promotional pieces. Frontier Restaurant in Albuquerque has had loads of non-trivial articles written about it locally, including full-color photos, and lots of positive prose. Note the redlink, which should stay that way until someone outside of the hometown crowd decides the business is noteworthy enough to significantly publish about. I can't argue with the Chicago ones on these grounds I suppose. But the first one we know nothing about (can't read it without paying). Second one: It's not really about duPont or their competitor Robb, but about the rich and their spending habits. The publications and their publishers are used as examples and quotation sources. But does an article that seemingly chose two random "cater to the rich" businesses, but the focus of which is whether such businesses are really viable in a depressed economy, genuinely demonstrate notability? It seems rather incidental to me, and flash-in-the-pan. Will people still write articles about duPont and his company in 5 years? Were they writing them 5 years ago? Third Chicago item is the same kind of piece. TransWorldNews isn't a reliable publication, but a news-ish blog whose business model is writing stories, for pay, based on your press release. DMNews is a direct marketing industry insider publication, so its notability-establishing power is extremely low, both for lack of independence from their subjects and lack of distribution to the general public (if I were really good at building model rockets and got written up in a model rocketry magazine, that would not make me Wikipedia notable). And so on. The case I'm making is that the company is faintly "interesting" - they are "unusual", even "strange" - and thus get trivial material written about them, like whether their and their competitors' sort of business model is doomed, whether their website has separate pages that look kind of like the magazines', or whether a notable athlete (the non-trivial part of the story, arguably) posed on one of their covers (all of these are actual stories you linked to above), and local coverage. Show me a profile in Forbes or WSJ. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 11:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why coverage in local newspapers, some of which are quite large local newspapers, and not local to the subject, should be discounted. Somehow I doubt that the Frontier Restaurant has received much coverage from newspapers on the other side of the States. I also see no reason why the fact that a lot of the news results are pay-per-view should count against them - you can often determine that they provide significant coverage without seeing the entire article. Please look at all of the Google News coverage yourself (about 1,650 results)- I doubt that a subject with that much coverage can be considered insufficiently notable for an article here. Google Books shows coverage in Forbes, and also other coverage such as this, amongst others. This doesn't need a profile in Forbes or WSJ to be notable, it simply has to pass WP:GNG, which it does more than adequately.--Michig (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Show me a profile in Forbes or WSJ". Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say a pay-per-view source "counts against" the article's notability; I said it does not count for it, since no one has paid to get access to it and see if it helps establish notability. You have the argument backward. Local publications are often suspect as sources for notability claims because of neutrality/independence problems (such as the promotional wording I mentioned) and because of scale - what is "notable" on a local level is usually utterly insignificant on a larger scale. Also, I didn't even say that "a lot of" the news results are pay-per-view, I said one of them is. I feel you have not actually read and absorbed but simply skimmed what I wrote. Please try again. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the WSJ profile? You implied above that you would accept such a profile as evidence of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per users Michig and Bridger. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As indicated above, sources about this publisher/magazine chain do exist. I will try to improve the article with sources during the AfD period unless someone else gets around to doing so before me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please actually examine the sources closely, then. One isn't even a real news source but a website that simply reguritates press releases, and many of the rest are local publications writing gushy puff-pieces that are not necessarily independent enough of the subject to be taken seriously. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to sources I have found on my own, in addition to the ones found by Michig. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keen-o. Thanks. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are plenty of sources. For example, it looks like a bunch of newspaper editors all decided to assign reporters to find out how duPont Registry and its customers were doing in the current economic downturn. Abductive (reasoning) 01:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Lee Evigan[edit]

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

Tagged with ((Notability|biographies)) for about 9 months. The only two sources cited in the article are either non-reliable (the tertiary source TV.com, a wanna-be IMDb competitor with almost no information, and no sources of its own cited) or non-independent (a press release). Her sister and father are notable, but biographical notability is not congenital. Some of the works she has appeared in (according to more tertiary information at IMDb and another similar external link) are notable, but not everyone appearing in a film or TV show absorbs notability by osmosis, either. I opened this pretty much as just a procedural nomination, as I encountered the very long-standing notability dispute tag on this article during random reading, but I have to actually agree with it being there, and enough time to grow a human baby is more than enough time passed for evidence to be added to an article that the subject satisfies the basic notability criteria with multiple, independent instances of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 09:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to satisfy WP:ENT, and nomination makes no substantive case otherwise. Sourcing issues are solvable and would not require deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't checked out all of her credits but it looks like her roles in notable films and TV shows are mostly bit parts, and her significant roles are in non-notable films, which doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT. TheJazzDalek (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly. Otherwise I would not have nominated this. I've actually dated someone with almost this many acting credits, and if anyone put up an article about her it would be deleted, probably speedily. The article in question here was created and is being considered for keeping because she's an Evigan, not because her own actual contributions to film or any other field are genuinely notable. Cf. her brother, who isn't notable enough for an article here here either, though someone makes sure he and his allegedly more notable band are mentioned in the article on every one of his actually notable relatives, as if notability is going to rub off on him. Some editors like to complete "collections" of celebrities and their offspring, but this isn't IMDb. At best, basic info about Vannessa Lee should merge back into Greg Evigan's article, in family section, per WP:IINFO. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:ENT and apparently WP:GNG [37]. Yes, a pity that the article had been tagged for so long, but surmountable issues are reasons for fixing a problem, and not for deletion because someone else had not done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Political Cesspool guests[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article listing people who have appeared on a marginally notable radio broadcast. Not notable as a grouping of people, and part of an unwarranted proliferation of lengthy articles on this topic (see James Edwards (radio host), The Political Cesspool, Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool‎). This was apparently spun off from The Political Cesspool, and I don't propose merging it all back in: WP:NOTCATALOG. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Removed all unsourced names as possible WP:BLP issues (guests of a white supremacist show, really?) but generally I wouldn't support a random listing of all guests to any program like that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I should have been more clear: there was a source for the list (here), though the article bizarrely cited it only for guest Hal Moore. However, as a single primary source from the subject of the article it's clearly not enough to hang the whole article on under WP:RS. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:N, WP:NOT. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 10:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure what the point of this article is- it it meant to "name and shame" individuals who appeared on the show? Is it just an indiscriminate collection of information? Doesn't really matter- we don't do lists of people who appeared on talk shows- notice the absence of such lists for more mainstream talk shows. (Yes, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be "name and shame" with little to no encyclopedic merit or need to split from other pages.Cptnono (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've removed three of the people from the list since their entries consisted of unsourced claims in violation of WP:BLP. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alertsec Xpress[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable product; article written by single-issue user with possible conflict of interest. The article was deprodded by adding non-significant sources, and I'm unable to find anything significant. Haakon (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom - non-notable product Codf1977 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 09:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious spam, and the sources don't meet WP:N. It gets exactly one google news hit, a mention in passing here Pcap ping 15:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one Google news hit; doesn't seem to have the significant third party coverage required to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Rijkenberg[edit]

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

I'm not sure about notability here or he's just an WP:BLP1E issue. He won a single tournament but poker doesn't seem to meet the general WP:ATHLETE criteria here. The creator seems intent on only using this for an attack piece based on some poorly sourced rumor. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, sources can be found to document the win, so this comes down to one question- does the European Poker Tour satisfy WP:ATHLETE? The exact wording in question is this:"Participation in and, in most cases, winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, poker, bridge, chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc." The EPT is by no means among the "most prestigious events" in poker- that is the World Series of Poker, or possibly the World Poker Tour. Without other notable deeds, delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very wrong about the prestigiousness of the EPT - it is far more prestigious than the WPT. Any single EPT event is valued far more than ANY tournament in the world, with the exceptions of: The WSOP Main Event, The WSOP $50k HORSE Event and the WSOPE Main Event. So we are talking about the 4th-15th+ most prestigious events in the world. In my view all of the winners of these events satisfy the requirements and they all should have their own articles. DegenFarang (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous one-off tournament winners are included on Wikipedia and his win was for more than $2,000,000. The staking scandal is well known, there is a 7,000 post thread about it on pokernews.nl as well as an article on ThePlayr.com. ThePlayr.com is hardly a poor source for this information as Constant Rijkenberg was at a time a ThePlayr.com Team Pro, Constant is a 10% owner of ThePlayr.com and ThePlayr.com repoters did a number of interviews with him at EPT San Remo (the event he won) and EPT Monte Carlo (the EPT event which occurred a few days later). DegenFarang (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think if the article was 'fleshed out' more with information readily available from a number of credible sources, it would seem more relevant. I do not have the time to do this however and am not very good at creating articles. When I started this article many months ago (and long before inclusion of the staking scandal information) I had assumed others would do so. However since his following is mostly Dutch, that may explain why it has not happened yet DegenFarang (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A thread of internet posts, even a long one, is not an adequate source for negative biographical information on a living person; neither is a website like ThePlayr.com. Per WP:NPF policy,

Any such potentially damaging information about a private person may be cited if and only if: (1) it is corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources; (2) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and; (3) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", with the Wikipedia article taking no position on their truth.

--JN 466 16:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Though I congratulate him on his win, the tournament does not appear to be major enough to make him notable solely on its own. Without something else, he's only WP:BLP1E. The stalking scandal does not seem to be widely reported in mainstream media, and we don't cite contentious BLP information to forums. Maybe if he wins a few more tourneys, he'll gain enough notoriety to fit in here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Borderline notability, no reliable sources cited, and a history of poorly sourced negative information being added to this BLP. --JN 466 16:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not DeleteI ask for some time to improve the article. I have just added a photo, several external links, several sources and a couple of lines of text. There are many poker players listed who have less accomplishments than Rijkenberg. While maybe in America winning the EPT Sanremo does not mean much, I assure you in Europe, and especially in Italy - it means a great deal. This is a major accomplishment. Not quite as big of a deal - but on par with - Jerry Yang winning the WSOP Main Event. Taking some cues from the Yang article I would be happy to include information about how Rijkenberg gained entry into the event, notable hands that he played along with subsequent events he has bought into since his win. Again I ask for some more time to make this is more complete article before it is deleted. Note that the term 'Constant Rijkenberg' currently gets 1,900 searches per month in Google. Steve Badger gets only 260 and Shirley Rosario gets the same and Steve Dannenmann gets only 170. The last example is somebody who didn't even win the main event, he simply got 2nd - I would argue Rijkenberg is far more notable in the poker world today than Dannenmann. DegenFarang (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article was used an attack page, citing a ridiculous source. The article should be deleted and the history suppressed. Creator has a history of vandalizing BLP articles including the John Roberts and Russ Hamilton article. 2005 (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article existed for many months with no derogatory information of any kind - it was only made into an 'attack page' very recently. A simple solution is to find a more credible source (which I think I have done, see Constant Rijkenberg or not include that information at all. Either way, he is still a notable person for winning one of the most prestigious tournaments on the EPT and thus, in the world. He is easily now among the top 5 most famous Dutch pro poker players. DegenFarang (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[38] The sources were not up to the standard demanded by WP:NPF. --JN 466 00:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, go ahead and delete it. I copied all of the content over to poker.wikia.com where there are MUCH MUCH less restrictions on what can be added to an article. Gets indexed in Google all the same so I could really care less about picking cat fights with all of you about it. Go ahead and shut down all of the poker pros' pages, just please notify me first so I can add them to poker.wikia first! DegenFarang (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain calm. People are seriously discussing the issue here and are bringing up valid points. Getting emotionally attached to contributions is never a good idea as there is no ownership of what you contribute here. Rapier1 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Delete Let's give the article some time. I have just added several refs to it. His win has received wide coverage on multiple poker web sites. By the way the behavior of the creator of the article and speculation about what he may or may not do with it have no relevance in this discussion. The determining factor is notability as indicated by secondary sources.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree we should give it time. Anybody who voted delete previously should have a look at the article now, it is 10,000% better than when this consideration for deletion was initiated. A second note that has not been mentioned here is that the 2009 EPT Sanremo was the largest EPT event ever held in Europe - so it wasn't 'just another EPT event' if you are one of those who don't see the EPT as prestigious (which it clearly is). DegenFarang (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person does not meet notability guidelines, as other than winning a single poker tournament he hasn't done anything else that could be considered notable. WP:BIO is fairly clear about what constitutes notability for people and this just doesn't rise to that standard. Rapier1 (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:BIO "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The article now has citations from eight different secondary sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_Rijkenberg#ReferenceThe same sources used on many poker BLPs. It would seem to me enough to keep the article.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The references from coinflip.com, theplayr.com and dailyradar.com are all self-published sources which can never be used in wikipedia biography articles. They need to be removed regardless: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons,even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". 2005 (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The EPT's prestigious, but he's only won one event and barely cashed in another. Most of the references are for that single win. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E. It appears that this person is notable for one event, winning a poker game. JBsupreme (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many people who have articles who are notable for only 'winning a poker game' - in fact, many who are notable only for not winning a poker game, as in coming in 2nd or 3rd or 4th. DegenFarang (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS -- and if that's all they're notable for (such as only coming in 4th in a Poker Tournament) then we probably should not have an article on them in the first place. But that's for another day. JBsupreme (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes" - I absolutely used it correctly. I can't imagine a group of articles that can be analyzed for notability more objectively than that of tournament poker players. There results speak for themselves. If you vote to delete this article you are by proxy voting to delete at least 20 others. DegenFarang (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I believe that I probably would vote to delete twenty other less notable biographical articles if their sole claim to fame was winning less than first place in a poker tournament. JBsupreme (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to nit-pick but this article is about somebody who got first place. So using this logic you should be voting to delete articles about people whose sole claim to fame was winning a poker tournament. DegenFarang (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are parroting my initial comment in this thread, yes. :) JBsupreme (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I am, you backtracked when discussing deleting other people notable for only one event. As per BLP1E "...and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Rijkenberg has not remained and is not likely to remain a low profile individual. Stories have continued to be written about him since his win until today, he is consistently interviewed by news organizations, discussed on forums and blogs etc. He is also currently traveling the poker tournament trail playing most major high-buy in tournaments, including the PCA that just happened in the Bahama's. He is a highly skilled and charismatic player - he will remain high-profile for some time to come and is likely to make future final tables and wins in major tournaments. Thus, BLP1E does not apply. DegenFarang (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you please explain how you feel I backtracked? I've looked over my comments here and don't feel that I have, and apologize for any confusion I may have caused, but I'm not seeing how you could have possibly misinterpreted anything I've said here so far. JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It isn't a big deal and as I said I was nit picking. But you said this article should be deleted (he won the event). Then you said articles should be deleted if the only thing the person did was not win one tournament. That is not consistent with your vote for deletion of this article, he won the event, he didn't not win the event. Maybe backtracking was the wrong word but its not consistent. Consistency would have been if you said 'yes we should remove any article where somebody's only claim to fame is winning one tournament' DegenFarang (talk) 03:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I meant that in addition to what should happen to this article. Single event notability. JBsupreme (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, would you like me to compile you a huge list of articles you can recommend for deletion then? DegenFarang (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, but I can't make an promises that I will get to them immediately. JBsupreme (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs)
Delete - essentially a BLP1E. The only reliable sources are related to his winning of the EPT tournament; there are other sources relating to more recent controversies, but they're not reliable enough for BLP purposes. The question then is whether winning one of the EPT tournaments makes someone automatically notable, and looking at WP:ATHLETE, I think it does not. I note from the article European Poker Tour that there have been many winners of these tournaments - 10 others in that season alone - and we only have articles on about half of them, those who are notable for something else as well. Robofish (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E and in line with most other !votes. Especially considering the other editors commenting here have no problem with placing a poker player under WP:ATHLETE (I agree with them), closing admin should note that it's persons accepting enough of this definition who are participating which implies people more familiar in these specific areas. Actually, the discussion of other EPT winners that have articles all having additional claims of notability almost makes a case for a 'Delete' on its own as it implies an unofficial consensus. With guideline concerns listed completely valid and any case for a keep long since during irrational and completely out of the scope of Wikipedia processes, I don't have anything to sway across. As for the proxy voting mentioned above in a panic, that's not for discussion here, but per WP:BEANS it's almost certain to be looked into after it's been brought up. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BEANS is a WP:JOKE. According to that 'policy' it is wrong to point out that a bunch of other articles are violating the exact same thing this article evidently is, and none of them are being considered for deletion. By the arguments all of you are making, all articles who don't meet this criteria should not be on WIkipedia and thus I'd be a good editor for pointing it out, as it would be improving Wikipedia. I think I'm going to go find the right WP:PLACE to make a WP:SUGGESTION for a new WP:POLICY called WP:WIKINERD that says just because you have no WP:LIFE and spend all day reading every single WP:RULE and can cite and reference WP:ANYTHING to win any WP:ARGUMENT does not mean that you are thinking WP:RATIONALLY or that you are WP:CORRECT. It just means you enjoy proving other people WP:WRONG by citing arcane WP:BS.DegenFarang (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sweet looks like somebody has already done it. All of you 'delete' people, particularly those of you who know little or nothing about poker and the EPT, please see: WP:IGNOREALLRULES and WP:WIKILAWYERING - you just want to win the argument and you have no idea what you are talking about. You are WP:WRONG. Wikipedia has no firm rules. "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit." "The following is policy on the English Wikipedia, and according to Jimbo Wales, it "always has been." Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider" - just because you can cite a bunch of WP:STUFF does not make you WP:RIGHT - this is not a competition to see who can argue better, it is about improving the encyclopedia. 10 times more people search for Constant Rijkenberg in Google every month than over half of the poker players on Wikipedia, clearly he is notable, I don't care what your WP:RULES say. They don't mean anything. DegenFarang (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "final rule" of Wikipedia is consensus. What you believe to be right is only relevant insofar as your ability to convince the community at large that your argument has merit. It seems obvious that the consensus here is for delete, and telling people they don't know what they are talking about isn't likely to change their minds. If that is all you have to convince people with, then I don't think you have much chance of winning over the consensus. Rapier1 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giggle Party[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the criterion for inclusion for bands as expressed here: WP:BAND. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete—appears, at first glance, to be non-notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 09:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's nothing to establish notability for this band, just some trivial coverage in blogs. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:BAND... indeed, the article seems to go out of its way to establish non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding anything that can be considered significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 09:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G11. So, so spammy. Smashville^talk 22:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marantz M-CR502[edit]

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

Ad Wasabi Attack (talk) 06:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 07:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@nominator: Can you explain why do you think that this article should be deleted? This should be a discussion. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE As nom says, an ADVERT, reads lika a copy of a manufacturers feature leaflet. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, 220.101.28.25. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11- every line fo that is promotional. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant spam: a solid HiFi-set, with stylish aluminium cabinet... well-armed with the following features - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as G11 in light of above comments and my own reading of the article. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to Paramahamsa Nithyananda. Same person, AfD on this person closed as keep on 7 January. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nithyananda Paramahamsar[edit]

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

Delete as an insignificant figure. Sources point to nothing this person has accomplished that merits an article, and he has not been the subject of any non trivial references. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. - Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paramahamsa Nithyananda as suggested by User:SpacemanSpiff. If there are any other variations of this person's name, create redirects from those as well. - Eastmain (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 07:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and redirect to Paramahamsa Nithyananda which was at AfD last week and was kept. -SpacemanSpiff 07:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GameSalad[edit]

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

Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please define non-notable.

GameSalad was the first tool that allows non-programmers to make games for the iPhone. Several publication have already "noted" it.

It is comparable to:

Unity_3D
Construct_(software)
ShiVa_(game_engine)

Why keep those and not this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexanderx (talk • contribs) 06:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Lexanderx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep with option to revisit this discussion in a month. The article, as written, does not show enough coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate notability. However, the news search above returned several hits, so it would seem sources are out there. (Note: of the three links Lexanderx provided, only the MacWorld story has in-depth enough coverage of GameSalad to count toward general notability.) Personally, I think the nomination was premature, and improvement is the order of the day for this article, not deletion. However, if time goes by and sufficient sources are not located, then I think deletion would be in order. —C.Fred (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 06:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The provided sources establish notability per WP:N. Cunard (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep—this has quite a few reliable sources including a major British newspaper; I genuinely don't see the problem here. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 09:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Louis René Quentin de Richebourg de Champcenetz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Louis René Quentin de Richebourg de Champcenetz

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

A Governor's son is not notable and no reason for an article JB50000 (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already has two good references and can be expanded from the corresponding article in the French Wikipedia. Lack of inherent notability does not imply lack of notability. — Eastmain (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 06:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So 2 entries in a directory (of course, with some description, not just a name) is enough for notability? Even if inherited (notability is not inherited but the directories don't follow Wikipedia rules). I am willing to drop this AFD if a few others convince me that the son is notable because of two little references, even though he's the son of the governor, not the governor. JB50000 (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notablitiy is not inherited.Rasputin72 (talk) 06:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (opinion changed). His being a victim of the French revolutionary "terror" swung my vote. If the revolutionaries thought he was "notable" enough to guillotine, then he must be notable enough for an article. There is probably a lot more info about the subject in French texts that are not accessible on-line. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When someone gets those references, they can re-create and write an article that is more than a dictionary definition. JB50000 (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The French Wikipedia article, which cites the same two sources, has plenty more information that can be added to our article. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has a large number of references considering it's a stub. Claim to notability is based on his journalism, which is given as the reason he was killed. Edward321 (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Maria Haas[edit]

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

I can't see any evidence of notability. Google search throws up a lot of false positives and social networks. HJMitchell You rang? 05:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She is mentioned in The Encyclopedia of the Righteous Among the Nations. You can find an entry on the virtual wall of honor of Yad Vashem. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvančický's research. Article needs rewriting for tone, style, clarity, wikification etc., but that's perfectly do-able. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Vejvančický's input. The article could use editing, too. Warrah (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other editors' comments. Seems like the subject satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course. Yeah, this article definitely needs some re-writing, but as a former contemporary of the Nazi era being among the Righteous Among the Nations is quite some special honor. Catgut (talk) 03:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cacilda Borges Barbosa[edit]

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

Stub since creation in 2007, single reference appears to be her homepage, notability not fully established Jubilee♫clipman 04:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's got a biography in the New Grove, so strong keep. It's a short article, but that's notability. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Antandrus; see also her entry in this Portuguese online encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per WP:BEFORE, please check the existence of the other wikipedia before proposing a delete. The Portuguese language article is longer than this one and contains more references; consider that your energy might be better spent marking the article for improved translation rather than suggesting a delete. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting that the nominator knew the article would benefit from improved translation and deliberately suggested deletion anyway doesn't quite AGF, does it? Let's chalk this one up to a minor mistake. It's not like someone nominated Mozart for deletion here. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I nominated a small batch of these while reviewing List of 21st-century classical composers (mainly checking for mis-links to footballers etc). I also PRODed a few. I felt there was a strong case for each, but due to the fact I was going through a huge list (still am) I never fully checked them all out. That was indeed a mistake due to inexperience (I am only 15 months old on Wiki). I will copy the titles into notepad from now on and check each carefully when I get time before deciding what to do. Experience is only a good thing even if it is the result of a major screw up! --Jubilee♫clipman 06:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This batch of articles have been long neglected so it's good that we give them an airing. Although in this case, I have said 'strong keep', leaving substandard articles on WP doesn't benefit anybody however notable the subjects. --Klein zach 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak delete due to the fact that this article doesn't really assert its own notability and this isn't verifiable by readers. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 09:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, but only if the article can be improved with references. The Portuguese WP article is a little more substantial, but still poorly sourced. --Deskford (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Antandrus. Portugese is often a problem for us . . . neverthless it really would be good if someone could work on the article. Perhaps we should request help from a Portugese speaker? --Klein zach 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil to see if any Portuguese speakers can come to the rescue. --Deskford (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Withdraw AfD: improve article with translation from portuguese article and source further as suggested above from Grove et al. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Ballif[edit]

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

Stub from creation in 2007, unreferenced, not fully establishing notability Jubilee♫clipman 04:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per WP:BEFORE. Look at the French article. Chubbles (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:BEFORE. Please familiarize yourself with the "Languages" sidebar on the bottom left of your screen, and click through to the articles it links to in languages other than English before proceeding with future deletion requests. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 06:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His profile at Durand shows the list of awards from 1955 to 1999 (p. 2). Notable personality of French music in the second half of the 20th century. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources that have been identified and, crucially, added to the article. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 09:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The French WP article makes substantial claims of notability, though even that is poorly sourced. --Deskford (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Withdraw and close AfD - I really was too hasty with this one it seems. If someone could translate the French article and add those French sources that would be a start. I haven't studied French for over 20 years now, I'm afraid, though. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. One editor recommending Delete consented to the withdrawal, here. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katapult[edit]

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

~~A nonnotable piece of Linux software~~ - Altenmann >t 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Sorry. I was careless and got confused while doing google search. - Altenmann >t 18:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 06:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the complete absence of third-party sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per linux.com article and Free Software Magazine column. Also mentioned quite a bit in this Pearson Education book. (There's an English version of it too, but it's not searchable on Google [39]) Pcap ping 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep GPL and withdrawn by nom. Samboy (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Note. Can't close a nom as withdrawn if there are good faith Delete votes other than the nom, which we have above. I've pinged TreasuryTag to let them know about the withdrawal - if they don't object, I or someone else will close. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas Bacri[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP since creation in 2005, challenged since creation, unimproved since creation Jubilee♫clipman 04:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bacri appears on WP:MET, meaning he has an entry in at least one music encyclopedia (probably The New Grove). If he's good enough for a music encyclopedia, he's good enough for ours. Chubbles (talk) 04:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—if this article has been challenged and still not improved since 2005, it's had its chance. The fact that Chubbles (talk · contribs) can only speculate as to one possible reliable source exemplifies this. ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 09:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not speculation; the list was specifically created from a listing of several music encyclopedias. The project is worth your investigating further. Chubbles (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So to stop it being AfDed in future we simply place "this article is in MET" at the bottom and everyone will wink knowingly at each other and pass on? (See my comment over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theodore Antoniou...) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I have done is inform you that the article is not unverifiable, that reliable sources exist, and that the article meets the guidelines at WP:MUSIC. If you ignore all this, you rob the encyclopedia of encyclopedic information. You choose. Chubbles (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, I have just gone through all 11 of the Criteria for composers and lyricists and the answer was 0 (or not specified in article) each time. Not necessarily enough for deletion of itself, of course, but it does highlight the pointlessness of our debate. I am going to resume my checking of the list I mentioned elsewhere now that I have taken time out to check how these are going. I withdrew one AfD of an article that was actually being improved rather than being the subject of some weird twilight zone. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final thought then I'm off to bed for the night: In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. from WP:MUSIC. As I understand this, the article must both establish notability and cite a source verifying it. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The article is certainly a horror, however he has one CD out released by BIS (which I've added to the article) and there are other ones. Some work is needed there. --Klein zach 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Although the article is a neutrality nightmare, of which I've attempted to clean up, he does seem to have some other book refs and news refs, although I did not fully delve into them as most are in French. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Borderline keep~~ Keep. I've added a few references. When his Sixth Symphony was a finalist in Masterprize 2003 the reviews were universally bad, but bad can still be notable! Actually he didn't come off quite as badly as some of his fellow finalists. What swings it for me is the fact that BIS finds him worthy of a commercial recording. --Deskford (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now convinced by the references subsequently added. --Deskford (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unambiguous Keep. I've just added the following references:

Pernon, Gérard (ed.), "Bacri, Nicolas", Dictionnaire de la musique 5th edition, Editions Jean-Paul Gisserot, 2007, p.16.

France Musique (Radio France), Nicolas Bacri, Compositeur français

His work is also discussed in Pierrette Germain, Un demi-siècle de musique française, 1950-2000 and he's listed among the "prominent younger French composers" in The Harvard Dictionary of Music to name a few of the sources I found. It took me literally 5 minutes to find them. Sorry to rant, but no one should have voted "delete" in this discussion without doing the same. Voceditenore (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC) PS. I just added a second recording (for RCA Red Seal). Voceditenore (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Withdraw AfD - Subject now verifiably notable following extensive work by various editors. --Jubilee♫clipman 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Gaza airstrike[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. What makes this specific airstrike more notable than all the other regularly-happening ones? Guy0307 (talk) 03:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This specific airstrike is more notable due to the fact that the three killed were not ordinary militants. One was a senior field commander of the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. Also, the fact that the same argument Guy0307 made could be used for the January 2010 Gaza Tunnels airstrike, which has so far not been nominated for deletion. That airstrike is seen as significtant for destroying the tunnels used to smuggle rockets, while this should not only be seen as an airstrike, but noted due to the fact that it killed a top commander. WP:NOTNEWS applies to articles which are not a news source, but this is not news, but an event in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and should be treated as such.

Reenem (talk)

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS: Reenem (talk · contribs) has tried to explain why this airstrike is more notable than the others, but he is using subjective standards of significance and an "OSE" argument. Incidentally, why is there a WikiProject tag on the article-page? ╟─Treasury Tag►belonger─╢ 09:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Top anonymous commander is also non-notable. This article cannot be developed further and there is no benefit to keeping it. --Shuki (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why should it be "more notable than other airstrikes"? It has received significant public attention, and that will suffice. Everyking (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS Nick-D (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Treasury Tag is correct. There is no evidence that this strike is more notable than any other that came before it. WP:NOTNEWS. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But that's not the point. Who cares whether it's notable relative to some other airstrike? We should judge these things objectively based on whether they received substantial public attention, not based on whether they're more notable than other, similar things. Just as an example to show how absurd the logic is, imagine an AfD for the Boer War article on the grounds that it's far less notable than, say, World War I. Everyking (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is sad world we live in, in which a military airstrike can be classified as "trivial" or "routine". But that is reality: these airstrikes happen on a regular basis. This one had no particularly notable victims, nor did it have an unusual amount of them. The media attention for this strike wasn't exceptional in anyway. Nothing is expected to develop out of this, and within a week it will be completely forgotten. Alas, this really is a case of NOTNEWS. Rami R 07:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NOT. NEWS. IS. ENCYCLOPEDIA. FULL. STOP. JBsupreme (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Auerbach-Brown[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP, no substantial improvement since creation in 2006 beyond reparagraphing and bot maintenance, main editor appears to be subject, though he/she only added minor links , categories and "Mr" to every occurance of the composer's name. Jubilee♫clipman 03:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable minor composer and music educator. I found a very passing mention in the New Yorker here, two passing references in Ohio newspapers (see here), but no significant coverage in secondary sources that could establish notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—no improvement over such a long period of time, still no reliable sources, still nothing to back up claim of notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 09:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Maintenance tag removed from article without valid improvement. --Deskford (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – apart from lack of notability, the entire article is a verbatim copypaste from here. I've blanked the article with the ((copyvio)) template. The original version is still available in the article history. Voceditenore (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! I thought I recognised the style (or lack of) from somewhere. Quite obviously copyvio as Voceditenore says. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio, per Jubilee. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Free State Project. History is available to merge if needed. Tone 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Town Project[edit]

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

Biased, two sources only, both from the FTP site Guy0307 (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Free State Project. There is not enough (non-local ocoverage) notability to justify a separate article for Free Town Project outside the context of the Free State Project. Racepacket (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Racepacket. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't merge it, it's too biased. Guy0307 (talk) 05:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Antoniou[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP since creation in Jan 2008, challenged since Apr 2008 with no substantial improvement. Jubilee♫clipman 03:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Antoniou appears on WP:MET, indicating he has an entry in at least one major music encyclopedia. If he's good enough for music encyclopedias, he's good enough for this encyclopedia. Chubbles (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the complete absence of any references whatsoever. There is nothing to back-up the claims made in the article, nothing is verifiable and there is no indication of notability. What Chubbles (talk · contribs) says is all well and good, but, "This person has an entry in at least one major music encyclopedia," is not a valid source in itself. Something specific would need to be cited. ╟─Treasury Tag►Lord Speaker─╢ 09:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC states that a composer with a biography of standard length in an encyclopedia qualifies for inclusion. Current lack of sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion; indeed, it would be irresponsible to delete so well-known a composer (take a look around!) simply for lack of references. Chubbles (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. It would be irresponsible to watch it get deleted when you know there are sources and where to find them and yet fail to add them. WP is about verifiability, not truth. I am at present working on the entire List of 21st-century classical composers to check if they really do link to composers (rather than botanists or breeds of dog) and to check the sourcing. I AfDed and PRODed a few early on without checking, for which I apologise. I will come back, when I get a chance, to try and source these but I suggest others make a start if they truly think the articles are worth saving. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be astonished if no one commenting in this discussion even bothered to run a Google Books search and allowed the article to be deleted. Hopefully the closing admin will not take their words for it. Verifiability is not at issue here. Chubbles (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't: it has been in this AfD for 18 hours and no one has bothered editing it at all. So verifiability is an issue here. Who is to say we don't get the blindest Admin in Wikipedia closing this discussion? (no offence to whomever does close it, of course, but I am sure they will understand my meaning!) --Jubilee♫clipman 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've always taken issue with AfD-as-route-to-article-improvement; it's not what it's for, and shouldn't be used that way. I think this case is clear to anyone who has done a good-faith search, including the resources I've already pointed out. At this point, I'm going to sit back and be a disgruntled knuckle-rapper; if the article is deleted that says more about Wikipedia than it says about Antoniou. Chubbles (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final thought then I'm off to bed for the night: In order to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and notability, the article in question must actually document that the criterion is true. It is not enough to make vague claims in the article or assert a band's importance on a talk page or AfD page – the article itself must document notability. from WP:MUSIC. As I understand this, the article must both establish notability and cite a source verifying it. --Jubilee♫clipman 00:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of sources challenged for nearly two years and still no improvement. --Deskford (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in the light of references added by Kleinzach. --Deskford (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some refs. There is some stuff out there, though you have to dig for it. Anyway I think the Gardner Read review establishes it for me. --Klein zach 00:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Klein! That might turn this AfD around now. AfD isn't just about shall-we-shan't-we-delete, it's about raising the profile of dying articles, IMO, though that is not why I nom'ed this article as I explained above. Anyway, good work and I hope the article can be salvaged now. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor of Composition at a major university would be expected to be notable , and there are refs to show it. Lack of sources & no improvement are not deletion reasons; you need to be able to say that you have looked for them and failed. To nom when there are sources to be found is a waste of one's own, and many other people's time. It is not actually prohibited yet, but it's irresponsible. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: I don't think that's a fair comment. Lots of professors are not notable, and references in this case were not easy to find. There are many neglected articles like this one, and Jubileeclipman is doing his best to process them. --Klein zach 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Withdraw AfD and close - work with sources supplied by Kleinzach and seek out others to improve article. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by the nom. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Highgrove Luxury Condominiums[edit]

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

I removed the ((db-spam)) tag because the article has been cleaned up the creator so that ((db-spam)) no longer applies. Notability is also asserted because Robert A. M. Stern, the the Dean of Architecture at Yale University, designed the condominiums. However, I have been unable to find sources to establish notability. A Google News Archive search returns only one result, which is a passing mention. This topic appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it still reads like a developer's brochure; that could be cleaned up, but I don't think there's be much left. The architect may be notable, but there is no indication that this building is. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the building may not be notable to others, it is a new landmark in Stamford, CT and has gotten the attention of the New York Times, Elite Traveler, and the 203 Magazine, among others. Robert A.M. Stern also has a lot of information about Highgrove on his website as well. Also, the amenities are very unique and they deserve to be recognized. Todtanis (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC) — Todtanis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete "Highgrove offers numerous and unique amenities including:" ? Spam. Peridon (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Style is not a reason for deletion. Many worthwhile articles started their WikiLives in poor shape. - Eastmain (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn/Keep Though this source appears unreliable, the other two sources provided by Todtanis (talk · contribs), this article from Elite Traveler and this article from The New York Times, easily establish notability. My deletion nomination is no longer applies. Cunard (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The project's name appears to be simply Highgrove, so perhaps the article could be moved to Highgrove (Stamford, Connecticut). - Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the presence of valid reliable sources such as the New York Times. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 09:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is still a promotional brochure contributed almost exclusively by an experienced editor sailing under a false flag. All the 3 so-called sources for notability (including the NYT's -Real Estate section) do not qualify as RS here for the reason that it is established industry practice to get "editorial coverage" in these publications against paid advertisements. The core of WP:V is reliable 3rd party sources with a "professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments". None of these essential qualities are evident in the sources cited - who are content with peddling puffery. Annette46 (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why The New York Times, which is well-known for its fact-checking and accuracy, is "content with peddling puffery". I consider the article to be a neutral, reliable source that establishes notability. Cunard (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." I am highlighting my concern of quid pro quo in the 3 sources cited. Had the NYT article not been published in the "Real Estate" section of the newspaper (and which section is not devoid of advertisements) I would not be voicing this concern. I am distinguishing a Reliable source like The New York Times from its advertorial "Real Estate" section. Annette46 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Any article that is the subject of a full feature article in the NYT is suitable for Wikipedia. (I do not extend this to brief paragraph, and certainly not to mentions. But here, this is enough. Anyone who doubts that source's standards should be prepared to offer some proof. . DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not familiar with the pint editions of American newspapers, but I have yet to encounter any British or Irish newspaper (including the broadsheets) whose property supplement is are anything other than puffery for the developers and agents whose advertisements fill the pages. If an article in a property supplement is to be taken as evidence of notability, then anyone can take the weekend property supplements of the Irish Times, the Daily Telegraph, the Financial Times etc and churn out dozens of articles per week on the five-or-six-bedroom rural and suburban family houses which fill those pages. How about 38 Wilson Road? Or, at a little more length, Bay Hill, Foxrock? If you want even more substantial coverage, try Ravenswood, Bunclody, County Wexford.
That sort of puffery is standard dare for the property pages of upmarket broadsheet papers, which are (as Annette46 rightly says) "advertorial". "Independent of the subject" , my arse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with BrownHairedGirl; the NYT property supplement reference does not persuade me to change my "delete" vote - if one didn't know these supplements are "advertorials" its promotional tone gives it away - and I urge Cunard to think again. JohnCD (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this article from The New York Times which was written before Highgrove was developed; as far as I know, it did not appear in the real estate section.
Being published in the real estate section of a newspaper does not necessarily mean that it is an ad. I don't see much promotion in this article so I am not sure why it is being discounted. Anyway, I've asked DGG to take another look at this source and will wait until he gives his opinion as to whether it is an ad before I reconsider my "keep" position. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the NYT source: Although the article contains some promotional language, it has some language that indicates that it was not written by people who were involved with Highgrove. For example, the article states, "The price for all this pampering is steep - the current range is about $1.3 million to $3.5 million ..." An advertisement would call its product expensive; it would concentrate on the other aspects of the place instead of the costly price. Cunard (talk) 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second NYT article you link, from before the block was built, was also in the real estate section - see the heading at the top. Articles in these sections are not directly advertisements, and not actually written by the developers, but are primarily produced to attract advertising, are invariably positive in tone and feature interviews with the developers (eg Jessica Dee Rohm, "Sunshine's project manager and Highgrove's sales director" in the first one), real estate brokers, people who have already purchased - all people with an interest in making an ordinary if expensive block sound fantastic. I do not think they can be used as "independent" comment to establish notability because, unlike the main paper, the editorial choice of what to feature is not determined only by "which things are notable enough to interest our readers?", but to a large extent by "which developers will buy ads if we feature their properties?" This article seems to me part of the same advertising push for a block whose only distinction is that it is rather up-market for its area. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. When User:Cunard first nominated this article for deletion there was a categorical assertion on his part of only a single hit in the Google News Archives for the project which was described as a "passing mention". Then other users located 3 references of which the NYT was described as being the most reliable - sufficient for User:Cunard to withdraw his Afd for a "keep". The truth of the matter is that there are at least a 100 hits for this property in the Google News Archives - the bulk of which are inconvenient for this article's proponents to cite being from the property trade rags. See this [40].Even the 2 NYT articles now being cited are not "news" or "feature" articles. They are simply advertorial content which fills in the space between advertisements in the NYT Real Estate supplement. Neither of these articles establish the inherent notability of the project. At best they claim that some developer is bringing high end luxury of the type found in New York (since before the 2nd World War) to Stamford Connecticut. The following quote is incisive "The residents' garage will be equipped with two elevators for storing cars in tandem, one behind the other, eliminating ramps. Both elevator systems are firsts in the state. The multiple elevator cores, Mr. Stern said, are the kind of thing you have in the best New York apartments from before the Second World War." Annette46 (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about NYT Article - The most current New York Times article definitely would not be considered an advertisement. It compares Highgrove with its competitor, Trump Parc, and discusses how sales are not as high as expected. No marketing manager would pay for an article to discuss how sales aren't ideal and then bring attention to its competitor. The other articles don't even seem like advertisements either, as they bring attention to some other negatives as well, including delays in construction. The New York Times, however, isn't the only source. There is also Elite Traveler, the 203 Magazine, and many local papers and magazines as well. Todtanis (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JohnCD. This is advertising no matter how you slice it. Is this what Wikipedia has been reduced to, really? JBsupreme (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this series of articles, the NYT chooses various major developments and write a neutral article about them ( sometimes the main content is how slowly it's been selling -- itt varies according to what their reporters --( italics deliberate) choose to say and their editors (italics again deliberate), choose to include. That they do an article on a particular project shows that this particular one is notable. As for the Wikipedia article, yes, it is somewhat too promotional. This is normally dealt with by editing. I rewrite a few promotional articles on notable subjects a day. But we have a great many that need rewriting, and we could begin to make some real progress if other people helped in doing this, instead of repeating each other's arguments. I did a start for this--will someone please finish--preferably one of the delete voters, for they need the experience of doing constructive rather than destructive work with low-quality articles. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG, and withdrawn nomination. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The project is the subject of multiple full-length articles in an independent reliable source of general interest. If the article is defective, then fix it—but there is not a single argument about that suggests the topic fails the notability guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 23:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If people believe that the real estate section of the NYT is not a reliable source, that should be addressed in the appropriate venue, not here. If a discussion there concludes that it is not a reliable source, then a new AfD can be filed. ^Bongo_matic 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just a dressed up press release and most of the sources are just that PR regurgitated --Chuunen Baka (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep. In its present state the article content is no longer promotional and adequately establishes notability. However, the article title remains non-neutral and must be changed. I42 (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename. Per above. Three NYT articles about its construction and impact, which include the kind of details that make for an interesting Wikipedia article. And...reporters and editors and publications always choose what to include and exclude...isn't that the judgment, credibility and oversight needed to meet WP:RS? I didn't see anything in the articles that indicated they were advertorials or unbalanced, and the NYT's ethical policies also apply to freelancers. Flowanda | Talk 00:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:COI "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.". Can we also have a categorical assurance on behalf of the developer "ceebraidsignal.com" that they have not advertised in the sources being cited.Annette46 (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. At least as far as print versions, I'm not sure I've ever seen a real estate supplement article that wasn't accompanied by a big ad somewhere close. I think that's the deal, you advertise, we do a little article about your development. Not quite to the level of a puff-piece, but perhaps not extensively discussing the slaughterhouse next door. For instance, community opposition will sometimes be mentioned, followed by a list of things the developer did in response to concerns. I would expect all the facts in a real-estate supplement to be true, but the editorial choice to cover the development in the first place IMO says nothing about notability, it says more about money and successful PR. Just my opinion of course... Franamax (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Opinion. If this had been a one off case concerning User:Todtanis I would not have brought this up, but after his paid single purpose editing see WP:SPA, incl. creation and editing at Omphoy Ocean Resort and The Brazilian Court (all incidentally properties of the present developer "ceebraidsignal.com") I must formally ask this user to clearly identify his COI before I proceed to OUT him. This is not a notability issue any more but systematic commercial POV pushing conflicting with WP aims for a neutral encyclopedia. There has also been some extensive & recent Single Purpose IP editing directly relevant to this article from IP "69.121.192.8" Annette46 (talk) 09:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Annette46, spam, COI, and NPOV editing are huge problems for Wikipeida. However, they are distinct (although related) from notability problems for articles, and the solution is not generally deletion. Sanctions, bans, and other editor-based restrictions, plus fixes to articles are the appropriate solution, and your efforts to combat these disruptions is laudable. But deletion of well-sourced content on notable topics benefits nobody. ^Bongo_matic 10:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, maybe, but thanks all the same to Annette46 and all the editors who fixed this particular train wreck. Bunch more where this editor/s came from with nary a sanction/ban/restriction in sight for anyone but the most obvious or lowest-level abusers. Flowanda | Talk 11:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Spammers exploit (and fan) the deliberately created misunderstandings between "Notability" and "Verifiability". Is WP merely a random collection of verifiable facts ? For instance, Yes, the facts about this condominium (eg. the fact that it is situated at Stamford, that it is designed by Stern, that it has 18 floors etc etc) are verifiable from the sources being held up (wrongly) as evidence of notability. However, the dictionary definition of notability (noteworthiness) translates to something like "eminent", "standing out from its peers", "exceptional" etc. What does this condominium have which satisfies such a "duck test" from independent sources? ZERO, zilch, nada !!!! Instead we have obviously paid for advertorials masquerading as editorial content (thereby ensuring verifiability) to allow professional PR editors to game the system and a chorus of spammers stacking votes on Afds. Need I remind my fellow editors that Verifiability and coverage only provide a presumption of notability but not notability itself. When we observe systematic POV pushers editing freely why should we not OUT them, rather than be victimised ourselves for harassment ? Annette46 (talk) 11:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't go by the dictionary definition of notability here. We go by the guidelines, however faulty they may be (which is very). And as I mentioned before, if a particular section of the NYT should not be considered a reliable source per those guidelines, then that needs to be established at the RS discussion page. Much that is Notable is not notable, but we live within these compromises in order to move on. ^Bongo_matic 14:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carlita's Secret[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Carlita's Secret

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

Related to this AfD. Yet another movie with no assertion of notability. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. This one is by "Breakaway Films" according to imdb, but is still utterly non-notable. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These three AfDs are also related.

That's all of them so far. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New AfD has appeared here. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Blodance (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blodance (talk · contribs). ╟─Treasury Tag►sundries─╢ 09:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical quartets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No content except one entry (Royal String Quartet). List of musical quartet articles can be found at Category:Musical quartets. There is no need to make a huge list of musical quartets in article when they can also be found at the category. Ilyushka88 Talk to me 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:This list would most probably just turn into a huge list of all musical groups that have four people. In other words it would be a never ending list. Ilyushka88 Talk to me 06:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A collection of list pages divided by genre would be much more useful than the category which is a complete muddle IMO. Polarpanda (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as with the last AfD, the list scope is too broad and violates WP:SALAT. Not opposed to having different lists which compile notable quartets of an established genre, such as string quartets, but putting them all into one list would be listcruft. Them From Space 22:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I see by editor's history, he or she had in mind a string quartet rather than an exhaustive article about foursomes. The content was then added to List of string quartet ensembles. Absent any protest from the author, I think it's safe to go ahead and delete this. Mandsford (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Dhillon[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable actor. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While this article does need a lot of work, I think the actor is notable. He is listed as a main character for Holby City and his character, Michael Spence (Holby City) does have a very extensive article already. I believe more sources, and more information is required however to keep this article. Todtanis (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - the actor is high profile character in a high profile show - it should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.64.209 (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the comments of an anonymous IP who began editing Wikipedia on 12/27/2009 should carry any weight here. Kind of suspicious in my opinion that this individual, still unregistered and after only 10 days, has begun voting on articles for deletion. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a vote, comments in a deletion discussion carry weight to the extent that they make valid arguments. And it's perfectly reasonable that an IP editor will read the article, see the AFD notice with a link to this page, and want to contribute to the discussion. WP:AGF etc... Holly25 (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring this up, but User:Rms125... admittedly brings a certain expertise to the table. And I agree with him. Especially when it concerns 81.xx IPs [41] Annette46 (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I had a look for sources and I think there could be enough to establish notability. Sockpuppetry on the AfD is a concern. As the article stands I think delete, but with some good sources and rewriting this article could be good enough. DRosin (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- - EdoDodo ^talk 06:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has a major role in a primetime BBC drama (which has won multiple "best repeating drama" BAFTAs and tops the ratings[42]), and IMDb credits him in named roles in notable TV shows such as The Loop (5 episodes), Without A Trace, Medium, Charmed, Trial and Retribution (IMDb link [43]). At the moment there don't seem to be enough sources to make the article much more than a stub, but his one major role and numerous named roles in notable shows seem to establish his notability well above that usually accepted for TV actors. Holly25 (talk) 09:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient RS to establish Hari Dhillon's own notability. Secondly we have obviously experienced editors (User:Todtanis, User:Holly25) whose accounts are less than a month old, "voting" on this Afd and trying to influence the deletion process. Annette46 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment gave reasons for his notability according to WP:ENTERTAINER (significant roles in multiple ... television shows) and wasn't intended to be a vote (irrelevant in AfD discussions anyway). Secondly, since you're trying to "influence the deletion process" by accusing me of sockpuppetry, could you please open a request at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations so that the accusation can be disproven before the close of this AfD, and the accusation can be withdrawn. Thanks. Holly25 (talk) 17:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am only following up on the Sockpuppetry concerns previously expressed by 2 much longer term editors. I'll wait for the outcome here before considering following up with a SPI, as filing an SPI-request now WOULD constitute interference in this Afd process. (BTW User:Todtanis has had his SPI deleted on technical grounds (neat)). The basic principle of WP:ENTERTAINMER is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". He fails this for he was not "the subject" of the sources being cited. BTW, you haven't denied being an experienced editor. Annette46 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Editors may see the summary for the deleted investigation HERE, and see that what is being referred to as "technical grounds (neat)" is that according to the very experienced admin who deleted it, the investigation was initiated by a banned user in violation of that ban. Not nice to violate a ban. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the general notability guideline. From WP:N: A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines, in this case WP:ENTERTAINER, which is what I have tried to show with my comment. He has significant roles in multiple notable TV shows (as referenced by the non-user-submitted portion of IMDb), which is exactly what that guideline says.

As to "only following up on Sockpuppetry concerns previously expressed": no such concerns have been raised against me. You've made a fresh accusation based apparently on the fact that I defended an IP against the claim that their comments should "carry no weight" (and only after the discussion was relisted - you'd think a half-competent sockpuppeteer would jump in before the discussion was meant to be closed!). That is interference in this discussion but it can be cleared up in a matter of hours - file a report for my account, accusing me of sockpuppetry with that IP account. I'll readily give permission for my IP address to be checked and won't drag out the process; having put the 81.--.--.-- address through an IP locator site I can state that they're on a completely different ISP and geographically hundreds of miles away from me. This can be cleared up so quickly it will have no impact on the discussion here.

As to my experience: I've made many edits as an anonymous IP over a period of years and only had need to register an account in order to create the articles Franz Hessel and Richard Klein (artist). Judging from User:Todtanis' edit history, he tried to create a page through an Articles for Creation request on December 22 (despite having an account and not being required to go down that article-creation route) - after my edit history already shows the ability to create an article of my own accord. In addition, I wouldn't call him an "obviously experienced user" from that edit history: his only edits concern a single article which ended up at AFD (and which to my eyes looks promotional and non-notable, and not something I'd bother creating), after which he seems to have discovered other deletion discussions on the same day his article was listed here (on the very same day, I successfully challenged a badly-tagged CSD on an article to which I had no connection, correctly quoting policy - if I've faked his "lack of experience", it's an awful lot of effort over a month-long period just to get one extra "vote", given that this is the only page on which I've met the two "accused" accounts!). Holly25 (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hari Dhillon's article claims he has exactly 1 significant role in a significant series. The IMDB link does not establish the significance of his body of work. WP:BIO is the basic requirement for BLP which he has not fulfilled. For "Entertainers" there are additional criteria which must be fulfilled. It is trite to say that these additional criteria must be verifiable from reliable sources satisfying the basic criteria namely articles he is the subject of (as opposed to passing mentions in credit lists). Annette46 (talk) 02:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what "additional criteria" means. From Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria which you've linked, "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards ... Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability". It doesn't say, "a person has to meet the general criteria, and also these criteria if they fall into one of these categories." Examples: music albums are considered notable if they've verifiably made a major national chart, even if they have no secondary coverage. An academic in an important position and many cited papers is considered notable, even if there is no secondary coverage on the academic himself/herself. Similarly anyone who can be verified to have won a major award. And note that verifiability means any reliable source, not merely "articles of which they are the subject", which is the standard for general notability. Such articles are a general-case fallback when none of these more-specific criteria apply, because subjects in the more specific categories are capable of being notable without generating substantial secondary coverage.

In this case, IMDb is a reliable source for verification of his acting credits. That Holby City is notable can be verified [44]; his recurring role in it can be verified by the fact that IMDb credits him for 109 episodes, he's on the BBC's page for current characters [45] and has his own character[46] and actor[47] pages. His named role in 5 episodes of The Loop would not class as a major or recurring role but would be significant as opposed to extras or one-line actors, who either get generic credits like "Man in airport" or "Angry woman 2" or go uncredited (and don't come back for another 4 episodes). Similarly, the other credits are for named characters in major shows. Taken together, his major and long-running (109 episodes) role in a drama which verifiably gets top audience share ([48], [49]), plus named roles of admittedly unclear significance in a number of other verifiably major shows seems to me to put him well over the minimum bar for notable actors. Holly25 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG/WP:BIO establish the basic presumption for when the subject is notable. Hari Dhillon does not pass this. The presumption is then that he is not-notable. The additional criteria for Entertainers then kicks in. The salient point here being "meeting one or more (ie. additional criteria) does not guarantee that a subject should be included". Such a case where the subject fails the basic criteria but meets additional criteria is usually resolved by "MERGE" (see "WP:BIOSpecial cases") especially where there are difficulties in finding reliable sources. So my question remains Why is Hari Dhillon notable?Annette46 (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already given explanations as to why I think he's notable by the standards applied to actors, and IMDb and the BBC pages are perfectly reliable sources for verifying his acting credits, which would form the contents of an expanded article, so there aren't verifiability concerns. Even if the article were to be merged, his name would then be a redirect to the character article, which is an argument against deletion. That said, I think a merge would be unsuitable: in my opinion, based on the verifiable facts already presented, the actor is notable enough for a separate article, and the verifiable information about his appearances in other major shows would not be suitable content for a character article.

As for general notability: those criteria are sufficient to establish notability; not meeting those general criteria does not imply non-notability. I refer you to my earlier examples of articles that fall into this situation. Holly25 (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfying WP:GNG Basic criteria only creates a presumption of notability. There is also the issue of "enduring" notability which transcends this.Annette46 (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Annette46.... you've made a slight error on two points. 1) Satisfying the WP:GNG indeed establishes notability per WP:N... it is the "attributes to consider" in the sub-criteria of WP:BIO that allow a presumption of notability in encouraging editors to find the sources THAT MEET the GNG... and 2) please refresh yourself on WP:NTEMP where it is instructed that "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage". If notability is shown now, it need not have continued coverage in the future. It's NOT temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per actor exceeding WP:ENT [50], and also having sourcable notability as a stage actor [51]. Project will benefit from the stub being expanded and sourced. Will get on it myself, because others haven't. Surmountable issues are never cause for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain pending article modifications by MICHAEL Q. JBsupreme (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep At least one editor is motivated to surmount the issues presented by this article. I removed the stub tag and changed the talk page templates to class=start, since there are seven inline citations right now, and probably more to come. I agree that some obscure actors should have their articles deleted, but this is not the case with this actor. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ENT. Just look at that filmography and all the blue links. Note also that the Google News search at the top of the AFD, shows he has been featured in the news, and done interviews. An actor that wasn't notable, wouldn't be interviewed by mainstream press. Dream Focus 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment many of the sources added by User:Holly25 refer to "Harry Dhillon". Do we have any evidence that this is the same person ? Annette46 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Harry Dillon" is an anglicized name he used earlier in his career, as verified by the credits at his IMDb page and in the "Alternate Names" field there. I'm not aware of any use of "Harry Dhillon" in the sources I provided, but if you point out a specific source I can clear it up. Holly25 (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my mistake on the "Harry Dhillon". However, none of his Theatre credits (ie. the plays) are notable enough to be in WP (??). In his "Filmography" (a funny term for only TV appearances) the majority you have cited are 1 episode roles (which do not contribute to his notabilty), so we are back again to the 109 appearances in Holby City and 5 (of unknown significance) in The Loop (TV_series) which was a short lived sitcom terminated prematurely (the 2nd season not being fully broadcast). My research into The Loop and HD's role there as "Sikandar" shows it to be a minor (ie. insignificant) one [52]. Hari Dhillon has only 1 significant role in any notable entertainment project. By "significant" I mean "fairly large". He should therefore by the WP:NN norms I cited previously be deleted or merged or redirected into Michael_Spence_(Holby_City). Annette46 (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, the plays do appear notable: they've all had multiple reviews in major newspapers (I've only linked ones that discuss Dhillon by name), "Drifting Elegant" was additionally developed into a feature film[53] with reviews [54] [55], and "A Perfect Wedding" (by major playwright Charles L. Mee) was the inaugural performance of the Kirk Douglas Theatre [56] [57] [58].

"Filmography" is the term used by IMDb for both movie and TV appearances. Cradle 2 the Grave and Entrapment (film) are actually films. Named roles in major TV shows most certainly do contribute to notability (a frankly bizarre statement). Holby City has won multiple BAFTAs (from that article: "cited as the British equivalent to the Oscars"), tops the ratings, and if you look at one of the sources I provided for his role in that (no. 3), Dhillon's been nominated for a National Television Award for "Best Drama Performance". "The Loop" was on the Fox network and got average ratings of 3.86m (S1) and 2.36m (S2), the second season was fully broadcast ("cancelled" means that they didn't commission a 3rd series) at a different timeslot (the article blames a "crowded spring schedule"). Your "research" into his role in The Loop consists of... a link to Wikiquote? I hope that's a joke. You might want to look into what kind of source Wikiquote is, and who hosts the project. Holly25 (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these plays already in WP? Or are they notable only now because HD is in them ? Or are they sufficiently notable to be on-Broadway instead of playing out in the sticks? In the film "Entrapment (1999)" he was "3rd security guard", In "Cradle 2 the Grave" he was a " Pakistani buyer" <--both very significant roles ??? The second season of the Loop was NOT fully broadcast - they trimmed it from 13 episodes to 10 episodes (or something similar) and then canceled it before the 2nd season was even broadcast (and yes my source for this is WP). The only reason I even referred to Wikiquote was because I could find nothing else significant enough on "Sikandar" (in the limited time I can give to this) - perhaps you can.Annette46 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not on wikipedia. I provided sources to show that the plays are notable, hence articles could exist. I don't intend writing three articles before the close of this AFD; hence I've provided reasons and sources for their notability. My comment about the films was in reply to your statement that the list was "only TV", those roles are unnamed and haven't been brought up in this discussion as proof of notability. The full second season of "The Loop" was broadcast, because only 10 episodes were produced; the decision on the number of episodes was made, like you say, before broadcast of the season which typically means that the final episodes have not yet went into full production. As for Sikander, I've never claimed to know anything about the significance of his character, only stated that 5 episodes in a notable show makes a good claim for notability. Holly25 (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His appearances on "The Loop" is then not sufficiently notable for WP:ENTERTAINER which requires significant roles in multiple notable .. productions. At WP I believe they require "verifiability" (ie. "certainty") rather than "possibility" :-). BTW, have you ever considered that Dhillon is a Sikh surname and Hari is not. For all one knows (as we are descending into possibilities) we may uncover that his given name is actually "Harjit" or "Harpreet" or "Harjinder" and so on (all good Sikh first names). Annette46 (talk) 19:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the plays being "out in the sticks"; the Royal Court Theatre definitely doesn't fit that description, and while LA and San Francisco are not Broadway, they are still major theatre cities and the plays have secondary coverage, a spin-off film ("Drifting Elegant") and a notable playwright/inaugural performance of notable theatre ("A Perfect Wedding") as their evidence of notability. As to whether this guy has the right name according to Indian customs... well, you've got me there :) No idea. Holly25 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-indent for better readability. Comment. As I understand it (please correct me), Hari Dhillon still fails to meet WP:BIO's basic criteria as also the additional criteria for WP:ENTERTAINER. Annette46 (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Annette46: Not having an article on Wikipedia (yet) does not mean a play or film or individual is non-notable, as Wikipedia is admittedly far from being an all-encompassing encyclopedia. Inclusion of an actor's lessor projects is required per WP:BLP to properly set context and balance to an article. Further, while WP:V requires sourcing of facts that another editor (apparently) finds contentious, the WP:GNG allows that Dhillon "need not be the main topic of the source material."

And in considering your voiced comment above that you will await the outcome of this discussion before considering filing an SPI investigation, and in your speaking toward another's experience, it is a bit unusual for any editor with less than 500 edits to take such an interest in asserting suspected sockpuppets or to even involve themselves so deeply in an AFD discussion. Not rare, just a bit unusual. So please, please do not take offense... but have you edited Wikipedia in the past under a different username?
I have clarified this on my User page. No offence taken. Annette46 (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And PS, anytime a sockpuppet is suspected and enough evidence presents itself, an investigation may be begun. One never need await the outcome of an AFD discussion, nor leave any (as yet unfouneded) allegation to color another's comments. Perhaps you might wish to strike the accusations above until such time as an investigation is actually brought? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and feel that he now meets WP:ENTERTAINER (the TV roles and main roles in notable plays) and general notability given the extra newspaper coverage I found, but I've already made all my supporting arguments above and will call it a day as any more would probably cause the closing admin to drift off into a coma. Holly25 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with Annette46's statement. That Annette46 is not convinced is itself not convincing, specially in light of the editor's well-intended but unfortunate mis-interpretation of guideline. I believe that notability has been shown that the subject meets both the letter and spirit of WP:BIO through WP:GNG for the the article's coverage of the subject's growing (and properly sourced) career in theater and television. And even were this discussion to be full of sockpuppets, notability shown now that the article belongs to Wikipedia, seems apparent. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear User:Schmidt, I am given to understand from WP's records that you are probably Michael Q. Schmidt and have yourself had numerous SOCK related concerns with your own article and its Afds. I therefore perceive you (as being an actor with equally borderline - and often (ie. 3 times [59] questioned - notability) to have a POV bias concerning retention of actor Hari Dhillon and the issue of SOCKS in general and the issue of hiring publicity companies with their multiple SOCK accounts (as you did) to create/edit WP puffery pages in particular. If you had cared to read the prior discussion carefully, I was NOT the editor who raised SP (ie concerted editing) concerns. The self admitted alleged Sock who is allegedly reformed who initiated this Afd expressed certain concerns about a 81.xx IP "vote" - obviously with justification - which I had linked to. This was reinforced by another user. I then also posted my analysis of User:Todtanis (an obvious SPA) to enhance the discussion on this Afd concerning short term accounts for vote stacking. You raise my deep involvement in this particular Afd. I respond, I am an established member of WP's Notability sub-project as my user page shows. The soxred93 graphic you linked to shows my significant editing involvement in WP related issues of notability. As a declared Indian I contribute my expertise on articles involving Indians or Sikhs or Punjabis especially when it comes to notability issues. I shall address your notability misconceptions about Hari Dhillon separately. Annette46 (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am most definitely Michael Q. Schmidt, as has been confirmed by OTRS Ticket#2008062110007562, and as you must be well aware since it's obvious you have been searching old page histories. No "supposing" about it.

There is an article being discussed that however it got here or whoever edits it, now it belongs to Wikipedia and THAT is supposed to be what is being discussed. This is not the forum to continue to press your impressions of other's edits or motivations. Take it to WP:SPI, but this is not the place.

It is most assuredly not helpful to this discussion for you to further distract from the matter at hand by dredging up a long-dead issue caused by the edits of a long-since-fired publicist, who was absolutely not instructed by myself to edit Wikipedia.

As for any continued attempted denigration of my work here on wikipedia or my career for what someone else did in the past, you might wish to read WP:ADHOM and pay a bit more heed to WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, strictly on notabiity issues. 1) The only verifiably significant role Hari Dhillon has had in a verifiably notable production is as Dr Micheal Spence in Holby City. 2) The additional references incorporated into the article by User:Holly25 and User:Schmidt are classifiable as either a) concerning him as the subject as a direct consequence of his admittedly significant role in Holby City (including his BAFTA) or b) not concerning him as the subject but instead concerning the as yet unsettled notability of plays he has acted in and which also do not resolve the significance of his roles in them. Therefore, neither WP:BIO's basic criteria, nor the additional criteria for WP:ENT are met. This situation is well covered in "Special cases" - Delete or Merge. Annette46 (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, strictly on notability issues: Hari Dhillon meets WP:GNG through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject and much non-trivial if less-than-exclusive coverage in other reliable sources. His notability per WP:ENT is assured by multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions. 109 episodes of Holby City over 9 years is quite significant. 5 episodes as the significant character Sikander in the notable series The Loop (TV series) is significant. These, plus his multiple roles in other TV series and films also work toward the total picture of his notability per ENT. There is no need to confuse what has been established by denigrating his work in theater, as his total career is properly offered and sourced in order to provide a balanced BLP. And, just as WP:ENT directs, the "attributes" we might consider direct us back to WP:N and his coverage per WP:GNG. On top of his WP:Verified work, it's kind of difficult to ignore in-depth articles like The Asian Today. Notability guidelines and sub-guidelines are not exclusionary but supportive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:GNG further drills down to WP:BIO for "people" (especially BLP) and the basic criteria is that he/she must be the subject of coverage in the secondary RS sources. As I have said the only coverage he is the subject of is for Holby City. What is your evidence that Sikandar was a significant ie. "fairly large" role in "The Loop"? "multiple roles" do not translate to significance - these can be (and usually are) reprises of background/walkon characters, ie. bit player roles. At Imdb for the Loop, he is not on the main cast list till you click on "more" [60]. The sitcom itself was nominated for only 1 insignificant award. Not a single of the 26 imdb reviewers has anything to say about Dhillon or his character "Sikandar". The 4 main characters (in all 17 eps) of Loop are quite evidently "Sam", "Sully", "Meryl" and "Russ", the rest in the words of an imdb reviewer for Loop --> "There are tons of supporting characters that could easily be ignored each episode". Annette46 (talk) 07:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Inre your "background/walkon characters, ie. bit player roles"... the significance is found in being a named (not background, not walkon) character who comes back for nearly 30% of a series run. Futher, The Loop is notable enough for it to have an article on Wikipedia. If you think it not notable, perhaps you might nominate that artcle for deletion. Picking apart the tree does not dimnish the forest. And a Satellite Award is not insignificant. Yes it was a nomination and not a win, but always best to be more certain when deciding something as insignificant. Please also understand that IMDB does not have reviewers. The reviews you refer to are user reviews and do not meet criteria for WP:RS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Response. Still no RS for the significance of HD's role as Sikandar. I had already conceded that "The Loop" is sufficiently notable for inclusion in WP. It is pertinent that neither Hari Dhillon nor the series got that 1 insignificant award nomination. Insofar as "reviews" are concerned you had already expressed yourself here [61] and as a WP:CIVIL editor I do not want to drag WP:COI into this Afd discussion. About the "The Asian Today" article, it furthers my case - HD is the subject solely due to the National award nomination he got for his role as Dr. Micheal Spence in Holby City. It is pertinent that in reply to a pointed query on the main highlights of his career, he couldn't specify any highlight other than Holby City. Annette46 (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not pertinent at all, because in his other interview [62], a similarly pointed query as to highlights is answered with "The Loop", "Drifting Elegant" and "Mother Teresa Is Dead". Holly25 (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And having checked the interview you're referring to [63], he was only asked for the main highlight. Holly25 (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nominator.--Professional Assassin (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Annette - chill out. If you haven't made your point in the gazillions of bytes that you have contributed to this page then you are unlikely to successfully do so. Some poor admin will have to wade through all this and pick out the salient points. Have a heart!
ps - can I also exhort you to comment on the article itself rather than the contributors to the AfD. pablo_hablo. 20:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements. Jclemens (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:ENTERTAINER as demonstrated in the fabulous rescue job done by Holly and Michael. Nancy ^talk 08:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like the cleanup work brings the article into compliance with our policies. Well done, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage. Here's another bit to use: Crewe, Candida (April 4, 1998). "Generation gap". The Times.: "Hari Dhillon, 29, actor, lives in San Francisco: 'I've a funny view on smoking dope for someone of my age whose friends virtually all smoke it daily. Although I believe all drugs should be legalised, because freedom of choice is essential, I think dope is one of the most insidious. Too many people I know have lost their way over the years as a result of it. One smoked six joints a day and couldn't function, his life was going nowhere. He gave up two years ago and suddenly he's enacting all his dreams in a really positive way. For me, alcohol is a social lubricant and drugs are a creative one. I use them in moderation, but I'd rather do hard drugs than dope. They give a shorter, more intense burst, and then I can get on with life, whereas dope makes you mushily high for a longer period.'" However, please cut back on the eleven citations for four items in the "Theatre" section. It's embarrassing in its excessively exclamatory claim of notability. Erik (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed Erik, some of those sources might be better on the article's talk page.... but considering the way this discussion was begun, one might understand the overkill. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just moved 6 to the talk page. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best to wait until it's out of the woods, then we can trim back sourcing to peacetime levels... Holly25 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piling on citations for bulleted items is a stupid way to prove notability regardless. "You don't believe he appeared in this work? Here's another citation mentioning it! And another!" If citations piled on without new content added (other than backing contentious statements), it exaggerates the number of references, as it does currently. There's 19 footnotes, and when we remove the redundant 7, it shows that the actor is nearer to the threshold of notability. Erik (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The intention wasn't to have the article glittering with reference-bling. The notability of the plays was being questioned, so I thought having three quality reviews next to each would let people assess that without having to dig through the long discussion above. They weren't an attempt to smash the fact of his appearing in them into the face of any doubters. Holly25 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a seperate notability of the theatrical works was being questioned, it might have served just as well to have included links to the many reviews of the various plays here at the AFD, only if in order to counter any assertion that they were themselves somehow non-notable and thus somehow dismissable... and then move back to the article topic and discuss how, if seen as contentious, the article's asserting the man was a stage perfomer needed itself to be properly sourced per requirements of WP:BLP. Overkill? Yes. But as is pointed out, that becomes a matter for cleanup through regular editing. Patience. The article is still being improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just moved some to the talk page. In looking at them, it seems his work as a stage actor has received positive review. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stand and Deliver (song). Tone 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stand and Deliver (No Doubt song)[edit]

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

Performed live, no Ghits confirming release as single. Prod removed by same editor who added the word "fake" to article Richhoncho (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as there are reliable third-party sources like the Rolling Stone Magazin. Armbrust (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~. Merge Thanks for link, at least I now know it was a "non-promoted itunes download" in which case it is merely non-notable and should be merged with Stand and Deliver (song) --Richhoncho (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stand and Deliver (song). Verifiable information, such as that contained in the Rolling Stone article, can be appropriately placed there. Gongshow ^Talk 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stand and Deliver (song). Completely agree with Gongshow, No reason for the cover version to have its own page, particularly since it hasn't been released yet. J04n(talk page) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Stand and Deliver (song). Armbrust (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaults to keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ayi Jihu[edit]

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

Completely unsourced. I'll admit that based on article's self-assertion, subject is notable, but while there are many web pages mentioning her, I can't find a single news article about her in Google News, suggesting the person isn't as notable as claimed. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral "I can't find a single news article about her in Google News" ... i.e. once again the nominator couldn't be bothered to search in Chinese despite speaking it just fine.

Anyway I restubbed the article and added some sources to it, but they don't really convince me that she passes WP:MUSIC. They discuss her childhood in depth (one goes on for about four thousand words), but have very little to say about her career because there's simply not that much to say --- she's signed to a minor label, released one album, performed at a city festival, and has vague plans of an "international tour". Formally speaking, you might argue (I'd personally disagree, but it's a reasonable argument) that she passes the "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" requirement of WP:N. cab (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the time that I nominated it, it had no Chinese characters. I couldn't search in Chinese very well if I didn't know what Chinese characters were used for her name. --Nlu (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the name's in the article, you don't bother. And you think I know the Chinese name of every girl in Sichuan off the top of my head? Her name is on her website. You'd know her Chinese name too if you were in the habit of doing the most basic level of due diligence on the articles you AfD. This is a repeated failure on your part, and not just in the past few weeks either. cab (talk) 06:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much ado[edit]

It's no worse than thousands of other articles on "singers", "actors" and "artists" that I've encountered during my brief editing stint. Maybe it's a bit early in her career for coverage, but other than that I don't see any issues.WQUlrich (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are significant news coverage, like a BBC China interview here[64](Chinese). And this interview mainly talks about her life in UK and as a musician - not her childhood. A handful of other news can be found too(albeit all Chinese ones). Blodance (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty girl gets minor interview in regional ethnic magazine? Has she actually sold any records? --Chuunen Baka (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? Is BBC China a "regional ethnic magazine"? Blodance (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources tell us that she has been planning a tour, and that this is interesting because she is Chinese and is touring in Europe. That is really what it amounts to. Whether the coverage is in a "regional ethnic magazine" or not, that is not substantial coverage. As for WQUlrich's "It's no worse than thousands of other articles", this is irrelevant: the existence of poor articles does not justify the existence of another poor article: see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. WQUlrich also goes on to say "MMaybe it's a bit early in her career for coverage, but other than that I don't see any issues." Well, if so then that is the issue: if there is not much coverage now then she is not yet notable, whether she may become notable in the future or not. We don't have articles based on speculation about what may happen in the future: see WP:CRYSTAL. Nowhere near notable, either by the General notability guideline or by Wikipedia:Notability (music). JamesBWatson (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rogers (murder suspect)[edit]

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

Basically unsourced biographical article about a (possibly) living person. Everything seems based on one semi-fictional book (see the article about the book). Does not appear to pass WP:BIO and there is no article on the murders themselves to redirect this to. His only notability is as a suspect in a murder. Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of a book, and of substantial contemporaneous press coverage in Texas. While that book was creative non-fiction, the murders and Charles Rogers are referenced in at least three other books. Also the subject of a published (if wildly implausible) JFK conspiracy theory.[65][66] THF (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral WP:BLP1E Charles is only know for one event. In general we don't have articles about crime suspects who are still alive, and there is no source to say that he is not alive. Martin451 (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he's known for two events; his disappearance after the Ice Box murders of his parents, and for the allegation that he was one of the three tramps on the grassy knoll. And we have lots of articles about crime suspects who are still alive. THF (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think this is one event, as the allegation of being linked to JFK is as a result of the murders. Also there are almost as many people connected to the JFK assassination as there are ripper suspects. However given his seeming notability I will change to neutral. Martin451 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His parents' murder ("one of the most macabre double murders in American history")[67] and his disappearance got press coverage years later, and he's been connected to the assassination of JFK (which bizarrely isn't mentioned in the article).[68][69][70][71] Fences&Windows 00:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Its an odd one, yes, but the fact that he's been covered extensively in sources not directly pertaining to the murder help push it over the edge. Alternately, I wonder if a rename might be in order? Cover the event, not the man, after all. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Yu[edit]

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

Lawyer...rose through the ranks....got important jobs....wrote two books. I've searched around and this bare bones is about it. Unreferenced for 4 years and I can see why. Not enough notice from reliable sources and certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO Peripitus (Talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many sources available, and three of the first four describe him "legendary," "famous," and "renowned" in Hong Kong legal circles. Thus appears to meet WP:BIO. The article suffers because it was written under the far more lenient 2004 Wikipedia standards of referencing and hasn't improved since, but I daresay someone obsessive enough to care could turn this into a good or featured article--and that's before we get to the strong likelihood that there exist numerous contemporary newspaper articles about Yu that aren't readily accessible online. Appears to meet the AUTHOR standard, as well. THF (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person seems to meet the criteria listed under WP:ANYBIO and WP:ACADEMIC, but the article does seriously lack reliable sources and references. Perhaps most of the unsourced information in the article should hidden until they can be cited and verified. Tvtr (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Views expressed by James Edwards and The Political Cesspool[edit]

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

This article is nothing more than a POV fork of James Edwards and The Political Cesspool. Unit Anode 01:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This article is absolutely not a POV fork; it is actually a legitimate spinout of those articles. See here for more information

"Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."

"Summary style articles, with sub-articles giving greater detail, are not content forking." Stonemason89 (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This radio show just barely passes our notability threshold. We already have an article about the show, and its only claim to notability is the racist ideology it espouses. We do not need a separate article about the racist ideology these guys espouse. AniMate 19:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the content in here is properly sourced, though. I don't think just hacking it out is the proper option. Personally I think the page should remain, but maybe we could compromise by merge-ing this page into James Edwards, The Political Cesspool, or perhaps both? That would be better than just nuking it, since the content itself is legit, even if the idea of having a separate page for it might not be (to some users, anyway). Stonemason89 (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The article itself is a BLP cesspool, and there's no earthly reason for it (or its extensive coverage of non-notable views) within a BLP-related article. Unit Anode 04:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you denying that James Edwards holds the views listed here? If not, what specifically in the article are you objecting to on the basis of BLP grounds? Stonemason89 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done discussing this. Not everything that is verifiable merits an article. It seems that you're much more interested in documenting this guy's views than anything else. This project is not intended as a watchdog over every extremist with a radio program, sorry. The man and the radio program are of very dubious notability to begin with, so it's really impossible to defend having an entire article that's nothing more than a laundry list of the the guy's views on various matters. Unit Anode 14:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without encyclopedic merit. Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems to be the result of a one-man crusade to document the racist views of James Edwards. Don't get me wrong, I think it was done in good faith, but I also think the editor responsible for this cycle of articles may have an overblown estimation of the notability of the things involved. I see no signs that the views expressed by this host on his show are of such distinct notability from the host and the show themselves that a separate article could conceivably be warranted. Wikipedia:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, and a catalogue of a Millington, Tennessee radio host's views on everything from Barack Obama to The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants is a pretty severe case of indiscriminate compilation. This should be deleted, or at second best merged back into The Political Cesspool and/or James Edwards. If Stonemason's complaint is that it's too much material to pack into those already-lengthy articles, well, he has only himself to blame for that state of affairs. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This radio program is barely notable, and this article appears to be little more than an indiscriminate collection of views expressed on that show. If he's like every other radio show, he expresses dozens of opinions every single show, so there's no chance of this ever being complete- so which opinions to document and which to ignore are hopelessly POV. Citations are not a guarantee of neutrality in a BLP (or any article, to be honest, but it's more important in BLPs)- and this article is either going to be book-length or POV. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a valid split from the aforementioned articles. Some of this may be worthwhile for a brief mention in the parent articles, but this seems like an invalid workaround to get stuff to "stick" at Wikipedia since it wouldn't stick in the main article. --Jayron32 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Jayron32's assessment.Cptnono (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Harckham[edit]

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

Biographical article about a county-level politician who is running for NY state assembly in 2010, fails WP:Politician. Minimal independent coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:Bio PDCook (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: plenty of coverage in RS which establishes notability, like [72] [73] [74]. Sarah182 (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - User Sarah182 is currently blocked for sockpuppetry. See User talk:Sarah182. PDCook (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and I don't think this coverage is sufficient to get him over the line of WP:BIO. He's quoted in Time Magazine, but is not the subject of the article; the rest is local coverage of varying degrees. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Grossly promotional article ("Harckham has quickly compiled an array of legislative victories") for someone who, in the end, remains a non-notable county-level politician. Being quoted in Time is nothing; an endless string of non-notable people are quoted all the time in news articles, it's how reporters write (cf. Man on the street). Other than that I find a modicum of local news coverage but not the significant independent coverage it would take to establish someone as encyclopedically notable under WP:GNG or WP:POLICITICAN #2. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete perhaps speedy per unambiguous advertising. Should he ever become notable, no prejudice to recreating as an NPOV article at a later date. --Jayron32 21:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Going By[edit]

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

Contested Prod, non notable future release per WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL BigDunc 13:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —BigDunc 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are there any sources that indicate that the song is real? I'm not seeing any mention of it on Buono!. In fact, the only upcomming releases mentioned are "Our Songs" and their third album We Are Buono!. Neither of which currently have an article. —Farix (t | c) 18:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no one has yet show that the information on the page can be verified, much else that the song could passes WP:MUSIC. —Farix (t | c) 16:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Under WP:NSONG, "[n]otability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." There is, as pointed out above, no verifiable material about this song, let alone enough for a fleshed-out standalone article. The proper course is then to delete, since the unsourced claims here do not merit merger elsewhere. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Buono!, fails WP:MUSIC as noted above, redirecting to artist's page seems a logical result, since the artists is notable. --Jayron32 21:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Many of the delete comments were based on not liking this article rather than policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch oven (practical joke)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dutch oven (slang)

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

unencyclopedic geek humour Mundilfari (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~Nominator's further comment This article is 3/4 references to movies and television shows where this happened. I also picked this article for deletion because it's a particularly embarrassing example of what Wikipedia has become, a collection of fart jokes and Simpsons and Family Guy references. I wouldn't be totally opposed to a merge for this page but the question would be where to merge it. I'd say either flatulence or practical joke.Mundilfari (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment your nomination for deletion is sufficient. You do not need also to say you wish it deleted. I have edited your !vote to show this and made the edit obvious. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is made on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The nomination itself is also a strong case of WP:POINT where the nominator self identifies that it is made "as a particularly embarrassing..." etc. The article is well referenced, with sufficient reliable sources to ensure that it is shown as notable and verifiable. As we keep reminding ourselves, Wikipedia is not censored. This nomination is a misguided attempt at censorship. The suggested merges are banal. How many other practical jokes should be merged to practical joke? And what value woudl it add to flatulence? It doesn't matter whether we like the article or not. There are many articles we don't actually like. What matters is whether the encyclopaedia finds the article notable and verifiable. I submit that it is both of these, and demonstrably so with its citations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per not having a good reason to delete. I couldn't have said it better than Fiddle. An article's subject being a "geeky joke" or "embarrassing" simply does not make it an unencyclopedic article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 11:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - improper nomination; nominator gives no policy reasons to delete the article, merely stating that he does not think that Wikipedia should be so childish. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may like to look at Talk:Dutch oven to see that the nominator has expressed WP:IDONTLIKEIT quite substantially there. This looks very much to me as an improper nomination, but it may as well run its course until someone closes it. No-one will die if the article is deleted, though it really ought not to be, and Wikipedia will not be harmed if it remains, which it should do, simply on the basis of sourcing. An article may always be improved, and perhaps that will be the outcome. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and perhaps the occurrences could be turned into citations for wikt:Dutch oven at Wiktionary, where that sense already exists but without citations. As an encyclopedia article, the problems are WP:Original research (perhaps WP:SYNTHESIS particularly - does any source actually say "this appears in such and such media" and WP is adding additional examples, or are all the examples being collated by WP?) and WP:DICDEF. Also WP:Notability particularly the WP:General notability guideline and WP:Significant coverage: "sources address the subject directly in detail" (emphasis mine). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see significant coverage in reliable sources here. There appear to be a few dictionary definitions in the references, which suggest that Wiktionary is a more suitable home for it.--Michig (talk) 16:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wiktionary doesn't seem to care for having citations to other dictionaries' definitions (though I think that would merit inclusion somewhere there, personally), they look for attestation through usage, sometimes citing to Use-mention distinction. Their standards are quite different there; usenet attestation can be perfectly acceptable and deriving meanings from usage doesn't constitute original research, though they don't care for neologisms and protologisms much. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a sufficiently strong reason to delete it. The article could be improved, yes, but it's harder to improve a deleted article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Flatulence#Social context. Does not appear to have enough reliable sources for notability as a seperate article, but there's enough here to WP:PRESERVE much of the information as a subsection of another article. Some random links to mentions in blogs and the like are not enough to support an article, and even where mentioned in reliable sources, the mention is quite short; far too little for the "substantial" aspect of WP:GNG. There are certainly examples of the event occuring in fiction and other places, but there just doesn't seem enough for a seperate article. The material is good, but would be better served as part of the article on flatulence. --Jayron32 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while I agree with the nominator in that articles like this make me shake my head, one man's ridiculousness is another's seriousness. It appears to be covered by multiple references which directly address the topic, but which are independent of the topic. In the absence of other consensus stating that it is not significant, it appears to meet notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm going to put the heat on you by setting this question on the front burner: to be clear, which references are reputable, authoritative, and "in detail" and more than just passing (gas) mentions? Please don't remain silent (but deadly) on this matter, or blow smoke up our asses. Oh, besides the guidelines and policies I cited above, I'll also mention WP:Avoid neologisms. All the keeps that don't address these issues are entirely irrelevant. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I am required to answer such a question, but I will take a stab at it:

The first reference dates to 2005 (I have no clue what the statute of limitations on being a neologism is, but this sets the term to at least five years, so it isn't exactly new. An (albeit small) section of the book appears to directly address it. I am throwing out the next two references, repeated and dictionaries. The fourth reference is solely about this topic, and (albeit) it is a college newspaper, I think college newspapers are considered reliable sources at this site. The eighth reference notes that it will be in the title of a forthcoming game. Those are three references which appear to be reliable, two of which are pretty direct in addressing the topic, and that seems to be at least a weak assertion of notability. I will not shed a tear is this article is deleted, but from where I am standing, it appears like there has been a minimal shot at asserting notability. I agree that the sources are perhaps not the most reputable, but they are secondary sources.

Now ... if the notability rules were rewritten ... that would be a whole new ballgame. LonelyBeacon (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing more than a handful of references to texts that would seem to establish notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There are numerous references, and while "reputable, authoritative and in detail" is borderline, the sheer number of them help. The "Ren & Stimpy Adult Party Cartoon : Dutch Oven" is clearly "in detail", since the whole game is devoted to the article subject. The game isn't reputable by itself, but it is reviewed by the Animation World Network, which is. The numerous advice columns aren't in detail, but are authoritative, and somewhat reputable. The remaining trivia references don't hurt. --GRuban (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added a link to the previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch oven (slang), which appears to have been closed as Delete as fartcruft.--kelapstick (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it makes it a slam dunk for notability, but apparently Dutch oven (the prank) is noted along with pole-dancing (which also has an article) in the Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakuel movie. <insert shock and outrage here>

Also it's noted in the "Now what? After a certain age, say 20, only men find farting funny" article in the Jun 3, 2002 New Statesman, but all I can get is tidbits about "... morning being grabbed, shoved under the duvet and given a "Dutch oven". ... Yet this week I have hooted and commented on every fart venturing from the..." without dispursing $4.95 for a full in the face viewing.

A merge was considered, but I think the consensus was that it would be weighty to fit in the flatulence humor article and also that it wasn't necessarily (or purely) humorous, but more of a prank. How do we determine if in fact it's funny? We may need volunteers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Improper AfD. WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an acceptable reason for deletion. There's a whole lot of stuff more unencyclopedic than this around here. Trusilver 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No reason stated, and it's sourced. Aside: I came here because it was used on a skit last night on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien and I didn't know the joke.—DMCer™ 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Improper use of AfD. The article is sourced, verifiable and factually sound. Whining about something a particular editor doesn't like is not grounds for deletion. Wayne Hardman (talk) 01:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have stated my position on this article, but, in what might appear to be a contradiction, I think that saying this is a misuse of an AfD or that it was improper is strong. Irrelevant of the nominator's disposition (which I do not fully disagree with) the references are, in my opinion, enough to establish a weak notability, but I think it is far from obvious that the references are particularly strong enough to establish notability. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. ALL the comments above which only say "keep improper nom" or little more than that can (ironically) be disregarded, or should cross their legs, hold their gas, and hope for a vote-counting closer. Arguably speedy flush G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion per Kelapstick's finding. Potential for cites for Wiktionary, not for an encyclopedia article if all it can say is "a dutch oven is farting under a sheet to annoy or amuse your partner. Here's some places Wikipedia editors found that use the gag:", followed by said list. WP has that kind of DICDEF "article" out the wazoo, clinging like dingleberries when it should instead drop those kids off at the pool. WP:NOTTOILETPAPER: OK for Fartipedia maybe. Anyhow, I'm not anti-fart; Flatulence humor is something which an encyclopedia article legitimately can (and has been) done or Flatulist or Ben Franklin's Fart Proudly. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that an AfD from 2006 does not mean that the page is the same as then, nor should it be speedied. Keep in mind that consensus can change. Also, here it states "Encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition and description of one topic (or a few synonymous or otherwise highly related terms[3]), but the article should provide other types of information about that topic as well". The article needs to flesh itself out from the sources a bit, but it does provide information on how this joke affects relationship dynamics, a decidedly not dictionary-ish topic. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Scapler is right, this is not eligible as a G4 as it would have to be sufficiently identical and unimproved, which (without seeing the previously deleted article) I am willing to assume that this is not. I simply added a link to the previous discussion for transparency purposes, not as advocation for deletion.--kelapstick (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch oven (practical joke) is completely different content from Dutch oven (slang) (same topic, but very different content). G4 does not apply here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hardly encyclopedic material. Bazonka (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reasonably well known, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't really a valid argument for nominating it. I think the article is decently sourced as is, and I'm confident there is enough significant coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Practical joke - it's a non-serious topic, it's been deleted before, and it's never gonna be more than a stub dictionary definition. RayBarker (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Baron (baseball)[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable minor league manager. He did win a championship while a manager, and did have 2300 hits (which is quite an accomplishment), however I'm not sure if it is notable enough. You decide. Alex (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Accomplishments make him notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning the championship seems to indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think that the championship is enough to call him notable. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 02:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO IMO per championship win. Jujutacular ^T · C 04:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as a copyvio per Sarah Sandstein 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ean Sugarman[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, the article makes numerous claims, most of which I cannot even verify as true. appears to be more an ad of this person. 3 hits in gnews. he may have had a role in mixing lots of singles but it appears to be only minor as there is no third party coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, there does appear to be some coverage of this person, although as the nominator has covered, if kept this article needs a good cleanout and improvement. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - as there seems to be some independent coverage, definitely enough for a stub. Pantherskin (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant copyright violation of sugarmanmusic.com. Sarah 11:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SM Hypermarket[edit]

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

Article about a supermarket site, ~~by a new user~~. Notability anyone? –BuickCentury Driver 01:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author of the article is not a new user but registered in September 2007 and has been adding/editing articles about SM stores and malls since August 2008. — Athaenara ✉ 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Hypermarket, being part of the largest mall chain SM Supermalls in the Philippines, is notable. Supermarkets are inherently notable. That does not mean that few Google hits or it has never been heard in the United States, the market is not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JL 09 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check these: [75] [76]--JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 07:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject, which belongs to the Philippines' largest chain of malls, has 19 branches. source The article needs to be edited, though, as some were copy-pasted from the source. Starczamora (talk) 08:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Philippines' most famous mall; we have an article on Wal-Mart (U.S. mall), so this is about a Philippine equivalent. As such, it asserts notability. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L•EM) 02:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the best shopping mall here in The Philippines. Just like as other major retail supermarkets like as Wal-Mart. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 10:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ShyWolf[edit]

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

Non-notable band with, according to the article, a history in the 1970's, though this article was created because they just offered a CD for sale on the internet. Probably passes speedy by claiming that the Nottingham Evening Post once recognized them as "the No.1 rock band in the Midlands." Google Books turns up this mention in a catalogue of British bands, but I can find no other information to indicate that this band is remotely notable. Unfortunately I don't think a single ambiguous mention in a local paper 30 years ago allows this group to pass WP:BAND. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Billbowery (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this band. Unless better sources can be presented, this does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 08:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be established, which the current entry doesn't. Hairhorn (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one Google news mention in (what appears to be) Korean. Not even sure it's them. Doesn't appear to be enough significant coverage to pass WP:BAND. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Harris[edit]

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

Harris has never played professionally thus failing WP:ATH. Also, a good faith search reveals little to no significant coverage so the subject also fails WP:GNG. Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several sources in the article including Detroit News. Also he's only a rookie, and his injury was only a sprained ankle. We can't assume he'll never get re-signed by the Lions or another team. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Harris isn't featured in any of those articles. And the thought that he'll get signed is irrelevant because not only is that WP:CRYSTAL but consensus from AfDs (such as this one) show that practice squad and/or offseason members only are not notable. --Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes he is, they mentioned his injury and the subsequent settlement. If you look at most rosters, every team member, including practice squad, has an article. I made this because he was the only one who didn't. Also "look at this AFD" is irrelevant. We're talking about this afd, not that one which has nothing to do with this person. Each afd should be independent. Also saying he'll never play professionally is also a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. He could get signed tomorrow. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I work with the rosters everyday and I can assure you that there's multiple red links on each, which is no mistake.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well then why was he the only redlink on the Lions roster this year? Someone must have thought every other practice squad member was notable enough for an article. TomCat4680 (talk) 02:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you look at the roster (here) there aren't any redlinks because all the ps players have either A) played professionally or B) have collegiate notability. Harris has neither, IMO.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How bout a 3 star / 5.7 rating from Rivals.com? [77] TomCat4680 (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Rivals star ratings don't determine notability.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage during his college career with the Georgia Bulldogs, including two new references that I added and a few more that were easy to find with the right search. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those don't appear to constitute significant coverage.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he didnt have a notable college career at all and hasnt played professionaly, fails WP:Athlete.--Yankees10 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He does not yet pass WP:ATH, if he gets ~~signed~~ playing time the page can be resurrected. J04n(talk page) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By sign, I assume you mean play. Right? Since consensus through numerous PRODs and AfDs have shown that being on a roster isn't enough.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - correct, my mistake. J04n(talk page) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news for his name and the word "football" to make sure its him, and not others by that name. The Charlotte Observer had an article about him [78] Its titled Ex-Cherryville star thrives at Georgia: Kenneth Harris a key receiver in his 1st year playing for SEC power. It has a quote from him, and a coach talking about him, etc. Dream Focus 05:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is plenty of coverage. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has never played pro. Coverage of his college career is insufficient, and local. Abductive (reasoning) 01:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage of his college career is insufficient for independent notability and he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE as a pro. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player fails WP:ATH for the time being, perhaps the article can be created at a later date if he ever passes. JBsupreme (talk) 09:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode Font Viewer[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An exhaustive search using the options in the findsources links above results in... nada. JBsupreme (talk) 18:53, 7 January 2010 (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) 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unremarkable freeware. The closest this comes to notability is being mentioned as number 11 out of 11 in "10+ Tools To View, Organize And Manage Your Fonts" from www.gigglecomputer.com. And that's not very close to notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wardija Ridge. Sandstein 12:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Busewdien[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence of notability. The article appears to have been created simply to add more links to some related fringe sites promoting the 'electric universe' concept. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any notability. Maybe merge with St. Pauls Bay? Not sure what the nominator is talking about regarding fringe sites, but I agree that notability hasn't been sufficiently established DRosin (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2010 (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) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect, unpopulated area which I suspect can't even pass WP:V. Abductive (reasoning) 01:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wardija Ridge. I couldn't find any decent sources, but it appears to be a real place and there may be enough in Maltese to support a separate article or at least a paragraph in the article on the ridge where it is located. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitesh Kumar Patel[edit]

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

Non-notable actor/producer lacking GHits of substance and GNEWS. References lack substance. Appears to fail WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable motel manager working on his future filmmaking career. Minor coverage of "local son to make movie" not enough to establish his notability yet. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (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) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither he nor his films appear to be on IMDB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Blatant self promotion. He includes this article as "press coverage" for his proposed (shooting not yet started) film. [79] (clickon "Press") Annette46 (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was It looks as though this was an error from the start, but in any event consensus is to keep or possibly merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Software Testing Qualifications Board Certified Tester[edit]

Article reads like an advert promoting a qualification offered by a small company. Derek farn (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect to International Software Testing Qualifications Board. The qualification itself isn't notable but the board is. NtheP (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an internationally recognized professional qualification. I have removed the speedy-deletion tag from the article, as this is a long way from being appropriate here. A merge to the board or to an article discussing software testing certifications may be appropriate, but keep it and such a merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. --Michig (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (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) 00:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AFD tag was not on the article. I just added it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I incorrectly added the tag because I had followed a link from a page where the tag should have been added. The current article is notable and I did not intent to tag this article. Sorry for any confusion it may have caused. Derek farn (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you withdrawing your nomination?--Michig (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & Redirect - I agree with NtheP and to a lesser extent (in that it is a is an internationally recognized professional qualification) with Michig Codf1977 (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 defaults to keep with no prejudice toward suggested merger. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pinwinnie[edit]

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

No indication that it meets notability criteria - no significant coverage in third-party sources. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 22:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: submitting in good faith for IP. tedder (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2010 (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) 00:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Inver House Distillers Limited per WP:PRODUCT: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Pinwinnie gets ten words in the Wordsworth Dictionary of Drink, and pretty much nothing else I can find. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young kros[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BAND, unreferenced, WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they assert no notability apart from association with the artist listed above:

Delete both: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2010 (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) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: he is a non-notable aspiring youth rapper with no significant coverage of any sort, and under WP:NALBUMS mixtapes "are in general not notable" without significant independent coverage, which Young Kros's mixtape obviously does not have. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good & Broken[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Good & Broken

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

Band does not appear to be notable. Eeekster (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at least in its current form, info in article is way too skimpy. Note that the automatic GSearch you get from hitting the link above brings up many hits for the Miley Cyrus song of the same title. Try this on Google: "Good & Broken" + "Toronto". That search reveals little more than self-built networking pages, which is fine for launching their career but does not confer notability. So far, it will suffice to mention the band in the page for the obscure reality show in which they are supposedly being featured. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:13, 5 January 2010 (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) 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried various searches based on the band members' names (for example) but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Reeves[edit]

The article does not list notablity according to WP standards. Being the first missionary from a denomination does not rise to notability, nor establishing 2 small churches รัก-ไทย 16:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rak-Tai (talk • contribs) 2010/01/03 16:04:54

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The missionary had to learn Thai to be sent there. It was a hostile assignment that would have broken most people.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learming Thai and being in a hostile environment are not in any way

related to notability. รัก-ไทย 05:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete There are no references in the article that establish notability. Google search reveals almost nothing of published sources. รัก-ไทย 03:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Preceeding comment struck without prejudice as a duplicate vote by the nominator. A nomination already counts as a !vote, a second one is not needed. Jclemens (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2010 (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) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There are indeed two RS references, but both are to obituaries, and the only thing attributable to the second RS should be trimmed as puffery. If any additional independent RS are found and added to the article, presume that this !vote has been withdrawn even if I don't revisit the discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not like he was a missionary to Thailand in the 1550s. And contrary to the view the article's creator expressed above, being courageous does not make one inherently notable—unless it results in significant coverage in reliable independent sources, which in Rev. Reeves' case it has not. The sources cited are run-of-the-mill obituaries, not significant coverage, and GBooks, GNews, and my other searches for reliable sources turn up only a handful of catalog-type mentions in lists of clergy. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't cross the notability bar, nothing in the article itself to establish enduring notability. WP:NOT a memorial website. Annette46 (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Verifiable inhabited localities at any level are generally considered notable. Sandstein 12:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeban[edit]

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

Notability questionable and not established. No sources. Eeekster (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 4 January 2010 (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) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow WP:BEFORE before marking an article as a candidate for deletion. The request for deletion was put in only a few hours after the article was created. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidence of notability in contemporary accounts of detention and torture of refugees returning to the area^[1] associated with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory D. Lee[edit]

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

Clearly an autobiography (see article's talk page). If kept, would need a lot of work, but reasoning for deletion would be WP:COI, WP:V, WP:N and so on. NJA (t/c) 11:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, independent or otherwise, to show subject's notability. Edward321 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2010 (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) 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aslan Osiris[edit]

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

Musician who is non-notable outside of the group The Birthday Massacre (no notable solo releases—mostly free downloads, no membership in any other notable band, etc.). Attempts to redirect to the band's article have been reverted. TheJazzDalek (talk) 09:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article subject fulfils none of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Article is only referenced to youtube links which are not acceptable for wikipedia and no significant reliable, third-party coverage could be found dealihg specifically with the article subject. No indication of significant sales / chart success and releases are self-released, not on a major label. No indication of awards or recognition for the work, nor any evidence that the music has been used in any other notable media. Fenix down (talk) 11:31, 4 January 2010 (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) 00:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC, although I suppose a redirect to the band he was in would be harmless enough too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Lego book[edit]

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

Article badly written, not of big importance. Jameswa21 (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This sounds like a Coffee table book. It is not likely that it will get reliable secondary coverage needed for WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2010 (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) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a major work on legos, but a well produced childrens book on the product. it would be a fine addition to the lego article as a reference, as DK is an excellent kids book publisher, but few of their books stand out as true reference works. i doubt it even got reviews in trade journals.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Article is now a stub in English, no other delete arguments have been put forward. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sekiraqa[edit]

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

This article isn't in English, so it doesn't belong on English Wikipedia. Quanticle (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a new entry, standard practice is to allow 2 weeks for translation, then bring to AfD. See Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Hairhorn (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for the time being. It hasn't had its chance at WP:PNT yet. Re-nominate in two weeks. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Pretty sure it's notable. Favonian (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Had I seen it first I would probably have marked it as speedy-delete. It's potentially notable since it's about a Kosovar "mafia" family where at least one member is supposed to be on an international search warrant. However, it's written in horribly bad Swedish and unsourced, and the content is such that there are clear WP:BLP concerns without WP:RS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomas e (talk • contribs)
- Comment. I have added two references, one of them being an Interpol arrest warrant. Regrettably, some of the most promising Google News hits are from the BBC Archive, and they charge for access. Am trying to mobilize sufficient boldness to translate the admittedly rather horrible Swedish prose. Favonian (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changed to neutral after the BLP and referencing issue was dealt with. Tomas e (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2010 (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) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ta bort Förtal på svenska! (Artikeln behandlar den misstänkte som om han dömdes.) Werner Heisenberg (talk) 04:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Keep. I've stubbed the article to remove the defamatory Swedish content. The references strongly suggest that Enver Sekiraqa is notable, and that the article may be appropriately expanded in a manner not inconsistent with the biographies of living persons policy. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question It's good that you stubbed it. But does that mean that you propose a refocus and move' to "Enver Sekiraqa"? The article was previously about the whole family. Tomas e (talk) 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since we only have sources for Enver Sekiraqa right now, that's all we should write about. It would be a BLP violation to claim that the whole family is mobbed up, without a shred of evidence. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 12:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JO-ZERO[edit]

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

I realize I may take some flak for taking this to AfD so soon after it was created, but I think this is a case where no amount of editing can overcome the lack of notability. Simply stated, this article is about a robot that does not appear to have received significant coverage in third-party sources that would result in its meeting WP:GNG. Although a Google search yields 42,000 hits, I've been unable to find any reliable sources. A Google news search only led to a blog post at Crunchygear.com and a handful of posts at Coolest-gadgets.com (a blog?), which I would hesitate to call a reliable source. That's problematic because notability requires verifiable evidence. I don't see it here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Regardless of being a stub, it needs a source. Stubs need sources too, otherwise we cannot verify that it exists, and that it is notable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well. I found it so notable that I created it as a stub right away. It is an especially good robot of its kind. I was intending to add more but was very pressed for time. Perhaps when I have time to tell the full story it will satisfy notabilty guideline. Best Regards

Wikkrockiana (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the consensus here is to delete and you want to build off of this content in the future, contact one of the administrators in Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a long article here about it, which is a top 100 site in Japan by Alexa Ranking, and also one in a TechCrunch site. Some info is contradictory; it seems that some English sources took the name of the company rep, Nakamura to be that of the designer. Also, IREX is a pretty notable expo; here's coverage (The Telegraph) of it, although not about this particular robot. Another Japanese article here, a site owned by the same company as Mainichi Shimbun. Pcap ping 02:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Japanese sources are reliable, and the English sources so-so. See User talk:TakuyaMurata#Robot needs your help. Pcap ping 13:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Interesting. Can the article be expanded using the Japanese sources? I've no way of knowing, mainly because I don't speak Japanese (which explains why I didn't find those articles). Looking at the references in the article, two of the three English-language sources look unreliable for sure. Robots-dreams.com and Coolest-gadgets.com both appear to be blogs. The other source is, as you noted, a TechCrunch blog; is that considered a reliable source? I searched the WP:RSN archives, but what I found was inconclusive. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:RS does not exclude foreign language sources, and the English ones are just a summary of the Japanese ones anyway. Pcap ping 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wappin' Radio Show[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Wappin' Radio Show

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

I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not only doesn't it assert notability, it doesn't even give the barest facts like what kind of show this is or who hosts it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I interpret the keep !vote as attempting to counter systemic bias. Since it doesn't appear that this article has been brought to the attention of possible subject matter experts (given that the talk page currently is a red link) I that a no consensus close for this time is an appropriate reading of the limited discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash and Dash[edit]

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

Non-notable TV series/toy brand. No indication of notability, Google and Google News are barely throwing up an indication that this exists, nevermind notable. J Milburn (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:N. Lack of meaningful content. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:39, 4 January 2010 (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) 00:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'd say that a TV show translated into several languages and broadcast in several countries (in this case, Chinese, English, Thai, and Tagalog, at least) is unquestionably notable enough for an article. That said, I certainly don't disagree that the present content is pretty weak. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source? J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A lot of participation from new accounts/ips in this discussion, which I factored accordingly. However, the sources do check out on the subject. It's not the strongest case for notability, but I would be unfairly discounting !votes that are in fact arguing within policy to close otherwise. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John-Paul Lee[edit]

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

Neither John-Paul Lee nor Tavalon Tea meet Wiki notability requirements. Both articles read as advertising. All edits to each page have been made by 2 users; possible evidence of self-promotion. SNaismith (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this appears to be a marginal case; there are some citations in the "external links" section, but I don't know if they count as "multiple sources". Bearian (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Checked out sources for Tavalon Tea and John-Paul Lee and it seems they are all legitimate and cited from major publications. Don´t see cause for deletion

21:41, 1 January 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.158.200.181 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have performed extensive research on both Tavalon Tea and this individual beyond the listed links and I believe this article meets Wiki notability requirements. The articles do not read like advertisements and display "facts" backed up by notable publications. Articles should not be removed. FoodieUSA (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' The above comment looks like it is from a single purpose account. Billbowery (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so let's give it a few more days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like it was edited by the same two accounts and reads like an advertisement — looks like self-promo to me as well. Billbowery (talk) 06:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the NPR story that has been added pushes him over the line. Bearian (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a valid BLP of an individual who has been covered by numerous publications which are all credible. The article is a keep and should not be deleted. Teaphan (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per promotion attempts by User:Teaphan. Despite mention in multiple RS, these RS are fluff interviews typical of minor business promotion not bonafides. The RS are also duplicated between multiple articles. If there is a notable subject between this article about the CEO and the article about the company, it is the article about the company, not the CEO. Miami33139 (talk) 06:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The individual noted in this article had been featured in various publications about his accomplishments as CEO of the company and his vision. All publications are considered to be notable media (Entrepreneur Magazine, Business Week, National Public Radio, theStreet.com, New York Post, etc....) This individual was also nominated and selected as a successful entrepreneur alongside Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Sergey Brin, Russell Simmons, to name a few. The article should NOT be deleted. 11:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.1.85 (talk)
Keep Article is backed by bona fide interviews performed by credible sources. I would have questioned the legitimacy of the article but subject is featured in various publications which are all credit worthy. Features are also relevant and within criteria of a wiki article. 10:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.224.215 (talk)

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

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

The result was merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon. No consensus to delete, but no compelling case for a separate article. The merge close seems to be the strongest reading of the discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sitri[edit]

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

This article is a content fork of The Lesser Key of Solomon and fails to meet the notability criteria; one of 72 types of demon mentioned in the main article. The article is unlikely to ever become more than trivial as no other sources say more about this demon than Ars Goetia, and can be easily merged back to The Lesser Key of Solomon. Wikipedia does not benefit from having an article for every religious or mythical character or neologism from every book ever published. Ash (talk) 23:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I've been meaning to get around to it, but I'm a terrible procrastinator. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "and makes them to show themselves naked if it is desired." - passes WP:NICEONEDAVE easily. Oh alright, merge to a single list or delete as necessary. Someone another 19:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The present situation in which articles are found for all 72 servants of Satan necessitates disposition as a combination. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't quite understand your note, you appear to be saying that individual articles are not required and would prefer a combined page but by also saying "Keep" this is the opposite viewpoint.—Ash (talk) 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Annette46 (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge same rationale as I gave for the rest of these goetic demons. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. If there is anybody resisting merges of these valueless stubs, please stop. Consensus in the last umpteen AFDs is that they must be merged. Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheelanagig[edit]

No g-news hits, no quick claims to notability on their website. I'd be happy to remove my nom if notability can be shown, the notability tag has been up for months. Doc Quintana (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that this article is about a band from Bristol, England, whose genres include Folk, Gypsy, and Jazz amongst other things. Suggest redirect to Sheela na Gig after deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with Smerdis. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BAND, and it should redirect to the art pieces, as a plausible search term. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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