< 3 January	5 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 merge to The Lesser Key of Solomon. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eligos[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) 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I've been meaning to get around to it, but I'm a terrible procrastinator. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Valid encyclopedic topic, but if nothing else can be written about this subject then it belongs in the The Lesser Key of Solomon article. However, if this merge is to be performed properly then ALL the demons with a link in this list: The Lesser Key of Solomon#The 72 Demons must be merged otherwise this should not be deleted. -- œ ^™ 14:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without Prejudice to Merge Same rationale provided for every other goetic demon to come across the AfD.Simonm223 (talk) 20:11, 8 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simonida Rajčević[edit]

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

The article fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST. There are no independent reliable sources in the article and I find no matches at all in Google News and general search matches show no obvious independent sources. Ash (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is significant coverage in Serbian to meet WP:GNG, here are examples translated into English: [1], [2], and [3]. I would prefer someone that speaks the language add them but if no one does I'll incorporate them into the article. J04n(talk page) 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in Politika could be part of the case for notability under WP:ARTIST#3. Obviously the nomination was based on the scarcity of sources in English publications so the judgement of how to close this AfD is probably a question for the Serbian readers amongst us.—Ash (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep J04n's sources have convinced me to keep. One factor in me saying to keep is that the date on each source is different; it's not like this artist has received a brief burst of coverage that died down, but rather, seems to have been noted over a period of time. Ideally I'd like to find more sources but this establishes notability in my mind. I also tend to err on the side of caution with non-english-language topics like this because I think people are quick to say no sources exist just because it's harder to find sources in other languages. The page needs some serious work though. Cazort (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more evidence is produced. Youngish artist without major gallery exhibitions or museum purchases. Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete better and more references are needed, seems way too thin...Modernist (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Change to keep per referencing...Modernist (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note references have been added including reviews of two of her exhibitions, one review was in Politika which is the Serbian newspaper of record. There was also an English language review that was added. J04n(talk page) 04:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable third party sources: the Politika review and Jabhoctn interview.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:57, 8 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) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyGear[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not demonstrate notability, that I can see. References are only directory entries and web stats. No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. DanielRigal (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —DanielRigal (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB and per the article, which pretty much asserts its own non-notability, with just 1000 users and an Alexa rank of 713,441 (!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:50, 5 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes of Anhalt-Dessau[edit]

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

Delete is a duchess inherently notable? I don't think so. She was born, married, procreated, and died, but alas didn't accomplish anything notable. WP is not the repository of all things and people royal who trudged through their pampered lives and did nothing notable. WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some material from the German Wikipedia, and I think that she is notable as an author. - Eastmain (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.

Keep somewhat to my surprise, she seems to have published a book in a genuine academic series (I added the details) , though that is not enough for notability as an author. Traditional social notability, irrelevant as it may be today, was not irrelevant in her lifetime. Prejudice against royalty & upper nobility of earlier periods is cultural bias, more precisely, recentism. There's a very hard to find reference book listed as a source for her, so I suppose there's more to say. But more important, she was the wife of the chief executive (head of state as well as head of government) of what was a quasi-independent dukedom at the period--see Anhalt#Constitution. we have normally considered such people notable in any period. This by itself is sufficient. Additionally, Eastmain found that a city was named after her. It's wise to check the deWP for German people. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the fact that she was a consort of reigning Ernst I, Duke of Saxe-Altenburg. She was a first lady of sorts of Saxe-Altenburg. --Caponer (talk) 06:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am generally against nobility cruft and the article consists almost exclusively of that and needs to be rewritten completely. But nobility plus having written a book when that was still quite unusual for women plus a church still being named after her [4] is enough for me to make me !vote "keep". That's not to say it might not be better to merge her with her husband. Hans Adler 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Here are some thoughts on the broader issue of articles on members of the nobility in general. Outside of situations where the holder of a title of notability was automatically included in their country's parliament (as was historically true for members of the peerage of the United Kingdom and its predecessor countries), I agree that notability is not inherent in a noble title. But WP:NOTINHERITED can be misleading. People with the advantages that come with being born into a country's nobility (education, wealth, connections, sometimes high military rank) are likelier than most to do things that will make them notable. Finding the evidence of that notability for someone who died a long time ago can be difficult, though, particularly for people outside the English-speaking world. I found out about Agnes of Anhalt-Dessau's book from a brief reference in the Los Angeles Times, for example, and at first I couldn't find it in a library catalog because I was looking under the English-language title (the book was published in German and later in Italian, but apparently not in English). Still, because members of the nobility historically received the kind of attention that movie stars do today, there is still some chance of establishing notability for them.

Many articles on people like Agnes of Anhalt-Dessau start out as if they were copied from a genealogy book. This fact shouldn't distract us from the possibility that notability by Wikipedia standards can be established, and should probably discourage us from tagging such an article for deletion without a careful search.

I would also say that someone who is created a noble, rather than acquiring a title by birth or marriage, is almost certainly notable both for other accomplishments and from the media coverage that the title's creation would have caused. - Eastmain (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sources to establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 17:58, 10 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. Has already been speedily deleted as patent nonsense. Whether G1 applies is another matter, but this AfD is moot. Fences&Windows 02:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primordial Blackhole[edit]

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

completely non-notable and WP:FRINGE area of science. First postulated by a Christian SF writer, and as far as I can tell not supported by anything reliable. Ironholds (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 4 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) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered (2010 film)[edit]

(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. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:00, 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]

Clarification: For the record, lack of an assertion of notability isn't a basis for article deletion, and the speedy deletion provision regarding lack of assertion of significance or importance only covers people, animals, groups of various sorts, and websites. Lack of actual notability is, of course, a different matter. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Agreed, I can't find coverage in reliable sources for this film, which, by the way, is a straight-to-DVD production. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:15, 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]
Keep Looks like a legitimate film, not a hoax. Has some value because of the other film called "Shattered" (1991). Judith Merrick (talk) 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC) See legitimate film review here http://filmnashville.org/chris-st-croix-secures-distribution-for-shattered/ and the film being sold on amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Shattered-Amanda-Bailey/dp/B0031KQNUW[reply]

Comment: You're a brand new editor, so I can understand not knowing about this, but read this essay. Just because one thing exists as an article does not mean that another article automatically has the right to exist. Secondly, what sources do you have to show that it's a "legitimate film" (though I actually accused it of having no notability which is a separate issue)? --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' Judith Merrick removed her comment here. I re-added it but struck it as I remember seeing back when I first started on Wikipedia an editor state that comments on AfDs should not be removed completely and I have so far not seen anything to contradict this. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to put it back, then I prefer to keep it in its entirety because I still prefer keep. Judith Merrick (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What I put back was all you'd put up at that point. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I know it isn't clear to someone new, but deletion discussion aren't votes, they're attempts to establish consensus, rooted in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. The criterion cited in the deletion request was WP:Notability. Being "legitimate" (whatever that means), not being a hoax, and having a name similar to the name of another film about which Wikipedia has an article, don't prevent a film from falling short of the notability criteria for inclusion. As for the link you provided, what it leads to isn't a review, let alone an independent one, it's a press release from the film's production company.—Largo Plazo (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with the nom. Not seeing the notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 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. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F4:Vortex[edit]

(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. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:56, 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} 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New AfD has appeared here. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't seem notable. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NF. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:53, 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; nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) KaySL (talk) 15:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Re-nominating due to a lack of consensus from last year's debate. For some unfathomable reason, consensus could not be reached over this blatantly unnotable TV schedule. Nobody seemed willing to provide a rational explanation for how it fulfils any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but perhaps a definitive consensus will be reached this time. KaySL (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it the only reference doesn't indicate notability. And i recomend the deletion of Template:Ausdaytimeschedule and Template:Austelevisionschedules to, as tv schedules aren't notable. Armbrust (talk) 23:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep national network schedules are notable-- if only as a navigational guide for the various articles on the shows. The distinction that should be made is national/local, as in so many areas of notability. I further think there is probably press coverage on the general nature of the schedule--there certainly is on the placement of individual shows within it. Alas, we have no inclusion criteria. We merely have criteria for what will not be included. This falls under none of them--it doesn't fall under not directory, because it includes only the general outline of the schedule--a directory would give the details of the week-to-week changes. I think that we certainly ought to word it in a positive way as inclusion criteria, but this would bring all our disagreements to the surface & it is highly unlikely that we would actually find any statement that would get consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should quote a very good commentary from the first deletion discussion: Programming schedules are outside the realm of encyclopedias unless there is something descriptive to say about them (the current article is just the schedule, nothing about the schedule). CyberCobra correctly points to the relevant WP:NOT policy on them which explicitly mentions them. Information like this dates very quickly, we avoid having articles on bus schedules for the same reason. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

Additionally, the article does fall under WP:NOTDIR, specifically section 4, which states: Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules may be acceptable. Likewise an article on a business should not contain a list of all the company's patent filings. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Electronic program guides are clearly mentioned, as in schedule information for a television channel or set of channels. KaySL (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a summary of this sort is not a program guide--a program guide lists a complete set of the individual program in particular days, and is thus properly excluded as indiscriminate, but this is the rough outline of the season. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per United States Primetime Television Schedules. Those have survived AfD numerous times, and the reasoning should extend to Australian networks as well. MMetro (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Uh, no, no they shouldn't. As I stated above, Wikipedia guidelines are very clear on the matter. The US schedules also violate the rule I quoted above, and should probably be deleted also. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. KaySL (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps it would be fairer to say that you think the Wikipedia guidelines are clear on the subject and support this point of view. If they were as clear as you say, people would not disagree with you--rather, like all guidelines, they need interpretation, and right here at AfD is where we interpret them. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is by definition an electronic programme guide. As to what you say about everyone agreeing with me if I were right, that argument really doesn't stand up; there would never be any disagreement on any AfDs if it did. KaySL (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is by definition an electronic programming guide": According to this, an EPG is "an application used with Digital Video Recorders, set-top Cable and Satellite boxes, and newer TVs to list current and scheduled programs that are or will be available on each channel. In addition, a short summary or commentary for each program is listed." According to that page, I should be able to access the Wikipedia article "using a remote control". I think it's great that I can use a menu to select programs that I want to "set parental controls, order pay-per-view programming, search for programs based on theme or category, and set recordings for the future" right on Wikipedia! Oh, wait; I can't. You don't know what you're talking about. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's being a little selective in your interpretation? The sense in which it was referred to in that WP:NOTDIR snippet was clearly to mean an electronically-stored copy of a traditional paper-based TV programme guide. Otherwise, apparently we're not allowed to include server-side TV recording software on Wikipedia, which is more than impossible to begin with. KaySL (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not "my" interpretation. That's the definition. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant interpreting what was meant in the WP:NOTDIR section. If that section was referring to EPGs as in the devices rather than the paper-based schedules, then yes it would be correct, but given the definition, it can't possibly have been referring to the devices. KaySL (talk) 13:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Australian television schedules are discussed in scholarly works. Only those who don't bother to read scholarly works discussing television schedules could convince themselves that the subject isn't notable or worthwhile in an encyclopedia. Also note that a television schedule is emphatically not an electronic programming guide: "By navigating through an EPG on a receiving device, users can see more information about the current program and about future programs." Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The scholarly article you linked to mentions Australian TV schedules only in passing, and the main focus is far more on the actual content of shows. I answered the EPG point above. On a side note, it's a little surprising, the barely-veiled hostility that I'm receiving here. Please don't insinuate that I don't bother to read scholarly articles, or that I didn't bother to do a bit of research before nominating this article for deletion. KaySL (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have not done your research. I'm not only insinuating that you don't read scholarly material on television, I'm stating it. You don't; you clearly don't, or you would not confuse a national network schedule with an EPG. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then please have the good grace to call me a liar directly. I did indeed do my research, and I am not confusing a network schedule with an EPG, as I have pointed out more than once above. Thank you. KaySL (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly didn't do the research, KaySL: you can't tell the difference, and you clearly are confusing an EPG with a national network schedule. I understand that it's hard to back down after you've nominated an article for deletion, but your words are recorded above: "The article is by definition an electronic programming guide". That's what you wrote. You are conflating two different things here; you can't tell the difference. But what I'm telling you is that national network schedules are very often the subject of scholarly work. EPGs are where you go to check local listings. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, if someone presents a good argument, I'll gladly retract my nomination. What you're saying is that I'm confusing EPGs and television schedules, correct? Well as I've said three times now, I'm not confusing anything. My original definition of 'electronic programming guide' was an electronically-stored network schedule, what we in the UK call a programme guide. What I'm saying as my main point is that the WP:NOTDIR section is referring to TV schedules in a similar manner, not to EPGs as in the devices. How on earth would we store a tangible, physical piece of electronic hardware or its software on a wiki anyway? KaySL (talk) 14:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing them, and I'm sorry to be the one to point it out, because you're not taking it well. But the truth is, you haven't done the research, and it's hard for you to back down. An EPG is where TV viewers go to check local listings. It's so they can see what is on TV. EPGs have features that tell viewers what's on in their local area; a national program grid would be senseless to consult to see what's on because most time zones will be off, programs will be pre-empted due to local programming, etc. There's an on-Wiki fear that people would consult Wikipedia to see what is on TV (thus making Wikipedia somehow less of an encyclopedia in some people's eyes), but the fear is in great part unfounded because only the most ill-informed viewer would consult Wikipedia's national network program grids to see what's on locally. EPGs also offer features like up-to-the-minute schedule changes, let viewers know if a series is new or a repeat episode, offer a summary of that episode, etc... all of these features are possible on Wikipedia, but we don't do that. We're WP:NOT a TV Guide. In contrast, national network program grids inform someone what was on TV nationally during a certain year. It's not a guarantee that that's what aired in every city at every station; it just shows what the networks aired. The national grids affect the television industry each year; EPGs don't do that. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated misunderstandings of my points regarding the whole EPG vs. TV guide aside, even a national schedule doesn't really warrant an article, in my eyes, so long as notability continues to remain unproven within the article itself. As I said before, the "scholarly article" you linked to previously doesn't seem to mention the schedule(s) in anything other than passing, though if primary and secondary sources are forthcoming, I'll simply withdraw my deletion nomination. KaySL (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search pulls up articles like "Nine gears up for Aussie summer". The article is only accessible to paid subscribers, but the summary is "A fact-ent series set in the waiting rooms of Australia's hospitals and another following the recovery of road crash victims are among the new series headlining Nine Network's 2009 schedule." Firsfron of Ronchester 14:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the sources have to be specifically discussing the national schedule, rather than specific channels'? KaySL (talk) 14:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nine is a national network. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that all Australian TV networks must be covered in the same article? I don't see why; we don't need four or five different articles on Aussie TV schedules each year. One is sufficient. here's another article describing Nine's 2009 schedule and a note on rival networks. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it. I'm not saying that all of them must be covered, just that in my opinion, why cover only one if the others are just as notable? The article you just linked to seems very general to serve as a reference for the article, given it only discusses a few shows and movies, most of which don't fall under the scope of the national schedule. Since the article doesn't deal with any specific network, I'd think relevant references pertaining to at least two networks would be ideal. KaySL (talk) 15:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I was busy at work. The Australian Film Institute has nice coverage of ABC, Seven, Nine, and Ten's 2009 television schedules here and here. These articles cover things like schedule dates and times, what's airing on what network, trends in 2009 programming ("Last year’s US writers’ strike shook up our networks to get more local content produced"), break-up of series by genre, and early viewership estimates. The full cite is: Kelly, Laura (2009). "Will 2009 be the Year of the Couch Potato?". Australian Film Institute. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, since there's no logical place in the article to cite these, I've just added them as external links. I'm still unsure as to the article's true notability, but I'm satisfied for now and will withdraw my nomination. KaySL (talk) 15:25, 7 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 and redirect to Interstate 73. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate 73 in Michigan[edit]

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

Specifically WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR as this designation for an Interstate will never exist in Michigan (or Ohio for that matter). In 1998 the Michigan Department of Transportation closed all further studies into this proposed freeway. Its not even that interesting from a historical perspective since nothing was ever done in Michigan with it. Worse the original article was created by a banned vandal. Its best just to get rid of it. KelleyCook (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Interstate 73. The article seems to be an expansion of information from the main Interstate 73 article, with citations. If reliable sources detail the Interstate's proposal, then neither CRYSTAL or OR apply, and a banned vandal's origins does not mean that others haven't made sure that what remains is up to Wikipedia's standards. It can be very notable when a highway isn't built. MMetro (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — It was created as a redirect by said banned vandal, but it was fleshed out about 3 months ago. It's the expanded version that should be deleted if anything. I've been cleaning it up slowly so that if the article is kept, it's not such a mess. Previously, it had an exit list, as if the freeway alignments had all been decided, even though large sections of the highway aren't freeway at this time, nor are upgrades planned. Personally, I'd redirect the title back to the main page and be done with it, as it was originally. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion on keeping, merging, or deleting, because I don't seem to know the history of the article as well as others here, but I am strongly opposed to keeping the article as is with the current name. The name is misleading and the existence of the topic suggests that the interstate exists in Michigan. If it is kept I think it absolutely must be renamed/moved. I would not support keeping a redirect of the current name because it's unlikely someone would type it in in the topic box, and I think we should be cautious and reference the topic as "proposed extension of Interstate 73 in Michigan" or something like that. Cazort (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm after thinking longer I would change my vote to Delete. This is just not notable as a topic in and of itself. Cazort (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Interstate 73. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in this article that isn't already in the main I-73 article. ALL of the text that LALaker13 split out to form the article, save the now deleted exit list and the lead section came as copied text from the main article. I've pruned all the junk out that doesn't pertain to understanding a history of the highway in Michigan, but honestly, the article should just be deleted and a redirect to the main article revived on the off chance a template calls for it. Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Interstate 73 - The information can adequately be covered there. ---Dough 48 72 03:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imzadi1979. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Interstate 73. Salvage anything useful and put it into the I-73 article, but there's not enough here to merit an article on its own. Brian Powell (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply delete, per Imzadi1979. -- Avenue (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Imzadi1979. The useful portions of the article are already contained in Interstate 73, so there's nothing that needs to be merged. – TMF 06:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Interstate 73 as per the nominator's arguments. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create new redirect to Interstate 73 per above. --Polaron | Talk 17:32, 7 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 Hot Fuss. All content remains in the page history for merging/re-redirecting. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Gun (The Killers song)[edit]

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

Non-single, and only charted in a low position on one chart. Article cites no references to reliable sources other thn the Billboard website. Keytar Shredder (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It charted. Joe Chill (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSIC says "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts... are probably notable [emphasis added]. Notability 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." Since I've been unable to find any significant coverage of the song it seems likely this is the case; therefore I suggest redirecting to Hot Fuss. The only disadvantage is that we lose a place to mention its rank of 83... perhaps this could be briefly mentioned in Hot Fuss or perhaps, since the song seems to have no significant coverage anyway, we can just leave it out. My feeling is the latter but that can be established independently of this AfD. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could implement a "Chart Positions" section into the Hot Fuss article giving the charting positions of all singles in one section, similar to discography articles. Or we could include the song in the Discography article but explain it is a charting non-single. Keytar Shredder (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those are both good ideas actually Keytar. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into either Hot Fuss or the discography article, and Redirect to Hot Fuss. Keytar Shredder (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Killers discography and Redirect to the discography. This is an empty, useless article. Besides the trivia that this was a B-side in Britain, it has nothing to say that's not already covered in the album article or the discography. If all one can say about a song is that it charted, it shouldn't have a separate article; that's what footnotes are for. The track wasn't originally released with Hot Fuss, and the discography lists it under Other charted songs, so it makes sense to redirect to the discography rather than to the album. Yappy2bhere (talk) 16:57, 10 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 keep. Nomination is a blocked sockpuppet, no other arguments for deletion. Fences&Windows 23:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brazzers[edit]

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

~~Merge~~Delete into the porn website page as this alone has few links and is not very notable on its own as well as it contains slang. After looking at both pages, I don't think it really needs any kind of reference on Wikipedia. - Mykee881211, 16:05pm GMT 4/1/10

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. Eastmain (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked indefinitely. See User talk:Mykee881211#Sockpuppeting investigation. Dancter (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request this AfD nomination be terminated, as the nominator has been found guilty of sockpuppeting. With his other accounts he has also nominated a couple of other articles for deletion on equally shaky grounds. Failing that, I would suggest a keep for the article, as the site in question is indeed a major American online pornography outlet, and is backed up by numerous references, most notably its Alexa ranking. Edit: I see Dancter is one step ahead of me, as ever! KaySL (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as KaySL has already stated, the nominator has been found guilty of sockpuppeting and this article does have numerous references and is in detail meaning that it is a notable reference. Superfazar (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has reliable sources. Epbr123 (talk) 23:31, 4 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) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ahir gotras[edit]

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

seems to fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE; a list of every member of a clan? Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with deleting it, although for notability / verifiability reasons. I created the article as a step toward removing it from within the Ahirs article in which I found it. There are many such lists of gotras (SE Asian clans) and they seem to be important to their authors, so I didn't want to delete the list in one go. Can I suggest we leave it around long enough for the authors of the Ahirs article to comment? I'll post a comment to this effect in the Ahirs talk page. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, this is a seven-day process. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, very important for researchers in relating to other communities and origin study. Helpful and rare collection.~~ Ikon ^No-Blast 09:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how the complete list passes WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and, indeed, WP:V. The helpfulness is not the only consideration when an article is considered for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:V and as a list WP:Indiscriminate. Also the keep statement of "rare collection" is exactly the reason for deletion, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. -SpacemanSpiff 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:V the article cites jatland.com which in turn cites (indeed appears to reproduce in its entirity) a translation of History of the Jats by Ram Swarup Joon. However, the same citation remains in the parent article, Ahirs, so were the list article to be deleted readers would still have access to the original material. -- Timberframe (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the entire problem. The Jatland article is a wiki article edited and protected by one user and is a primary source; the book was written in 1938, and we've had multiple discussions about that book as a reliable source, as it is written from the perspective of the group itself, not a typical historical thesis. In addition, the Jatland article doesn't include half of the names within this list. -SpacemanSpiff 22:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment; all we could verify would be the content of our article against the cited source, and that would mean on-going monitoring and maintenance for very little encyclopedic benefit. But if consensus is that the only source doesn't meet the standards of WP:RS then the article is a non-starter. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I didn't say that the book has been identified as not-RS; we've had discussions on that (at a couple of AfDs) with no clear outcome, and I hold this opinion that it can be used as a primary source, but not a definitive source. It definitely needs to be scrubbed through at WP:RSN but no one seems to have a copy of the book to actually discuss it, it's only quoted! -SpacemanSpiff 23:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative delete on the basis of SpacemanSpiff's comments re the sole source, unless someone springs to its defence or cites a better source. -- Timberframe (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my vote, perhaps, it is solely created by one person from one single source. however, I don't agree that clan name should cite any published reference, because such researches are rarely done Ikon ^No-Blast 15:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:ONESOURCE notability and WP:V issues.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete with prejudice, under WP:V. --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 10 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) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman 4(working title)[edit]

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

fails WP:CRYSTAL, and the game equivalent of WP:HAMMER. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my endorsed prod [5]. A complete lack of verifiability here. It's basically a rumor from a leaked list from Ubisoft several years ago that never came to fruition. There is already a plausible search term for this under the Rayman 4 redirect; this is not a plausible search term, so redirection is not feasible. –MuZemike 01:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop Hammer time. An age old rumour long past its sell-by date and now decidedly stinky, Raving Rabbids is long past the point of delaying anything (it was released 3 years ago) so anything from before that time is little more than an old gamer's tale. Someone another 01:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I actually recall Ancel saying that Rayman would be coming back, but this article definitely doesn't cover THAT game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very little verifiability and complete violation of WP:CRYSTAL. More-or-less a rumour, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides no confirmation that Ubisoft is working on another mainline Rayman game, I doubt anyone would type such a odd title if they were looking for it. TJ Spyke 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL; nothing seems verified. Essentially this is a video game equivalent of WP:HAMMERTIME. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:53, 10 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) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call For Rise Welfare Society[edit]

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

Article contains no secondary sources, reliable or otherwise. Article was previously speedily deleted as a copyright vio of http://www.callforrise.com and was recreated by the same editor. I have been unable to find any sources showing that this group exists (outside of a group of friends), much less show notability. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources covering this organisation. As this is a new organisation, this is not unusual. -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Yes, this section ought to really be on the talk page instead, but I wanted to minimize the confusion for new editors. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:Fizzi ahmad[edit]

Dear moderator,

Yes, previously a topic was started with name, which was nominated for speedy deletion, as COPY-PASTE from the website callforrise.com . There was a communication with the moderator to finding a way out for this issue. The solution of getting the contents on the website available under public license was not workable, therefor, i tried the otherway out i.e to modify the contents of the article, so that it doesn't look like COPY-PASTE material.

As for the third party references are concerned : There is material available for this society/article in hard paper and can be referenced. There are radio programs, priodicals and other materials that can be directly linked, but the issue is, that these sort of materials don't have any link on the WEB so that they could be referenced here.

Please help me out in this regards. How to put references for materials so as to meet notability criteria.

There is direct relationship between Al-Khidmat Foundation and Call For Rise Welfare Society, where as Al-Khidmat Foundation has its article on wikipedia where as CFR, affiliate of Al-Khidmat' is having difficulty in doing so.

Being a beginner, please help me out. — Fizzi ahmad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 07:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Fizzi ahmad (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few replies to the above:

First off, Wikipedia doesn't have moderators, so I'm not quite sure who this is being written to (me as nominator? a specific admin? admins in general?).
I removed your addition of a ((delrev)) tag to the article, as it's still here at AFD, not at Deletion review.
An article has to have some third-party sources in order to prove notability. A common place for editors to start looking is at Google News, and searching there for the Call For Rise Welfare Society shows no hits.
Do any books mention it? Searching Google Books for Call For Rise Welfare Society says no.
Do any scholarly works reference it? Google Scholar says no.
The same search on the Web overall gives 5 hits, total, all of which seem to be scraped from Orkut.
According to Google, no web pages anywhere link to callforrise.com.
Given all the above, it's darned unlikely that you're going to be able to find sufficient sources to prove notability.
So far as the Al khidmat foundation goes, I suggest you read WP:INHERIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which should explain why the existence of one has no bearing on the other. And I'd also point out that doing the same Google News search I described above, but on the Al Khidmat Foundation, gives several hundred hits.

If you have solid references that you can add to the article, go ahead and add them—this is a discussion about deletion, and it's unlikely that anything will be decided until a week is up. The references don't have to be online (although it helps) or in English (although it helps), but they should be verifiable by others in some fashion. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 09:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:Ainym[edit]

-Actually Call For Rise has just been registered as a Welfare Society, it used to exist as only 'Call For Rise' couple of weeks back... So its website's content is according to 'Call For Rise' yet, not 'Call For Rise Welfare Society'...

I have edited some content of website with 'Welfare Society' tag, so soon Google will update the index with Call For Rise Welfare Society and your search will not create just a blank result...

@News and Books etc.... How do you guys can expect a NEW organization to be in news and books already?? Does Wikipedia is only for old and already built organizations?? I mean how can you check the credibility of a new organization by searching it on news and books and other websites?? You should check its website? Should see its work?? innit?

--Ainym (talk) 11:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)— Ainym (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Response to User:Ainym:

Updating the organization's web site with the new name won't make a difference, sorry. The issue at hand is: what do unrelated third-party verifiable reliable sources (online or not) say about the organization? Currently, it appears that they don't say anything at all. Given that the article needs to be based entirely on those third-party sources (the web site itself can only be used to corroborate information found elsewhere), there's nothing to write an article about.
WP doesn't expect new organizations to be mentioned in the media. But it does expect that notable ones will, and that is what matters. If your organization is not yet notable, then it's not going to have an article here… yet.

Given that you said you're editing the organization's site, it's easy to guess that you have a relationship of some sort with CFR. If that's the case (and even if it isn't), I cannot recommend too strongly that you read both WP:COI and WP:FAQ/Organizations. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:34, 6 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) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Zero Knowledge Web Hosts[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTLINKFARM, and is impausable as there already exists Comparison of notable file hosting services. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Bits Republic, and it would appear this page was created to WP:COATRACK bitsrepublic.com, and other Non notable web storage hosts. Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Wikipedia is not a link directory and not a consumer guide. This is a veiled Bits Republic ad. Haakon (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, the information in this article just contains links to websites and with the "Platforms supported" collumn, it just makes it look like computer software as well as the fact the article has no references anyway. Superfazar (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:GEORGIEGIBBONS Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, coatrack article meant for promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete x2, Wikipedia is for information, not for webhost links. ToxicWasteGrounds (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Delete I have placed my response on the talk page for the article (I presume you do not want it here). This is not advertising, and it IS notable. Besides, if wikipedia is not a place for webhost links, why is there a page of... webhost links List of free web hosting services and Comparison of notable file hosting services for example? Clearly listing notable providers and explaining their approaches is notable. Besides, this page is not a lits of links - it is a description of an emerging industry, the providers, and their differences Dave Al S (talk) 00:09, 6 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]

Christopher Lowe[edit]

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

Sources are in place, but bulk of information isn't drawn from these sources. Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:ATH, having only competed in a local equine show, and not performing at any equivalent of a widescale professional event. As a businessman, subject does not appear to be notable per any criteria on WP:BIO. Also appears to be some WP:COI issues. SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE also creator of article appears to be the person the article is about. BigDunc 21:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor horse owner in regional shows; does not seem to meet WP:ATHLETE. Also apparently Wikipedia:Autobiography which makes article and citations self-sourced anyway. --Closeapple (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the lists of British Columbia-related deletions and Sports-related deletions. --Closeapple (talk) 02:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE; doesn't appear to satisfy our notability guidelines. Also runs afoul of WP:AUTO. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails BIO and ATHLETE, depending on which one you want to apply. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 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) 20:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Shot[edit]

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

Article about a band which was deleted by PROD and per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion has been restored on request. I bring it here because there is no indication of notability to anything like the standard of WP:BAND: the only reference is their Myspace, and the only achievement claimed is an EP "to be recorded in the near future" which their website says "will be released in early 2010." JohnCD (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I removed the self-promotional overtones and performed other edits, but this still does not meet any of the WP:BAND criteria. Future plans to record an EP (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball) does not translate into notability. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find significant coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage by reliable sources. The article probably could've been speedied per CSD A7. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:36, 5 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 paper chromatography. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical Chromatography[edit]

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

non encyclopedic how to article WuhWuzDat 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, or redirect to Paper chromatography, which is the technique it seems to be discussing. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to HPLC. Deletion is unnecessary. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paper chromatography, per above. Insorak ♫ talk 20:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or blank by redirecting. No useful information in this article. Materialscientist (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to paper chromatography. Biscuittin (talk) 17:10, 7 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]

Gang Girl[edit]

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

Movie is yet to come out. Unable to find any google results showing that the movie is widely anticipated. Non-notable as of now Raziman T V (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 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. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:58, 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} 22:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New AfD has appeared here. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 22:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And neither can I, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:33, 6 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 role-playing video game. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computer role-playing game[edit]

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

Also up for deletion: Console role-playing game

The subject is completely based on original research. The only evidence found is in the form of blogs, forum posts, websites which fail WP:RS, including WP:SPS, or items which blatantly violate WP:Synthesis. The subject is further putting undue weight on the English market and classifications, when historically most video game rpgs have been sold in Japan. Arguments against this use the fact that this is an English Wikipedia to dismiss this and that the subject should follow the "spirit" of the rules.陣内 _Jinnai 19:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. That the article can be improved is not a reason to delete it. This is an encyclopedic topic. If the references there aren't good, add some! If you think that something is original research, change it! If you think the article should cover Japan more, add a section on Japan! Nobody is stopping you. The topic itself is fine and should not be deleted. Kwertii (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem is it cannot because its a classification that isn't really used and what is rarely used is only in the west and doesn't have any concrete concept. Mostly used for advertisering, marketing, forum users, etc. Nothing that can pass WP:RS. Therefore its a question whether the concept even really exists outside of a marketing-brand label with no real definition.陣内 _Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article needs better sourcing, but that alone is not reason to delete. As a prominent computer game genre, it's a notable, encyclopedic topic that warrants coverage on WP. There is case to be made that some reorganization of content is needed amongst this article and the console role-playing game and role-playing video game articles, but that's an issue better addressed on article talk pages and at WP:VG/WP:RPG wikiprojects rather than at AFD. --Muchness (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a prominant computer genre though. That's the whole thing your missing.陣内_Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The statement that this is not a prominent genre of computer gaming strikes me as unsupportable given that some of the most prominent historical and current computer game releases are universally classified as role-playing games – how else would you classify Baldur's Gate, NWN, Ultima, etc? This is the genre term used by the gaming devs, publishers, press and community. The question of whether the genre would be better covered alongside console rpgs under the broader topic of role-playing video game is a separate issue, and in my opinion there are more appropriate venues than AFD for hashing out the merge/reorg discussion. --Muchness (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because they're role-playing video games does not mean there is a sub-genre for those on PCs specifically. I mean if we go by that kind of logic we could sub-divide forever and have items like 4-party member role-playing video games and 5-button-based role-playing video games.陣内 _Jinnai 07:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - one good article is better than two iffy ones. Probably merge the AFDs, too. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now; I won't oppose a merge in the future if consensus deems so. Remember that there is a third article that would also need to be addressed (Cultural differences in role-playing video games) should that be considered. Note: I will also make this exact same statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Console role-playing game. –MuZemike 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been talk at WP:VG of merging it and talks before of merging it as well. When would you consider enough taking and time has passed? This isn't the first time a merge or possible deletion has been discussed, just the first its come here.陣内 _Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't be opposed to merging the console role-playing game and role-playing video game articles, but definitely against deleting. There is valuable information in both articles which needs to be improved sure, but definitely not deleted wholesale.Caidh (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So if that's the case is your statement better as "keep or merge"? I'm not clear.陣内 _Jinnai 05:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To role-playing video game due to the classification being outdated and incorrect. It's better that they're divided by region rather than by system. I see no better time but the present to merge the articles. Heck, even Cultural differences in role-playing video games does not acknowledge this classification, instead choosing the terms "Eastern" and "Western" RPGs.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To role-playing video game. I acknowledge the original research but the article must be worked, not deleted. However, there is not much sense 2 articles about video-RPGs.SSPecter ^Talk|E-Mail ◆ _{14:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)}.
Merge to role-playing video game, along with console role-playing game. The small number of sources available that differentiate between these types of video role-playing game suggest that the pattern of differences is of only minor notability, of the sort that is best described in a single article rather than subjected to what may constitute a POV fork. Many of the differences ascribed to console RPGs relate to the dominance of Japanese titles in the console market, which has nothing particularly to do with the console platform. 10 different versions of Ultima were released on various console platforms, all of which break all the supposed conventions about console versus computer RPGs. Same goes for Balder's Gate, Everquest, Fallout, and all the other console RPGs that demonstrate this supposed pattern of divergence by platform doesn't have legs. The article cultural differences in role-playing video games could remain to describe the Asian vs. Western differences in video RPGs, although personally I don't think the few sources it has demonstrate enough notability for a whole article on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article needs cleanup, and possible merge, there appears to somewhat better sourcing there and its easier to focus on one thing at a time.陣内 _Jinnai 04:05, 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 merge to role-playing video game. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Console role-playing game[edit]

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

Also up for deletion: Computer role-playing games

The subject is completely based on original research. The only evidence found is in the form of blogs, forum posts, websites which fail WP:RS, including WP:SPS, or items which blatantly violate WP:Synthesis. The subject is further putting undue weight on the English market and classifications, when historically most video game rpgs have been sold in Japan. Arguments against this use the fact that this is an English Wikipedia to dismiss this and that the subject should follow the "spirit" of the rules. 陣内 _Jinnai 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: The protracted discussion in Talk:Console role-playing game touched on some good points on both sides of the issue. The main argument I saw in support of keeping the article was that the term "console RPG" basically means "console-style RPG", and describes the overall style of RPG that was first developed on game consoles, even though this style of RPG is now available on many different platforms. The style in question includes a mostly linear storyline with relatively little exploration and customization available, simplified controls, and limited gameplay elements, all of which are essentially by-products of the limited capabilities of early game consoles on which games like Final Fantasy were developed. That style of game has a strong following that makes it notable within the realm of RPGs in general, though this is not covered well in the current article and is largely unsourced. I think better sources need to be found that describe this subgenre reliably - this is one of those grey areas where there is plenty of evidence that the subgenre exists, but little official coverage exists of the subgenre itself. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's my opinion what is described there is the difference in regions as opposed to the type of hardware. The basis, which is touched upon a bit in Cultural differences in role-playing video games seems to be based more on the basis of their origin - ie the rpg comes from Japan and most western reviers know only about the console rpgs from japan versus those from the US which were historically centered around the PC. This has much to do with the Video game crash of 1981 and the domiance of Japan in the console market and US in the PC market and therefore I believe the basis for the division is fundamentally flawed.
- I realise this is partly my conjecture (though the afore mentioned article does have RS coverage to support some of my claims), but there is no support for the current divisions either.陣内_Jinnai 23:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems like a reasonable explanation. SharkD Talk 04:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh I've always though both this and the computer role-playing game articles were missing the point. During the early-to-mid nineties we were a lot closer to the situation where these articles would have been relevant but even then it wouldn't have been perfect. The whole concept of RPGs on consoles being different to computer based ones is bunk these days. The main problem is that there are three 'splits' between the two sorts of RPG: East Vs West, turn-based Vs action and console Vs computer. Now, we use video game genres in the biblical sense; genre refers to gameplay. We already have an action RPG article, what we're missing is a turn-based RPG article to compliment it; what I'd suggest is merging verified content from both into a turn-based RPG article. Someoneanother 01:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that were to happen Role-playing video game could be an umbrella article that links to all the related areas and sub-genres. Someoneanother 01:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is a move to put Role-playing game as the central one and split it off into major branches: Video games, tabletop and live-action so probably both areas could have some info on the history; but the history doesn't mean they are speerate entities. As i've noted most of that console v. computer is based on the east v. west and people confuse that with consoles because most video games from the east are on consoles; moreso video game rpgs.陣内 _Jinnai 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The terms "console RPG" and "computer RPG" are recognized terms in the gaming media, and this should be obvious from some of the references used for this article which specifically deal with the concept of console RPGs. There is nothing original about the subject matter of this article. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide such ones that are reliable sources that don't violate synthesis or aren't from marketing labels? That has been the problem. They cannot be found and as such the arguments I believe are flawed because they're based on a fluid advertising label that is placed to sell units. If it can sell another unit, slap the label on it mentality.陣内_Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't GameSpot a reliable enough source for you? They specifically use the term "console RPG" to refer to this genre/subgenre of RPGs. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just doing a Google search for "Console RPG", I came across this link: "Are classical console RPGs the way of the past?". The author of this article describes in fair detail what a "console RPG" is and how it differs from other genres. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also found "The History of Console RPGs" on GameSpot in the same search. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - My point still stands. This violating WP:NPOV by giving undue WP:UNDUE weight to US commentary when most video game RPGs are from Japan and furthermore its a WP:Content Fork as the same type of commentary is used to distinqush western RPGs from Japanese RPGs which almost all console rpgs happen to come from japan and almost all pc rpgs (most english speaking people know about) come from the US.陣内 _Jinnai 20:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Where is the evidence that most video game RPGs come from Japan? Perhaps in the last five to ten years as there have been less RPGs made in the US and/or Europe, but historically this is not an obvious point. The amount of RPGs coming out of Europe has increased and most of those are what many see as 'Computer/PC' style instead of 'Console' style. If there is a difference, it is not that vast.Caidh (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Looking more carefully at your 2, the gamespot one violates WP:SYNTH if we were to use it here. It just lists a bunch of games and says they're all console RPGs. The former does not define what a console rpg is. He just lists an evoluton spouting off a list of names and a few basic concepts that are common to all Role-playing games. Therefore, you still lack any proof and as such I do not have to defend my claims (as I'm not trying to put an article or info to present such) when you cannot bring claims that actually validate what a console RPG without reaching for original research to fill in the missing gaps.
        The classical rpgs goes more into the development of action-based rpgs vs. turn-based and the theoretical demise of the latter. Don't just assume a source supports this article's existence because the naming of the article happens to have "console" in it.陣内 _Jinnai 23:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. That the article can be improved is not a reason to delete it. This is an encyclopedic topic. If the references there aren't good, add some! If you think that something is original research, change it! If you think the article should cover Japan more, add a section on Japan! Nobody is stopping you. The topic itself is fine and should not be deleted. Kwertii (talk) 03:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it can be and believe it is further more a point-of-view fork from Cultural differences in role-playing video games.陣内 _Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merger of both articles, as long as the points that are covered by RSs remain present. SharkD Talk 04:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - one good article is better than two iffy ones. Probably merge the AFDs, too. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now; I won't oppose a merge in the future if consensus deems so. Remember that there is a third article that would also need to be addressed (Cultural differences in role-playing video games) should that be considered. Note: I have made the exact same statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer role-playing game. –MuZemike 18:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See point in the other; this isn't the first time a merge/deletion has been discussed, just the first time its come here.陣内 _Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wouldn't be opposed to merging the console role-playing game and role-playing video game articles, but definitely against deleting. There is valuable information in both articles which needs to be improved sure, but definitely not deleted wholesale.Caidh (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- please clarrify if you mean keep or merge or not.陣内 _Jinnai 05:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into Role-playing video game. An entire article on the topic of "console" role-playing games is unnecessary as the concept is outdated. Just because the term is recognized doesn't mean it should be used when it is clearly outdated and in some cases incorrect. The information could be trimmed, but not deleted outright.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge WP:PRESERVE useful information and redirect this article to Role-playing video game unless notability can be demonstrated. You can't make an article without proper sources that describe "console rpg's" in depth, rather than RPG's that happen to be on consoles or the history of RPG's on consoles. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into role-playing video game, and possibly merge relevant content into cultural differences in role-playing video games. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to role-playing video game, along with computer role-playing game. The small number of sources available that differentiate between these types of video role-playing game suggest that the pattern of differences is of only minor notability, of the sort that is best described in a single article rather than subjected to what may constitute a POV fork. Many of the differences ascribed to console RPGs relate to the dominance of Japanese titles in the console market, which has nothing particularly to do with the console platform. 10 different versions of Ultima were released on various console platforms, all of which break all the supposed conventions about console versus computer RPGs. Same goes for Balder's Gate, Everquest, Fallout, and all the other console RPGs that demonstrate this supposed pattern of divergence by platform doesn't have legs. The article cultural differences in role-playing video games could remain to describe the Asian vs. Western differences in video RPGs, although personally I don't think the few sources it has demonstrate enough notability for a whole article on the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article needs cleanup, and possible merge, there appears to somewhat better sourcing there and its easier to focus on one thing at a time.陣内 _Jinnai 04:06, 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 redirect to Water fluoridation. NJA (t/c) 11:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Water fluoridation chemical[edit]

The Water Fluoridation Chemical page is only a description and definition of the water fluoridation chemical itself. The description and definition of the water fluoridation chemical will come from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Union's National Headquarters documents as well as a few others.

A page on Wikipedia that only defines and describes what the water fluoridation chemical is a good thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hereherer (talk • contribs) 23:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

non encyclopedic POV rant against water flouridation WuhWuzDat 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as completely hopeless. I speedy tagged a bit earlier because I had no idea what it was supposed to be about, but figured that whatever it was must be a needless duplication of Water fluoridation. Whatever the case, this is utterly unencyclopedic. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as unnecessary and PoV. (I must stress that personally I am against compulsory fluoridation but not on these rather suspect grounds.) Peridon (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - no need for discussion. The exact opposite of an encyclopedia article. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Speedy Delete or redirect to Water fluoridation. ^Pepper·_piggle 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed the speedy A10 tag, which is not supposed to be used for POV or content forks, & I read this as a POV fork. But the article is indeed hopeless DGG ( talk ) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hopelessly POV platform promoting a WP:FRINGE view. Eubulides (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain for now and let the author develop it. It may have potential. If result is insufficient content, for it's own article, Merge into Water fluoridation. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Delete – The article Opposition to water fluoridation already covers the general issues. I see nothing of value here. Appears to be some odd form of WP:SYNTHESIS. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - We all realize that many respectable articles are nucleated from unpromising starts, but Wikipedia is host to many articles on this general area, e.g. water fluoridation (recent Featured Article), opposition to water fluoridation, fluoride poisoning, fluorosis, not to mention the many chemical species used for fluoridation (e.g. sodium fluoride, fluoride, hexafluorosilicic acid, and more). Furthermore the article appears conceived to advance a soapboxing agenda.--Smokefoot (talk) 01:47, 5 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]

Demonesh[edit]

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

I removed the ((db-band)) tag from this article per the creator's comment that there are few rock bands in Iran. Furthermore, there may be sources written in Iranian, thus making it impossible to locate them using the English name. This AfD will give the creator some time to provide such sources, if there are any.

Possible reasons for deletion could be Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Verifiability. I will withdraw this AfD if reliable sources that establish notability can be found. Cunard (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable.--Professional Assassin (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no indication that this is a notable band. There is no assertion of significance in the article and in my searches I have not been able to find any reliable sources that discuss the band. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although I'm sure it's tougher to find sources for them in English due to language barriers, it doesn't seem like there's enough out there to merit inclusion. I'm certainly open to recreation/preservation if such sources (in any language) can be provided. Currently, however, I'm not finding anything in English, which is all I have to work with. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view might not be reliable in wikipedia, but for the record, I am native Persian speaker and I also live in Iran, but I have never heard of such a music group! Maybe it is TOO MUCH underground. lol--Professional Assassin (talk) 14:01, 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnosis for Weight Loss[edit]

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

Delete or merge with Hypnosis. Article has no references and for this length could easily be covered under the hypnosis article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe there's a phrase or sentence that can be merged. No reason for a standalone article for this topic; not a sufficiently notable separate concept. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge Our article on hypnotherapy breaks out specific applications into separate articles, e.g. hypnotherapy in childbirth. The first half of Hypnosis for Weight Loss cites notable sources. There isn't enough information given to verify the first two citations, but that is a cleanup problem, not grounds for deletion. The term Hypnosis for Weight Loss produces lots of Google hits, including mainstream sources, mayo clinic, abcnews, msnbc. There's enough material (some critical) to fill out this article.--agr (talk) 09:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Hell In A Bucket, there may be a sentence or two which could benefit being merged with Hypnosis, but I think this article is a delete. Not sure if GHits is a good indicator on this as I imagine most of them will be commercial- I suppose my point is should there be an article entitled 'Pills for Penis Enlargement' because there are a lot of GHits? I might be wrong, but I think the current article is not sufficient not to be deleted or possibly merged with Hypnosis. DRosin (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/possible merge - There are a lot of ghits, but they are almost all commercial. Does this mean it is a widely-practiced/documented subject, enough for notability, or does it...well, not. I don't know. I'm not sure. I get the general impression it's worth a mention at the Hypnosis or Hypnotherapy article, but not much more than that. Certainly not a standalone article. Maybe a general impression isn't a good reason. I think this article was created as an advertisement (created by Chungcap (talk · contribs) and quoting "Vince Chung, a Certified Hypnotherapist with Chicago Hypnosis and Hypnotherapy of Buffalo Grove, Illinois"), and most of it is WP:OR. I think deleting this article and maybe adding in a quick mention at Hypnotherapy would be the best idea, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:42, 7 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 AFC Champions League[edit]

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

AFC did not ratify the qualification scheme for the AFC 2011 and 2012, so the whole article is nonsense. It should not be appeared. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 18:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, fact is, 2011 AFC Champions League will happen, simply use the page to discuss. and tweak it.

It's true that a new assement ranking is in the making, and maybe this page should be used to show this in detail? But i do think this page is needed as leagues in West Asia are nearing a completion pretty soon. For example, in Saudi Arabi, the league's top clubs have pratically sealed qualification already and would be added to the list very soon.

More detail should be given to this for example http://www.the-afc.com/en/inside-afc/676-afc-news/26193-criteria-approved-for-future-afc-club-events and http://www.the-afc.com/en/inside-afc/676-afc-news/26192-12-mas-keen-to-join-acl These should be added somewhere to show the development of the game and then it can be concluded if they made it or not. Druryfire (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC) UPD: I have rewritten it aswell :) Druryfire (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this. The article is about the annual event, not its qualification scheme. I agree that it's absolute nonsense to state "The ACL 2011 will have the same format as the AFC Champions League 2009. Below is the preliminary qualification scheme for the AFC 2011, which the AFC released in 2008." so the article should be rewritten. But rewritten, not deleted. —WiJG ? 15:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC) UPD: I have rewritten it. —WiJG ? 16:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also have to agree, however taking a partially different stance. Staying true to Wikipedia's definition, i believe that this page should only contain factual information that can be accurately sourced by the AFC, FIFA or a third party source. With that in mind, any and all speculative material should be removed with a barebones template remaining until further information has been released. - Kasperone (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kasperone, if you take a look at the article, you will notice that everything has been sourced. The article is now fine in my opinion. Druryfire (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the possible exception of BLPs, containing incorrect information is not grounds for deletion. The article is sourced so we can assume the information contained here is correct until we're told otherwise, and of course the tournament is definitely going ahead so there's no danger of crystalballery here.

Keep article is about a notable, future competition that is likely to occur. May need some editing, but does not merit deletion. Eldumpo (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Teams are currenly playing to qualify for this tournament. It was created 15 months after 2010 AFC Champions League and no one complained about that in September 2008! Nfitz (talk) 02:21, 10 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) 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WikiPing[edit]

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

Non-notable protocol completely unsourced. No hits in google books. Two hits in google scholar: one patent (did not read), and a mention in passing in a paper in the typical style of academic citations, which cites... Wikipedia as source (LOL). Pcap ping 18:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; non-notable protocol that lacks any real sources, surprised it didn't cite itself. KaySL (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this protocol. Joe Chill (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above DRosin (talk) 22:06, 6 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Bell (programmer)[edit]

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

I was at school with Ian and can vouch for the accuracy of the limited information here, but I can't find any reliable independent sources about him. Even his website is sufficiently out of date that I would not like to say what he currently does for a living. As an unsourced and likely unsourceable biography we have to delete it per WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:CREATIVE notability guideline through the success of Elite, which is verifiable (Edge, for example.) As for what he's doing now, he spoke at the 2009 Nottingham GameCity festival. (Source: Guardian.) I'll add these to the article. Marasmusine (talk) 11:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are guidelines (and probably incorrect ones as notability is not inherited), WP:BLP is policy. Have you added non-trivial reliable independent sources as references? That's what it needs. Being namechecked in the Grauniad is not enough - otherwise I would have an article (having also been interviewed on BBC Radio and featured in the Times Educational Supplement). The Guardian article says: "My Life with Elite (Weds 3pm) Is going to be pretty special. David Braben, Ian Bell, Robert Holdstock - I'm really interested to see how this is going to work out. A lot of the folks at this event haven't seen each other for years - it really is a 'this is your life' of the game." So, it namechecks Ian and that's the lot. Remember, I was a schoolmate, I have looked for good sources. We need sources about Ian. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the guideline is probably incorrect. It's the currently accepted standard for articles about creative professionals. One criteria is "The person's work ... has won significant critical attention", and Bob's your uncle. BLP only recommends that a page be deleted if there are no quality sources about a person. Otherwise you are free to remove the material you wish to contest, which I suppose would be his date and place of birth, and the sentence on his education. Please note the Edge Online citation next to the Guardian's: it provides good coverage (five paragraphs) of his talk at Game City. That's if you want to go the WP:GNG route rather than WP:CREATIVE. Marasmusine (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of sources here, an old interview for Games Domain and a feature in 80s mag Micro Adventurer. I'm sure I remember something in Retro Gamer a couple of years ago too, though I could be wrong... Miremare 14:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Marasmusine. Looks like he meets WP:CREATIVE as well as the WP:GNG. –MuZemike 18:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The game is certainly important in gaming history. There are just enough sources to make him notable. Given the start he had it makes me wonder why he didn't do more. Or perhaps he did and its not come to light. Szzuk (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Marasmusine DRosin (talk) 22:08, 6 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) 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sukuracchi Kouzai[edit]

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

Complete lack of notability as well as having no verifiability. (Note that the same thing is found [6] but is not a copyvio as that post is newer than the creation of this page.) Likely madeup fan-fiction. –MuZemike 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --–MuZemike 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —–MuZemike 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If not an outright WP:HOAX then it definitely fails WP:NFT. Google search turms up very view hits, none of which are reliable. I'll also note that the article's created has not made any other edits beyond creating this article. —Farix (t | c) 17:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Tagged as CSD G3 as it is a pretty blatant hoax. —Farix (t | c) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CSD as hoax. --EEMIV (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with CSD hoax. ^Pepper·_piggle 21:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. (I originally prodded the article with the nominator's concerns; this was removed by the creator). --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, the speedy delete was declined btw for future reference. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - either a WP:HOAX or (even if it's real) then as non-notable/unverifiable. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:38, 10 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) 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Pockets[edit]

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

Topic is only supported by press releases, or by sources that mention Sim Ops but not Wild Pockets (note I have already removed a business week reference, and another to a wordpress blog) Therefore this software does not meet the general notability requirements. Marasmusine (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 21 December 2009 (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) 00:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I removed the speedy delete tag, so I suppose that means that I wanted to keep the page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has never been tagged for speedy deletion. Please can you check that you have the right article? (Or provide a rationale for keeping it) Marasmusine (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability found. --Teancum (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any notability DRosin (talk) 22:10, 6 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 Rin Toshite Shigure. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moment A rhythm[edit]

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

Deprodded article that references an apparently non-notable song by an artist whom has an article. Seems to fail WP:NSONG. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect song to artist per WP:NSONG: "Notability 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." If anyone wants to merge, say, the date of release they should do so, otherwise there is no information here to be retained. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist's page, since there's no coverage of the song itself. ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 06:40, 5 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) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peko Precision Products[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable, third-party sources to demonstrate the notability of this private company. Powers ^T 16:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a designer and contract manufacturer for custom technological solutions with no mininal showing of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to satisfy notability guidelines. Only 2 Google News hits, and one of those was a mention in a death notice of a former employee. On the whole, not finding enough significant coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I guess that the motivation to create this article is due to this revert by me which asked for proofs of notability for Peko before adding it to the list of companies in the Rochester, New York article. The article is still lacking any proof of notability. This seems to be a case of self promotion. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:03, 10 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 Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sioux Trail Elementary School[edit]

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

Non-notable grade school - fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to school district article as unable to find any reason not to believe that this is a non notable elementary school. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 16:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor who started this article, one of my first, I feel I should present a passionate defense. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to school district article as per standard practice. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The school is already listed at Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District? Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect; unfortunately from my review this is an average non-notable elementary school. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District per normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District article if really needed. I contributed to the article by adding demographic information, but if it really needs to be merged, then do so. The Universe Is Cool (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)The Universe Is Cool[reply]
Merge useful information to Burnsville-Eagan-Savage School District, per above. Seems like a reasonable option, and keeps with past precedent for elementary schools. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:49, 8 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArcAttack[edit]

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

I'm not convinced of this article's notability. Although it has been mentioned by a couple of places that specialise in this sort of thing, I don't think it is enough; the author contests that the subject is notable because of the equipment used, which is a tesla coil, modified to make sound (Singing Tesla Coil). If the article is kept, I think it should be stripped down to the lead section, as, while the language used appears fairly neutral, I am unconvinced about the relatively large amount of information included, all of which was added by an editor with a COI who initially made the article solely from information copied from the subject's webpage. Jhbuk (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references estarblish notability for me - although I think the section listing the band members reads more like a promotional site than an encyclopedia article. The page needs works, but I'm fine with the question of their notability. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think that the origins of the article are really that relevant, if Wikipedia is in fact a place where articles are to be improved upon to become more useful and informative. There are literally dozens more news articles out there on this subject and would be happy to improve upon it when I have a spare moment. I'm obviously very new to making wikipedia articles, but that doesn't mean that I do not want to do a good job at it. I'm still figuring most of this out.Epilectrik (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that you initially made the article heaviliy promotional, and argued that it wasn't. You clearly have a conflict of interest with this and the article is still not entiirely neutral. Jhbuk (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty ignorant way to start the article I agree, but I have been more than happy to apply every single one of your criticisms towards making the article better.Epilectrik (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like to add that I am in fact involved in the performance group, and I don't think that I am doing anything wrong by posting this article. I'm just trying to document our progression as it happens, and feel as though I am operating withing the required guidelines in doing so. I would be ecstatic if other editors not affiliated with the group would modify this article and make it become more useful and informative. Though what we are doing is still fairly new, I am sure within 5 years the subject matter of this article will be quite useful.Epilectrik (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm the author of this article, and I would like to say that I understand that the article needs a lot of work, but I don't really understand why you would contest the reliability of the sources. They are very straight forward, and suitably match Wikipedia's requirements. Also, this performance group meets at least 3 of the criteria for notable performance groups on wikipedia, without the use of the new technology involved. Please give me advice on how to make the article better, or edit the article yourself and change what you feel is not appropriate, but don't keep flagging this article for deletion for arbitrary reasons without at least giving me suggestions on how to fix it first.Epilectrik (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CNET and GIZMODO seem like fairly specialist 'gadget' websites which feature things not normally well known. These features, along with the one in The National newspaper do not seem like they make the subject notable; publishers like these make features all the time - what makes this one special? This source is a blog and should not be included. The reason I put this up is because I want other opinions about this article's notability; its notability is not as obvious as Epilectrik wants to make out - the administrator who dealt with the initial speedy deletion clearly feels the way I do: ie that this needs discussion. This is not just about improvements, it is about whether the subject should have an article. Jhbuk (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well take a little time to research the subject matter, and try to find any better sources of information which contest the information that I have provided. The fact that the subject matter might not be all that popular in main stream media might be true. I really do appreciate the help in improving the article, and becoming a better wikipedia user in general. As far as whether the subject should have a wikipedia entry might be a good question, but I think I've seen articles on far less relevant things.Epilectrik (talk) 18:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you read Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles, you can see that the National Article from Abu Dhabi satisfies the requirements for section 4 on non trivial coverage in foreign countries. The National is a huge publication in the UAE. So on at least that subject (and many more that I will add to the article as I have time) the notability requirements are satisfied.Epilectrik (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not all of the references provided in the article are what I would consider to be reliable sources, but there are enough of them. The CNET article is actually by a staff writer. The National article also would count as significant coverage. My own searches shows that they have also been covered in Wired. And although behind a pay wall, the title of teh article in the Austin American Statesman make it clear that the group is the main subject of the article. This represents multiple independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of the group. As such it meets the criteria for general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:35, 5 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) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppertime[edit]

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

Unreleased debut album by a dead artist lacks notability as an unreleased album Yappy2bhere (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a passing mention of the album here, and other mentions within various blogs. That said, per WP:NALBUMS, "unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." From what I'm seeing, I don't believe there's quite enough verifiable information here to support a separate article, unless better sources are presented. A redirect and/or a line or two about the album in Static Major's article would work for me, as well. Gongshow ^Talk 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 5 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 5 (J. J. Cale album). (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boilin' Pot (J.J. Cale song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Boilin' Pot (J.J. Cale song)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Eeekster (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (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 Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect song to artist per WP:NSONG: "Notability 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." No information here to be merged at all. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album per WP:NSONG. Rlendog (talk) 21:40, 4 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 5 (J. J. Cale album). (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Cry Sister (J.J. Cale song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't Cry Sister (J.J. Cale song)

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC Eeekster (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2010 (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 Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect song to artist per WP:NSONG: "Notability 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." No information here to be merged at all. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the album per WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 21:43, 4 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) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Larring[edit]

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

doesn't seem very notible. just a dime a dozen guitar player.. previously tagged for notability Alan - talk 00:14, 4 January 2010 (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. Subject fulfills none of the criteria of WP:MUSIC. I know it is not the be all and end all of prods, but I found 1 (one) google news hit, referring to him being fired by Kelly Clarkson (making him sound very much like a session musician. Remaining links on google refer mainly to myspace and other such sites rather than genuinely verifiable pieces. Relevant solo information could be added to SONICFLOOd page. Fenix down (talk) 15:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above argument. 71.165.132.175 (talk) 21:20, 4 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 Slut. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hussy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Okay.... Where to begin? Hussy was previously a redirect to slut. The whole article reads like a dictionary definition and the pop culture source is too short to make Hussy notable.JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 09:23, 3 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]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (The Slut article could also stand a separate AFD, since it is also a dictionary definition). Edison (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your suggestion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut.
Delete per WP:NOT#DICDEF. --Michig (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this has no place in Wikipedia and is demeaning to women PamelaBMX (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either back to slut, or to Wictionary at wikt:Hussy.--kelapstick (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to wiktionary:Hussy. -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOT#DICDEF. --Defender of torch (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Slut or to wiktionary:Hussy. Note that the former has survived an AFD and is currently at deletion review but it looks like the close will be endorsed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 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) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Williams (Marketer)[edit]

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

Delete was deleted via PROD but has since been asked to be restored by IP user; IP's reason: The page was of a notable figure. This article has several issues - reads like an advert and there seems to be a conflict of interests - however, my reason for nominating it is he doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Entirely unreferenced biography of a living person and floridly non-neutral: has orchestrated some of the most impressive groundbreaking marketing campaigns.... a talent management-marketing-consulting group that specializes in marketing strategies, brand awareness, entertainment talent procurement, and event management.... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WPBIO. It is just a promotional page for Mr Williams - based upon no independent verifiable evidence. RichardLowther (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to post your resume. Edward321 (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads like an advertisement and very likely a conflict of interest in its creation. The creator's user page is essentially a mirror of the article. The person doesn't appear to satisfy the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:12, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dearey[edit]

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

non notable local politician Oo7565 (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:35, 4 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]

Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and nothing in the article suggests anything that would qualify him. Valenciano (talk) 12:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see why it was suggested for deletion, but on second glance MD can apparently multi-task and is cited for other things.Red Hurley (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable local politican with poorly sourced article.Cathar11 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Politician. Snappy (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Now he fails for lack of reliable sources for this biography of a living person. I could find merely one News Ghit. Bearian (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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Left[edit]

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

mundane topic, title implies the practice is unique to the Pittsburgh area (they were called Washington lefts when I lived in Washington DC, LA Left's when I lived in Los Angeles, and so on). There are some references but hardly the kind of significant coverage that notability guidelines demand. RadioFan (talk) 17:25, 3 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]

Comment If it turns out that there are news sources about the Washington Left, L.A. Left, etc., then I can see where that would be a notable variation on normal driving rules. Of course, I can also see where a Wikipedia article of that nature could cause someone to turn into the path of an oncoming truck... Mandsford (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should see if we can make a general article out of it--I think it's probably general--it's certainly routine in NYC. There ought to be sources. I'm not worried about a Wikipedia article promoting bad driving. We're not a how-to manual, and it's enough that we say it is not actually legal. "Mundane" as a reason for deletion is altogether new to me. A general encyclopedia covers ordinary life. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Traffic#Turning. It's sourced, exists, and appears to be notable, but it's thin for its own article. If we had an article on similar practices in other cities, that would be a better target - but a general merge into Traffic#Turning, which already mentions "San Francisco Lefts" (three right turns, since SF roads are typically one-way), is ok for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Blargh29. Additional sources make it hard to argue that this doesn't stand on its own. Some cleanup is still necessary, and I'd like to have info on the practice from other cities, but this works for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources have been added. Article passes general notability guideline for stand-alone article. Needs some work, but should survive as its own article. --Blargh29 (talk) 23:26, 7 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Glamazons[edit]

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

No notable band, fails GNG and BAND. MBisanz ^talk 08:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

completely non-notable, even the official website isn't working, and the text predicts "In July 2008, they will be appearing", overall not serious

Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 3 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]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen Days (JJ Cale song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS Eeekster (talk) 02:08, 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) 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as duplication Thirteen Days (J.J. Cale song) (notice the periods in "J.J."), which I've already redirected to the album per WP:NSONG. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:13, 4 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Townie techno[edit]

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

Non-notable student film uploaded on YouTube. No indication of meeting WP:NF nor WP:N, unable to locate any independent third party reliable sources about this film; Google only turns up Wikipedia mirror sites and uploads of video on free hosting services other than YouTube. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable in the extreme. No sourcing available. The video itself has had less that 1,000 hits. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:56, 1 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. As above. Film fails to even get close to fulfilling any of the general principles or other criteria listed at WP:NF. No noted involvment from any notable person, no distribution and no awards. NBothing historically significant about the film either. Fenix down (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:N, and WP:RS. South Bay (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NF; non-notable student film posted on YouTube. Does not meet notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:26, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter S. Parker Middle School[edit]

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

Middle school that lacks notability Eeekster (talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have recently added links to the websites of the regional NELMS Spotlight School Award recipients page and Blue Ribbon Schools of Excellence page. Both awards are designated for select schools that carry high expectations of learning and are stand-out establishments in education. MrMusselman (talk 22:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also added a stub to encourage others familiar with the school to add additional content to distinguish the notability of the school. MrMusselman (talk 22:35, 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]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Blue Ribbon is the highest award a school can receive, which is enough to establish notability. tedder (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this page was nominated for deletion precisely 3 minutes after creation; a wholly insufficient time to research and evaluate the school's Blue Ribbon status and other awards. TerriersFan (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Blue Ribbon schools are notable. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a major award would appear to satisfy notability guidelines, which would allow the article to qualify for inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:28, 10 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) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WxDownload Fast[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This non-notable software has no third party sources and search for sources does not reveal any significant. Three sources listed are about libraries and features that this software implemented, but they never mention this software. Source search shows there are user submitted comments, version announcements, one sentence mentions, and appearance in lists. These are not acceptable RS for notability in any language. Miami33139 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Miami33139 (talk) 21:20, 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]

Weak keep. Covered in Free Software Magazine issue 16 [7] but fairly briefly and similarly so in a round-up of download managers [8] in the tech column of Mladá fronta DNES (a mainstream newspaper in Czech republic). Was also reviewed in a similar roundup in issue 108 of Linux Format (toc; full text requires subscription) I'm ignoring the dubious review on software.informer.com--a site with unclear editorial policy or even a list of the staff. Pcap ping 20:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Open source software. Samboy (talk) 08:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant to notability (as would something being proprietary software). --Cybercobra (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Pcap. Joe Chill (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per various editors. LotLE×talk 20:38, 9 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. There is one speedy criteria, No context. Applying it now. Tone 19:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Day Wrath of The Lamb[edit]

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

??? semi-Nonsensical, semi biblical, non encyclopedic rant, that unfortunately does not seem to clearly fit any speedy deletion criteria. WuhWuzDat 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is bad in so many ways according to WP:NOT: personal essay or soapbox—you name it. Favonian (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Soapbox oratory, PoV, essay; quite possibly also drivel. Could well also fail WP:CRYSTAL even..... Peridon (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Hilariously non-WP article. What little sense can be made of it suggests serious breach of WP:OR. Fenix down (talk) 16:50, 4 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WebFlicker CMS[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable software product by single-issue user with possible conflict of interest. I cannot find any coverage at all. Haakon (talk) 14:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable "content management system" - i.e. back office software that the general public will not interact with. Google News knoweth it not. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article was speedy-deleted on December 23. Haakon (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find anything about this in secondary sources. Zero ghits in news archive or gbooks. Not even a blog review. Pcap ping 15:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to have enough significant coverage by reliable third parties to merit inclusion; Haakon has noted that it is recreation of previously speedied material. Cocytus [»talk«] 21:18, 10 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 Snow keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Bellic[edit]

The GTA character has only been playable in one game like the other protagonists who don't even have a page. All Niko Bellic information should be kept on the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV page. - GEORGIEGIBBONS 4th January 2010 12:54pm GMT -Note: The nominator has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Fences&Windows 00:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well written, well-sourced and notable article. The protagonists of the other games may not have articles dedicated to them, but that doesn't automatically disqualify this one from existing. The article does require a significant rewrite, however. KaySL (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, it has a lot of valid references and it talks about the character in a lot of detail but there are characters in the GTA series who have a detailed background like Niko's so I think it should be merged into the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV page. Mykee881211, 4/1/10 13:27 GMT —Preceding undated comment added 13:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge into List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV. While there are many reliable sources which have covered Grand Theft Auto IV, from what I can tell they generally discuss only the game itself, and occasionally provide a paragraph about the character as background information, meaning that this article seems to fail WP:N.--Unscented (talk) 14:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - The character itself has received some rewards, and has been enough of the focus of the overall game reviews that it might warrant its own article. Reception section seems pretty solid -- certainly not content that warrants deletion. --EEMIV (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong keep~~ Speedy keep. I wrote that entire reception section while patrolling a small handful of lists. Imagine what would happen if I actually attempted to find reception. Changed to a speedy keep because the reasoning seems to be "Other stuff doesn't exist" and "he's only in one game". There are several characters who only have one appearance. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, most of the article is about the GTA IV plot. I will agree that the reception section is clear and that can be merged in with the full character list. Superfazar (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Niko Bellic is the most notable video game character in recent years, and this article easily has enough sources. -- WölffReik (talk) 22:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps, but is that notability established under Wikipedia criteria? I can see the argument for a full article, but I really don't think it needs one when there's already a list of characters present to which this article's content could easily be merged. KaySL (talk) 00:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - It doesn't matter whether it could be easily merged or not; if it satisfies notability criteria, that's all that it has to do. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no fan of frivolous game character articles and lists which have no backing by real world commentary etc., but I'm gonna stick my neck out and say this is probably one of the most poked, prodded and name-dropped characters since Lara Croft. There is material out there about behind the scenes, and as far as reception is concerned the character has been analysed in countless reviews, featured in god knows how many mags etc. It's easy to forget now, but at the time GTAIV was the biggest release on the schedule and every game publication going was poring over every detail. Anyhow, keep, easily passes the notability hurdle. Someone another 01:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Crazy notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and oppose merge. This page is fine as it is, as a split from the main character list. It would be far too long if merged to the character list, as that list gives an overview, whilst this article offers additional in-depth information about appearances, reception, and a longer list of references. With the end user in mind, I see no reason to perform a merge. --Taelus (talk) 10:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but the article needs a major rewrite similar to the Mercaneries characters discussed earlier, as its written with lots of in-universe information. Suggesting editors look at GA character articles like Cloud Strife and Master Chief (Halo) to make the article more Wikipedia and less Wikia. --Teancum (talk) 12:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are many secondary characters from other video games who have their own articles; see no reason why we shouldn't keep this one. Also, keep the other GTA protagonists if created Purplebackpack89 (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Delete): The game itself doesn't give too much insight into this fictional character. Almost all of the references are to review sites and gamer sites. So it's basically an article about people's opinions about a fictional character. There's not enough substance and fact for it to be encyclopedic. An article with short descriptions of each character would be better. Also, saying that we should keep it because there are other articles about secondary characters isn't valid; it simply means that these other articles should be merged or deleted too. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 18:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At what point is it proper to assert that an in-universe status is more important than real-world notability? A character who appears in 10 games is less important than a character who appears in one if the former has no reception and the latter has one. I suggest you reread notability guidelines and find where being a secondary character in a work of fiction has anything to do with notability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – looks like notability is clearly established that this can be its own article. –MuZemike 18:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "An article about people's opinions about a fictional character" is an ideal article about a fictional character. We call that "secondary sourcing!". Gigs (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge "Reception" into List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV + Delete the rest of it, Most of the profile is about game events which are summarised in the Grand Theft Auto IV article so I think character reception could just be added to the character article. ToxicWasteGrounds (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I must reiterate that the entire reception section was found by me when I wasn't even trying to find reception for him. I was looking through lists on GameDaily and found it on a whim. I argue that if anyone TRIED to find the reception, it would be easily found. A character who was nominated for best new character [only losing out to another character from the same game] must have enough. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of reliable sources talking about this character. Against any merge/redirect which would be the same as delete. There is enough valid information to fill an article, and no reason not to have one. Dream Focus 08:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - This has detailed secondary sourcing, other character articles are irrelevant, and merging would make the GTA IV article too long. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:48, 6 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 Mita Congregation. closed as redirect as this is unsourced and we don't usually merge ubnsourced material Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teófilo Vargas Seín[edit]

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

Long term (2004) unsourced biographical article. Article is about the leader of a minor Christian Congregational organisation. Only one news article I can found and a very few peripheral mentions in books. Does not appear to pass the biographical notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mita Congregation, which does appear to be notable; there isn't enough independent biographical detail to merit a separate article, though if someone comes up with Spanish-language biographies that I'm not aware of, I'd reconsider. THF (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mita Congregation. This appears to be a Christian sect of which he is the leader. I suspect that it is also only barely notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 10 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 Keep, given the lack of specificity in the nomination, and the fact that the article is extensively referenced. If concerns about notability still exist, please raise them at Talk:Mangalorean Catholics prior to re-nominating for deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalorean Catholics[edit]

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

Not notable — Gmx45 (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Well put together and well referenced article about a subject with quite a bit of history. I would be interested to hear the nominator's ideas on why this article fails notability, instead of just a bald "Not notable". Peridon (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the nominator is an SPA, which is perhaps a little out of the ordinary for AfD. Peridon (talk) 14:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Peridon. The article was missing the AFD template, which I have added. — æk ^Talk 18:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is the nomination some sort of a joke?--Sodabottle (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really bad faith nomination. I dont need to say anyting else. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator has been banned as a sockpuppet [9]. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: The nominator is a retard. Joyson Konkani 06:43, 5 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) 03:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Clark (martial artist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Previous deletion discussion ended in a no-consensus. In the six months since the previous deletion discussion, no one has added any reliable sources to substantiate notability, which to me indicates that such notability does not exist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PKA Fighter of the Year is a significant claim of notability. Surely that can be checked for verification? JJL (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We did check it, and it's not covered in any third-party reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not been able to find any online mentions for PKA Fighter of the Year except in articles relating to William Clark, none of which come from an independent source. There are plenty of mentions of PKA champions from that era--Joe Lewis, Bill Wallace, Jeff Smith--but no other mentions of Fighter of the Year. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. JJL's comments notwithstanding, without some sourcing I have to think that his PKA award is not notable. The PKA champions from that era almost instantly became legends (see above names) but I can't find William Clark's name mentioned in the same vein. If he wasn't a PKA champion, and there's no claim that he was, then I'm not sure what his award represents. Since the only "Keep" vote in the first AFD discussion was from JJL claiming this award is notable, I'd like someone to offer some proof of the award's notability or other evidence of William Clark's notability. Papaursa (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is winning the American Taekwondo Association Grand National Championship a notable achievement? JBsupreme (talk) 07:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably, but I am having trouble finding independent verification of that award. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't find verification of the award, but it's quite possible (I have no reason to doubt it). However, the ATA only holds closed tournaments (meaning you must be a member of one of their schools to compete). 1976 was their first championship (then called the Grand Nationals). The article doesn't say what division he won and I couldn't find the number of competitors. The ATA separates their divisions--for example, first degree black belts don't compete against second degree black belts (who don't compete against fourth degree black belts, etc.). Papaursa (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That seems to make the award all of a sudden a lot less notable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relist note: I've relisted this discussion once more in hopes of avoiding another no consensus closure. More participation would be greatly appreciated. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright delete, you have to delete eventually if searching for reliable sources fails, google news/books hits for "william clark" taekwondo notwithstanding. Polarpanda (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have been unable to find any references to support the subject meeting any of the WPMA guidelines on notability for martial artists. Janggeom (talk) 02:15, 6 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Reibel[edit]

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

Another long-term unsourced biographical article. From what I can see she is briefly mentioned in one book and one news article. While a worthy person I cannot find sufficient to get close to passing the biographical notability requirements. Just not enough reliable sources writing about her. Peripitus (Talk) 11:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Someone ought to go through all of the secret garden of National Maternity Action Plan-related articles for similar WP:N problems -- it's not even clear to me that NMAP is notable. THF (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable activist - no significant coverage in reliable sources that I can find. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Per WP:BIO. Warrah (talk) 01:16, 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SamCERA[edit]

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

The article is about an Employee's Retirement Association. Most of it seems to be targeted at members or potential members of the association, and I don't think that bringing it into line with Wikipedia's style guidelines would be helpful, since it doesn't appear to be a notable organisation per WP:ORG. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update The article has previously been prodded and deleted, but was restored by User:Spartaz after an undeletion request. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not surprised it was previously prodded; the article is a complete mess and while it contains a lot of information, it barely has any real content to accompany it. Fails WP:ORG, has no references or citations, and only two links independent of the organisation. KaySL (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, long and unencyclopedic article about a non-notable county-level body. This is all information that belongs on the group's website. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:40, 4 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striata Reader[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources show that it's used, yes, but nothing more than that. Ironholds (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What should they show in order to be good sources? Richm007 (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG for links to and an explanation of what sources are acceptable. Simply showing places that use it (as you have done) is not sufficient. Ironholds (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as spam. Only one hit in google news archive (see link at the top here). Nothing in scholar or books. Pcap ping 22:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The software is used by over 2 million people. It has a specific use in decoding encrypted email attachments. There is not much anyone can write about it that isn't already on the Striata website so there are very few independent articles. However, many people search for and download "Striata Reader" every day. Richm007 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. Our guidelines are based on coverage by independent sources. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is written like an advertisement, with headings like "Confidentiality", " Convenience", and "Diversity". The lack of independent commentary makes it impossible to write an unbiased article about the software. If all that can be said about it is found on the company's web site, which probably has a good google ranking on a search for it, there's no point in having a Wikipedia article that just regurgitates that; this site is not a software directory. Pcap ping 20:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the guidance, I will resubmit the article should there be further coverage by independent sources into the future paying close attention to the requirements you have laid out. I appreciate the responses. Deletion accepted.Richm007 (talk) 12:03, 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) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroscientist in gulf war propaganda[edit]

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

Unsourced, WP:OR, borderline incomprehensible essay. — æk ^Talk 08:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Generally non comprehensible and un-encyclopaedic.--blue520 11:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline nonsensical article. Presentation and distinct lack of references indicates Original Research, supported by the fact that the author has made no edits to any page other than that up for deletion. It is difficult to even summarise what the article is about, the introduction and "Abstract" sections are not in clear enough english to indicate what is saveable from the article. Fenix down (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly translated and biased essay on the first Gulf War, the propaganda surrounding it, effects on morale, etc etc, god only knows what else. "On 11th March in 1991, the Japanese neuroscientist arrived Japan and Japanese Right Wing started to try to kill her because they believed that former British Prime Thatcher wanted to kill the neuroscientist in Britain." Bizarre stuff, but the relevant parts are already covered in the appropriate articles. KaySL (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an incomprehensible essay Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bizarre, paranoid, and incomprehensible are the words that occur to me. Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the place where you publish your research paper. --Defender of torch (talk) 07:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - many issues; appears to be original research, and an essay (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). It's also borderline non-sense. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:24, 10 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nauvoo Brass Band[edit]

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

fails WP:BAND. almost all coverage is from one newspaper [10]. LibStar (talk) 07:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article does not fulfill any of the criteria of WP:MUSICBIO. Subject is a small, local band. Could conceivably fulfill criteria 7 of WP:MUSICBIO but additional citations would be needed. Insignificance of the article is highlighted by the navbox at the bottom of the article which deals with national Mormon bands and choirs to which this non-notable addition has been made. Fenix down (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the modern recreation is not notable in and of itself, as it is just a commemoration of the origional group that existed from 1842 to the late 1800's. However the origional organization from the Nauvoo era of the LDS Church and the Mormon pioneer era in Utah is very notable. The article has now been somewhat expanded to demonstrate this, though more is needed. Additionally there are approximately 22200 Google hits on "Nauvoo Brass Band". -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a reason for keeping an article. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, and I did not state that I though it was; however Google hits can be useful by providing a rough idea about how well-known/obscure a particular topic is. Additionally, as the nominator, have you recently reviewed the article to see if your initial concerns have been adequately addressed with the article in it's current state? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one newspaper mentioned in the nomination is the Deseret News, which is owned by the LDS Church. As the Nauvoo Brass Band is a defunct historic organization (with an modern commemoration), looking at modern newspaper resources may not be the best way to ascertain it's significance. - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional academic and independent references have been added. - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. It does appear to technically satisfy the general notability criteria, although I do have concerns about just how independent the sources are from the subject at hand. I suspect that a much more solid case could be made for merging this and the other stubs listed in the ((LDSmusic)) template into a more general article on LDS musical organizations (the Tabernacle Choir and possibly the Symphony stand well enough on their own), as the depth and breadth of information covering this particular topic appear to be sparse at best. Shereth 22:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now has been expanded significantly since it was nominated. Although I would have agreed to delete the original article, the current version clearly establishes notability. References have been expanded beyond one newspaper and now include a few books and newspapers. – jaksmata 16:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Notable as a historic entity -- but the modern recreation deserves only a modest mention. I like the idea above about merging into a general article on LDS use of music -- historic emphasis, hymns, organizations, etc. WBardwin (talk) 02:58, 7 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. go for hatnote if you must Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grapeshot (student publication)[edit]

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

fails WP:N and WP:GNG. zero third party coverage outside the university, [11]. LibStar (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to U@MQ, who own the publication. For clarity, this is not a flavour of keep since I see no justification for a standalone page. The fact that the publication is in a national library confers no notability; for example the British Library has a statutory duty to keep a copy of every book published in the UK even if it doesn't sell a single copy! TerriersFan (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that Category:Australian student newspapers contains several publications that also have slender claims to notability; Interpellator, for example. TerriersFan (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I oppose redirect as Grapeshot refers to many other things. [12]. LibStar (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please share with us what else Grapeshot (student publication) refers to? TerriersFan (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grapeshot (student publication) is an unlikely search term, especially with the brackets. LibStar (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the point; after merging the existing page cannot be deleted for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Couldn't we just add a hatnote the the main Grapeshot article, after merging? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry but that is just cluttering. In any case, after merging the existing page cannot be deleted for GFDL reasons. TerriersFan (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (as above) - Hmm. You're probably right about that, now that I think of it. I think your above proposal would be the best, then. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable student publication. I guess it could be merge/redirect to the university as well. Cocytus [»talk«] 20:15, 10 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: Original author had blanked the page (WP:CSD#G7) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United vs Real Madrid - Champion's League (Leg 2 - April 23 2003)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Manchester United vs Real Madrid - Champion's League (Leg 2 - April 23 2003)

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

I question whether this deserves a separate article, given our practice elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a news site, and any coverage is short-term, sports newsy based. Ironholds (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This match is certainly not notable enough for its own article. Bettia (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete individual games can receive independent articles but this article does not explain why it should. Appears to be just another game in a tournament. My vote isn't based on it, but the article needs clean-up to what little info is already there.Cptnono (talk)
Delete There's no context for this, let alone a claim for notability. The description in the title suggests that it was played in the second round of a cup-winner's cup tourney, comparable to an early round playoff game in any other sport. The vast majority of non-title games are not notable enough for their own articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no reason in this article to show why this game, which was a quarter-final in the 2002-3 Champions League, is has notable has the final. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:16, 4 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 List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service - X[edit]

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

Unnecessary as there are no members. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply as I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Members of the Canadian Senate - X. Restructure by redirecting this page, then edit the templates.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service ; as people will expect this list to exist, and may explicitly type it in, so point it to the index, and make a note there that no people with surnames starting with X exist under this condition. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @305 · 06:18, 4 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 List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service - Z[edit]

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

Unnecessary, as there are no entries. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same reply as I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Members of the Canadian Senate - X. Restructure by redirecting this page, then edit the templates.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons with military service ; as people will expect this list to exist, and may explicitly type it in, so point it to the index, and make a note there that no people with surnames starting with Z exist under this condition. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @305 · 06:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems to exist for no other reason than the color of the letter "Z" on a navigation template. Perhaps a veteran named Zimmerman will be elected someday, but there are other ways to deal with the appearance of a Z or a Z or a Z besides creating an article that says "there aren't any..." Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment a redirection would serve instead of an article, to somewhere else. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a most unlikely search term. Redirects are cheap, but a black letter Z is even cheaper. Unlike most redirects, there's no history to be preserved. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Barrett (writer)[edit]

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

Delete Not enough evidence that this meets notability guidelines Boleyn (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Award winning writer/ editor (at a major market paper) and author. Seems to me to clearly meet notability guidelines and probably needs to be expanded. The article's sourcing certainly could be improved. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not actually "award winning", although he was nominated, as a cursory read of the article and sources would have shown. I'm not seeing any actual coverage of Barrett himself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You think the newspaper he works for keeps a dishonest biography of his achievments? That seems scandalous! Do you have any proof? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See for yourself. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hmmmm... Is it possible he won it a different year? I couldn't find anything about it. But our article does say he was nominated for the award (which is some evidence of notability) and doesn't repeat his biography's claim. As an author and prominent figure in travel writing for decades at two major newspapers aren't the other achievments enough to establish notability? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 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, (X! · talk) · @303 · 06:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviewed in New York Times [13] "the book is superbly researched by Frank Barrett", making his writing meet minimum notability standards. Collect (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient coverage of his notable work to meet the GNG's requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:43, 4 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 Rent bank. redirected rather then merged as merge material may be sourced but the history is all there so if the new sources for rent bank allow some thi this to be merged help yourselves Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Rent Bank[edit]

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

This article is about an organisation that has no coverage in reliable sources. A Google News search [14] shows only one result which is a United Way press release. As such, this organisation fails to meet notability guidelines. Whpq (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I sympathize with the aims of this organization, there is a lack of coverage to confer notablility according to WP standards. Angryapathy (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added a reference from Hi-Rise Community Newsletter, which is not indexed by Google News. http://www.hi-risenews.com/show.php?page=./issues/2009-08/0908Tenants.txt - Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Rent bank. As far as I can tell, the rent bank program is unique to Ontario, so it's not unreasonable to have the rent bank article cover the whole province. There are sufficient reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of the provincial program, of which the Toronto Rent Bank is one part, e.g. [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Pburka (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sourcing and content improvements needed, but a merge seems reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @302 · 06:15, 4 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. GNG trumps local notability guidelines Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Ellmore[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was deleted after AfD. Resubmitted when he made another run at office, which he lost. Second AfD was no consensus. Ellmore fails WP:POLITICIAN. As a business man, he's done nothing notable. Did write a paperback book in 2003 that ranks #1,416,096 at Amazon. Can't see him passing WP:AUTHOR. His main attempt at claiming notability seems to be that for a time, he had a 15 year old campaign manager. Incidentally, the teens bio is also in AfD: WP:Articles for deletion/Daniel Tillson. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Hot Steam Valve (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. —Hot Steam Valve (talk) 08:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least he has made it to a ballot -- other politicians have been kept who have never held elective office at AfD. [21] has WashPost coverage (plus a bunch of ppv ones), [22] coverage in out-of-state sites. Meets minimum notability for sure. Collect (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I'd agree with the Post coverage being a good indicator. However, it is more or less the local paper for where he is. Local papers, regardless of size, have to cover local news. That's what seperates them from USA Today etc. As for others being kept.....WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't much of a reason to keep it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also made a number of other papers - I only listed the major ones. "California Chronicle" is not, moreover, "local" for him. In another case, local AK papers with circulations under 10K were found "notable". Virginia Connection Newspapers also covered him. Bizjournal covered him. Washington Blade did. Local tv covered him. Fairfax Times. Richmond Times. Arlington Sun Gazette. Culpepper Star Exponent. New York Jewish Week. How many are needed? (I do not consider New York to be "local" either.) Collect (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it without sarcasm. What makes you think I'd say the NY paper was "local"? Or the California one? So save the sarcasm for someone who wants it. Most of the rest are local. All of this is essentially coverage of the election happening. The news media covers elections. But if we use your reasoning, everyone who runs and gets covered should have an article and I think WP:POLITICIAN makes it clear that isn't the intent. He's never won anything. Nor has he run in a national election. A losing presidential candidate would be one thing, but losing a race for the local congressional seat isn't that notable. Literally hundreds of people run for congressional seats every two years....and lose. That isn't terribly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm intended. The articles focus on the "Jews for Jesus" part, as well as his stance on gays, which rather inforces the notability claims. And the precedent is clear that one need never win to be kept as an article (example is a person running for Gov. in a state when he has never even been on a ballot before, and is not even on the primary ballot yet). Ellmore far exceeds those standards. Collect (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say you had to win to be included. Pretty much any legit candidate for President, for example, would be notable, even though only one wins. But that is a national election, not a local one. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is usually not persuasive anyway. I don't see this as significant coverage. It's related to him running, which is nothing but trying to get covered. We have different views. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes the WP:GNG, thus making the sub-guideline WP:POLITICIAN an irrelevant argument. Sources noted by Collect above show notability beyond the local scope. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually see people use GNG when the person isn't notable in their field and they're stretching to include them. It usually comes across as sort of an end-run to include them. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is THE guideline. Any of the other subject specific guidelines are merely attempts to better quanitfy specifics regarding where reliable sources should be readily available regarding particular fields, but cannot be more or less restrictive than the GNG. I mean no end-run by it, only using our primary guideline for the determination of subject inclusion. Where WP:POLITICIAN conflicts with the GNG, the GNG wins. WP:NOTABILITY requires a person to be notable, not notable "within their field." Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know and I'm entitled to have a different view and express it. I feel that the GNG thing was probably a good idea when it started, but it has become outdated. When time and community effort is put into specialized criteria for various topics, they usually make sense. The notion that simply getting your name in the media makes you notable smacks of counting ghits. Having a public job or attempting to get a public job gets coverage, but it doesn't make you notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that a candidate will get coverage running for a political office, but the coverage itself does not make the candidate notable. The subject technically meets qualification through WP:GNG, but because the subject is a politician it only makes since to follow the more specific criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. The subject ran in a general election once and lost in a landslide in a heavily democratic district. There is nothing else notable about the subject other than loosing elections. There are hundreds of failed candidates for political office every two years and simply loosing an election, as the subject has twice, does not meet notability guidelines. As such, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If he meets WP:GNG, it is game, set and match. WP:POLITICIAN is an additional criterion. WP:POLITICIAN is prefaced with the statement that "should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable" (emphasis original). --Mkativerata (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how many people pass WP:POLITICIAN but fail GNG. It seems backwards. And it's not cut and dried. How much of the coverage is significant? How much is not simply campaign coverage? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It’s important to remember that Wikipedia guidelines are not set in stone, despite statement to the contrary above, and are indeed open to discussion and proper judgment. We need to be asking ourselves this question: “What has Mark Ellmore done that warrants a Wikipedia page?” Most people would agree that loosing elections does not justify a Wikipedia page, regardless of news coverage. It’s understandable that running for political office will generate media coverage, but this coverage does not guarantee notability of a politician for simply running and loosing. Referencing other non-elected politicians that have passed a prior AfD is not a valid argument and is irrelevant. Until the subject has more to offer than failed elections, this article is a solid delete. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely with that. We apply WP:GNG because it is an objective test. If the test is "What has Mark Ellmore done", that question is subjective and everyone will have different answers. Notability isn't a test of achievement, its a test of the extent to which the subject has been covered in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Biographies without notable achievements or position, yet qualifies under WP:GNG are always controversial. Hot Steam Valve (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns make the news. Newsworthy and notable are not interchangable. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep under the current use of WP:GNG. Personally, I think it can lead to over-coverage of local individuals, but it is accepted general biographical standard--as long as it doesn't fall under not news or not tabloid. Being a major party candidate for election to a national level office is sufficient to be part of the permanent historical record, so it passes. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (that's a joke) and the general (if questionable) Wikipedia consensus that sacrificial-lamb candidates in incumbent-safe districts are notable. Separately, if the Jews-for-Jesus controversy is being used to justify notability, then someone should at least put it in the article. THF (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per having a limited coverage all in connection with his massive failures to get elected. If he does technically meet the GNG, then I think IAR should be invoked in response - he has exactly no relevance to history, important events, or indeed anything. --Saalstin (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a pretty basic WP entry with room for improvement; and, with almost a dozen reference points, including press coverage; nothing out of the ordinary here in Wikipedia. What interests me more are the mechanisms behind ANY 3rd AfD nomination of a selected WP:BIO? That's, because of yet another 3rd AfD nomination which concerns me. The question is WHY this one article is renominated with so much community effort; while, over fifty two thousand BLP articles in Wikipedia are left without a citation (meaning, with possible sourcing difficulties and even less interest amongst our most active editors)? Personally, I think, the third attempt at having one particular GNG article deleted, has to do with the self-empowering nature of the "open source format" policies, more than their actual aim. -- Poeticbent talk 18:44, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Field (swimmer)[edit]

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

Possible hoax. Cannot find any reference to David Field winning a gold medal in 1996 Olympics. Article references are dead-linked. ttonyb (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Article appears a hoax. The article subject was listed as one of the medal winners on the relevant olympics page. However, this edit simply replaced Kurt Grote with the article subject with no edit summary to indicate why, especially as Grote's article indicates he did medal in the medley relay. In addition to this, the olympics page edit was made by an anonymous IP that has made no edits to any article other than David Field and the relevant Olympics page. This is pretty much the most amateurish hoax I have seen: completely unreferenced, dead external links clearly added as an afterthought and it would seem that 98.124.71.1 (the editor of the Olympics page) is a sock of Ginklem (the article creator). It could only have been worse if it had had "This is not a hoax" at the top. Fenix down (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Also possible speedy deletion, the blanking of the page by the sole author Ginklem post Afd nomination [23] could be seen as Criteria for speedy deletion G7. Author requests deletion.--blue520 07:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 04:16, 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) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Preneur Group[edit]

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

Promotional article about small company. The only refs I can find are either incidental mentions like [24] or straight PR or Wikipedia mirrors. DGG ( talk ) 04:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promotion. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article's sources and long list of external links are not reliable sources independent of this firm. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 8 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) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mogger[edit]

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

This is the sort of article that should be on UrbanDictionary, not Wikipedia. There are no citations explaining the significance of the word, nor are there any sources saying the word is in common usage. Quanticle (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unverified slang, not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just deleted Skogger from this same user; the basic content and meaning were the same. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Neologisms do not belong on Wikipedia. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO; non-notable neologism. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:50, 10 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) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Sparkes[edit]

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

The article has citations, but all the citations are from one website, which causes me to doubt the notability of the subject. After all, if the subject was so pre-eminent, he'd be mentioned in multiple sources, wouldn't he? Quanticle (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. no third party coverage of this individual [25]. LibStar (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am the subject of this article. I consider the content of this article is fair. I am happy for it to remain. Why would deletion be necessary? Sorry, I am unclear. I think I feel I am noteworthy in the context of a local historian. Other sources can be provided and added as references. I am regularly mentioned in the Sutton Guardian newspaper. I have been featured in an official council newsletter to residents. I have been used as a consultant by the local council's Planning dept. My recent book has been described as "excellent" by the head of London Borough of Sutton 's environment, heritage and libraries services.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the "excellent" comment is from Twitter, a clear breach of WP:RS, not to mention WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added various other verifiable sources as references for this article.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. in addition to LibStar's comments above, the article subject does not fulfil any of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC since research and work is limited only to a very small part of the suburbs of London. Furthermore, although failing the following guideline does not automatically mean non-notability, the self-published nature of the book and the extremely local subject matter means the book is non-notable and so therefore is the author, as it is this academic research that the article proposes brings the subject notability.

In addition, I would suggest that there is also a potential conflict of interest (beyond that which appears in the comment above with the article creator. Their only edits have been to the subject in question and two other articles (Carl Warburg and Warburg's Tincture) both specifically noted as the chosen area of expertise of this article's subject). I would go so far as to state that this article was created by a member of the Belmont Local History Group adding NPOV concerns too.

I am sure Mr Sparkes does much worthwhile work, but the fact remains that his field of expertise is restricted to the very local and does not reach the required standards of notability required by WP. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be advised that I did not self-publish the publication, 'Belmont: A Century Ago'. Although I wrote and did some design work, it was published by Ashworth Publications (a registered publisher in the UK) in association with, and under the auspices of the Belmont Local History group. I will correct this part of the article text--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, please note that I am not 'merely' a local historian. The subject of Warburg's Tincture and its creator, Dr Carl Warburg, are of national and international importance. Therefore, my research and published articles on this subject are likewise of national and international relevance and are noteworthy in the context of medical history. I am probably the foremost expert on the history regarding this important anti-malarial medicine and the life of Dr Carl Warburg. I consider myself primarily as a historian, not a local historian. Over the past decade the vast majority of my research has focussed on Dr Warburg's tincture rather than local history matters. I shall amend the article to reflect this.

Therefore, I think this article should remain. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain have invited me to write an article concerning Warburg's Tincture and Dr Warburg for their journal and museum archives.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern: My work on Warburg's Tincture and Dr Warburg extends far beyond the local aspects. The subject and the nature of my research on and interest in this subject is of the national and international scale Thus my work is not "restricted to the very local".--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding your clarifications above, I must firstly point out the obvious conflict of interest as you are both the article's subject, the author of the majority of references, purely as a warning as to the weight that may be attached to your comments by others. Regarding your more detailed additions to the article regarding your academice history, I think the following points need to be made re notability:

1. Wikipedia edits aren't acceptable as a means of establishing notability (for the same reasons that inter-wiki referencing is not acceptable), otherwise, logically, any editor would be notable. You should probably remove this from the article, though this is entirely up to you.

2. Regarding your works on Belmont. I do not use the word "local" in a derogatory sense, but your self-penned article acknowledges that these works are focused on a specific local area and have been published in the main by locally based publishers / groups. It is difficult to see how these articles, despite being numerous and no doubt a valuable record of the history of Belmont, would fulfill any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. the criteria I feel you come closest to fulfilling is number 1, but I don't think you meet that since your Belmont-related work is inherently local and it would be difficult to put forward a successful arguement that it had had a significant impact on the study of British or even London / South England history. Please note that in order to indicate this you will need to demonstrate coverage / discussion of your articles in other verifiable third party sources.

3. The work published by Ashworth Publications is this one I presume. With the greatest respect, I do not think that a 37 page book on a local area would be significant enough, even with the other articles you have published, to establish notability under WP:AUTHOR unless you can indicate using verifiable third party sources that it is a significant work and has been widely cited by your peers. I have been unable to find a web address for Ashworth Publishers and though this is not the be all and end all, it does raise questions over the significance of the publication from a wikipedia standpoint.

4. With regards to your work on Warburg and his tincture, I am afraid that your opinion that your work is of "national and international importance" (surely just international?!) is not relevant. I am certain there is much useful information on the subject in your papers, information that could usefully inform an article on Warburg or his Tincture, however, you need to again cite discussion of or reference to your papers in other verifiable third-party sources in order to assert your notability as an individual, the fact that you have written about a notable individual / item does not confer notability on yourself automatically. Given that your article indicates that you have only published four papers on the subject, it would be difficult ot justify your notability under WP:ACADEMIC since it would be difficult to indicate how this was considered significant without considerable third party references to your work.

5. Finally, I also note that your claim to published papers relating to Warburg is unreferenced and I was unable to locate an online copy, so in its current state this claim could not be used to justify notability anyway. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a number of guidelines are relevant here regarding Roland Sparkes self editting. WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:NOTRESUME and clearly WP:AUTOBIO. the use of twitter as a reference is clearly a breach of WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Re: point 2 by Fenix down, please note that the in questions article was not "self-penned" by me. It was added by another. I only made slight edits for accuracy and, as requested by thsi discussion article, added verifiable references.

Can I enquire or query why the Academic criteria is being applied. Does not this only apply to university professors, researchers and lecturers? Please note that I am not a professional academic in that sense, nor have I purported to be so.

In regard to notability, as the subject of the article clearly is not appropriate for me to decide or to explicitly debate. However, it appears that based on Wikipedia's notability criteria, it is probably my work on Warburg's Tincture and Dr Carl Warburg which is more likely to satisfy that criteria, rather than my local history work. Please note that my work on Warburg's Tincture etc is not based on the local history aspects but on the general and international.

--Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Academic criteria was suggested as merely one of the ways in which an individual such as yourself could assert their notability. I don't believe Wikipedia differentiates between professional and amateur academics, I believe that your work would be classed as academic and so it would be correct to consider the article under those criteria. The author criteria is another means. You do not have to fulfil criteria in both to be deemed notable, though you would have to fulfil at least one in one category.

I agree with you that you would be more likely to fulfil notability requirements based on your work on Warburg. However, you will need to show, not just that you have written papers, but that those papers are notable. In this instance, it would be easiest to do this by indicating with verifiable sources that they have been discussed or cited in other peer reviewed journals, or significant stand-alone works. I don't think that there is any doubt that you have written on a notable subject (though it would be very useful to see references for your published papers on Warburg in the article), in order for an individual to warrant their own article, one needs to show that their work is notable in itself, not just that they have written about a notable subject. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nothing has been shown to establish notability of this person. I do not believe WP:AUTOBIO has been violated as the article was not created by Mr. Sparkes, but certainly WP:COI has. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no hits showing notability in online searches. The article itself doesn't have references that establish notability outside of a very local context. What worries me most, though, is that the biographical information in what seems to be a BLP is totally unverified, and seems implausible. Are we to believe that Mr. Sparkes is over 130 years old? Perhaps he was born in 1976, and not 1876, but those are the kind of unverifiable biographical details that make this article unacceptable. -- Atama頭 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete clearly fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. N.B. WP:AUTO applies to any participation in editing an article about oneself, not just creation of such article. ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No serious claims to notability as an author or under WP:PROF. The work on Warburg seems to be that of a hobbyist, and published in articles in a local newspaper and on a local website. Supposing that the subject does write an article on it in a professional journal, one such article would not establish either as author or academic. The others in the local newspaper does not establish such notability either. The book on Belmont was praised only by those in the same town, and also does not establish notability either. It is not in any UK union catalog, nor in the British Library. This is an excellent demonstration of why we do not generally consider such sources as reliable for purposes of notability, for they often do not seem to show any editorial independence. . I am unwilling to argue for deleting an article due to a typo in a date, but I find it remarkable that an article in Wikipedia should claim notability for the subject partially on the basis of having written a few articles in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have to contradict you, the book 'Belmont: A Century Ago' is held by the British Library. I sent it to them! I believe legal deposit rules in the UK require it.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I suppose I should more precisely say that they have not cataloged it for their collection. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per all the notability issues raised. I've searched NewsBank (UK newspaper online archive) and found nothing more than very short articles in local press. Plaudits from local press are meaningless: has anyone ever seen a local paper give a negative review of a book by an author on its patch? A little Googling (hint: Facebook) suggests further COI in the article creation by E Clunie (talk · contribs). Related articles need looking at: Belmont, Sutton, for instance, has major hype for Roland Sparkes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have used a lot of the text from the proposed deleted article about me, and added it to my Wikipedia User Page, to provide information about my work. I trust that okay and not against Wikipedia guidelines??? (No doubt, someone will correct if this is wrong.) That is probably a more appropriate place. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that violates the userpage policy as it states that your userpage must be about you as a Wikipedian and any Wikipedia related activities. Referencing anything outside of Wikipedia would not conform, per item #7 (and possibly #8 as well, sorry. Please also see the notice I have placed on your talkpage re: your userpage content. I have included some info and a link or two that might assist you. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in your quoting of the userpage policy, but in practice we're actually pretty lax about what people put on their user pages. Editors can't put anything they want, but biographical information is permitted in most cases. (Detailed biographical info on a minor's user page would probably be removed, though, and a page that's heavily promotional might just be deleted.) Personally, I try to keep my user page strictly about info relevant to Wikipedia, but I think an author talking about his work is totally appropriate here. -- Atama頭 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article on Roland Sparkes with only good intentions. I am sorry if it is not consistent with certain Wikipedia rules.--E Clunie (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sweat it, we have a guideline that says not to bite new editors when they make mistakes, and you're not expected to be perfect from the start. I just hope this experience hasn't discouraged you from being interested in making future contributions to Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to. -- Atama頭 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —LibStar (talk) 12:41, 10 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. Thanks to Doomsdayer520 for his work on the article. More participation to ensure there's no COI problem would be welcome, but any further discussion can continue on the talk page. Chick Bowen 01:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polite Sleeper[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was previously deleted and then reviewed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 26, but was recreated before that debate concluded. It should get another full review. I am not certain this band meets the requirements of WP:Notability (music); that guideline suggests that a band's label should be established, and Sabotage seems to be, as far as I can tell, about two years old or so. Note that I am listing this here in my editorial capacity, not as part of the close of the DRV, if that matters. Chick Bowen 04:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the original version of the page and the author who recreated it. If I recreated it in a manner contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, it's because I'm a new editor and apparently didn't understand the deletion review process. I will reiterate the reasoning I gave during the first deletion review on why I believe the band meets notoriety criteria in WP:BAND. Note that the notability for a band states that only ONE of the following apply.
- Some notable reviews for their latest album are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and several others.
- Their latest album reached #177 on the U.S. national College Music Journal charts.
- All three of their albums were released on Sabotage Records, which has existed since 2001 and has released albums by Japanther, Team Robespierre, and Autistic Youth. Incidentally, I'm not sure how Chick Bowen determined that Sabotage is "about two years old or so", given that they did not include a citation. Mcurtes (talk) 04:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies for my mistake; that info was not at the other website. Incidentally, would you mind confirming whether you have a vested interest in the band? Our conflict of interest policy says, "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests." Chick Bowen 05:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've added a comment on the COI discussion for this page. Thank you. Mcurtes (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a WP:MUSIC guy, but the reviews seem to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the amount of reviews seems satisfying WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:MUSIC now. Joe Chill (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the reviews, record company, and college chart connections look pretty good. I will figure out a way to add references from the reviews to the article. In a somewhat related matter, the conflict of interest issue could probably be resolved by toning down the promo-style language, which I will also get to work on. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - I have completed some additions to the article and cleaned up some promo-style language. Hopefully this helps with the notability question, at least a little. There is reason for discussion about the Conflict of Interest issue - see the article's talk page. Progress is being made on these issues, if anyone else wants to continue the process of improving the article. The Orphan issue is still a reason for concern though, but that should remain outside of the AfD discussion. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had voted to delete in the original AfD nom, but with the additional sources provided, the group meets WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:25, 6 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) 20:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perspective (software)[edit]

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

Seems to be unnotable wiki software with few to no users, and no mentions in any online or offline publications. (Note that this is "Perspective" the wiki application, unrelated to "Perspective Software", which seems to be the name of a few different software companies.) Yaron K. (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's pretty hard to find anything on software with such a title. The article has only a couple of sentences that seem to contradict this faq which says that the open source version is no longer developed, but the commercial one hasn't been released either, even though it's scheduled for Q2 2009. No useful info is lost here, and the article should be recreated from scratch anyway if secondary sources are found. Pcap ping 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 4 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 main article —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"No más, no más" fight

"No más, no más" fight[edit]

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

There are no citations or details on the article. The significance of this boxing match is not given. Quanticle (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection? to either duran or leonard? --DarlingPigieonWomen (talk) 04:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and Redirect to Leonard-Duran II. MKolt now 04:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected but the quotation marks might create problems. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:47, 4 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Rich[edit]

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

Jessica Rich, better known as Jessica Rich, was a contestant on VH1's Real Chance of Love... I think she was known as "Rabbit".

That appears to be the only notability claim right now. I would merge this into the VH1 article, but in the event there are other things that make her notable that I missed, I'll bring it here. Shadowjams (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an actress, so fits WP:ONEEVENT. 04:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete: Fails WP:N, WP:BIO. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER; the VH1 appearance is close, but it's only 1 event, and other than that there doesn't seem to be significant 3rd party coverage to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:54, 10 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 deleted as unambiguous advertising. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EB animated[edit]

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

non notable video of unknown nature, possibly you-tube spam WuhWuzDat 03:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. Note to closing admin: The creator of this article also created articles for three episodes of this video series, all of which I redirected to the main article. If the consensus here is to delete, please G8 those while you're at it. Thanks. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire: clearly madeup, and of little encyclopedic value. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as nn, possible hoax show created by someone I just blocked for a username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 05:53, 4 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.

Amanda Simpson[edit]

The result was Keep -- withdrawn by nominator, reliable source found Dougie WII (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This story of a transsexual person named "Amanda Simpson" being nominated by President Obama has been floating around the Internet for a few days, yet no major reliable news service, paper or tv network seems to be reporting on it, just some questionable websites and blogs all derived from a single source. Dougie WII (talk) 03:08, 4 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) 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rammond[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO, unreferenced, zero Google News hits, no coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by creator.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any good sources for this. This looks like a vanity page. Why there is so much about where he took his GSCEs and A levels is beyond me. If there are some reliable sources added then this could be a keep, but as it stands this is a delete DRosin (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This subject did win verifiable awards, which could be checked with british.co.uk and britishinsurance.com. Would it be acceptable to contact them. It is probably noteworthy to cover a 7 year period of schooling but I agree it may look like vanity and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broco75 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All material in an article needs to be verifiable: can you supply verifiable sources from one of these sites? Google site search doesn't turn up a single hit for "Rammond" on either site. MuffledThud (talk) 10:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BritishInsurance.com/markrammond.html exists but has not been indexed by Google; Nationwide.co.uk/intheknow is defunct but in the Google cache. The link between Rammond and the awards is now clear. Have added what makes British Insurance noteworthy also. Still learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broco75 (talk • contribs) 10:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the sources given that actually mention Rammond are WP:PRIMARY sources: can you please supply WP:SECONDARY sources? Per WP:BIO, has he been interviewed by a relevant trade publication, or has he been the subject of published secondary source material by a WP:RELIABLE third party which is independent of Rammond, his company or partner companies? The secondary sources currently in the article all appear to discuss only Rammond's company or colleagues, so as it stands his notability has not yet been shown. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 21:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @228 · 04:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After going through all of the references listed in the article, they are either primary sourced or don't discuss the subject at all. None of the assertions of notability in the article can be sourced, and even if they could be, subject does not appear to be notable. gHits yield nothing beyond the normal web presence, gNews yields zero hits. Vulture19 (talk) 02:48, 4 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) 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal Records[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I get a lot of unrelated stories when I search for "Illegal Records", but I get three useful hits when I search for "Illegal Records" and "The Clash". See these results. This search also comes up with some hits, tantalizing glimpses of stuff hidden behind paywalls. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This search (which includes the name of the label's founder) provides the references the article needs. Even without those references, the fact of having issued several notable recordings by several notable musical groups would be enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. You're totally ignoring WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to I.R.S. Records. Notable enough to deserve a place in Wikipedia, but not quite enough for its own article. Reference: [26]. (Same goes for Faulty Products and Deptford Fun City Records.) Location (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an important label, the information is easily verified and it's better in its own article rather than trying to merge it somewhere else.--Michig (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge, as there is no evidence of notability for this record label. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Whilst it needs a proper rewrite, a quick look at its releases [27], coupled with the fact that its founder is a notable person, suggests notability. My recommendation would be to leave it as a rewritten stub, I'm fairly sure there will be offline references as this company was operating before the advent of the internet. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Label's influence in early days of punk is substantial, as are the releases made over its history. Intuitively, i'm not certain that WP:CORP is an exact match here, as it is very difficult to separate the artists and releases of a label from the label itself. I guess I would use Sun Records as an example (not as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:WAX!)- there is nothing particularly noteworthy about the business aspect of Sun, but they are a notable entity based on their artists and releases. In a way, a label is like a creative entity who make a significant (and noteworthy) contribution to creative works. Vulture19 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Released the Police's first single, run by Miles Copeland heavily enfluenced the pop-punk and college radio of the 80's. I could see a merge with I.R.S. Records, but a rewrite would be better. Web Warlock (talk) 14:02, 5 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 Parashu. However, consensus is also that this title is not correct, and Farasa would be the right alternate term. Therefore, I'm moving this to Farasa and deleting this title to perform the merge. -SpacemanSpiff 01:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farasa/Parashu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Farasa/Parashu

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

Notability not established - should be merged with battle axe. jheiv (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete name and merge content: The correct name is Parashu, article exists. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and address naming and merger considerations as appropriate. A merger doesn't require AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that there is no need to go to AFD to discuss mergers and moves, but since we're here... Farasa would be a reasonable redirect to Parashu, which seems to cover the material in this article. This term isn't a likely redirect, so no need to keep it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - make sure the history is retained. LadyofShalott 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't seem to be any useful or sourced content in the article to be merged, and it is not a likely search term. The article Parashu can be expanded independently, and redirects from any verifiable alternate transliterations created as and when needed. Abecedare (talk) 03:53, 3 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) 01:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, although it does too need a source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:40, 4 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. coverage appears insufficient Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Taylor[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is the nominated and past candidate for a major political party in a current election and is a noted community activist. Plenty of GHits detailing political candidacy. --99.231.163.135 (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC) — 99.231.163.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Still fails WP:POLITICIAN. The article lacks references that meet the criteria in WP:RS. I suggest you add the references you refer to to the article. ttonyb (talk) 07:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being a nominated political candidate is not a criterion of notability on Wikipedia; holding political office is. A candidate who is already notable under other standards (e.g. a notable writer, journalist or athlete who is also a candidate) may have an article in spite of that, but if the candidacy is their primary claim of notability, then no. Wikipedia is not a campaign site. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing enough secondary source coverage to retain, [28], [29]. Cirt (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Only one, in a local student newspaper, is about her. The rest are only very brief mentions of her name as a candidate. Hardly mentions of substance or depth. ttonyb (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Other coverage of candidacy [30], [31] --99.231.163.135 (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)— 99.231.163.135 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Still lacks multiple substantial articles of coverage. ttonyb (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage has to be about her. Not just coverage of the general election which briefly mentions her; substantial coverage specifically of her. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 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) 00:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She does not merit an article solely for being an electoral candidate, and she's not strongly notable otherwise. There are few to no WP:RS to demonstrate notability; with the exception of a still-quite-brief profile in the Ryerson University student newspaper, the sources here are not about her, but passing mentions of her in coverage of the 2007 election — and if the Ryerson piece is the only one that's about her specifically, then the expectation of substantial coverage still hasn't been met. And as for the notion that she's a current candidate, all coverage in reliable sources of the upcoming Toronto Centre by-election states that "the Ontario Progressive Conservatives have not yet had a candidate step forward." So while I suppose it's still possible that Taylor might step up in time for the nomination meeting, as of right now she isn't a current electoral candidate. As if that mattered anyway, given that candidates don't qualify for articles just on the basis of their candidacy. And as it turns out, the source which was being cited to support the statement that she is the party's candidate in the by-election, in fact, only supported the existence of the by-election, and didn't mention Ms. Taylor at all. And by the way, I live in Toronto Centre. Bearcat (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election. Major party candidate in a high-profile by-election. Article needs to be edited for POV and needs citations but shouldn't be deleted. Fred the happy man (talk) 14:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not see how this is a major election. She still appears to fail WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Because this is a by-election and was precipitated by the Deputy Premier's candidacy for the city's mayoralty, it is the subject of far more media coverage than it would ordinarily receive in a general election. For this reason, it is an election of great interest and voters ought to have access to information on those individuals seeking to win the seat. --99.231.163.135 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's also taking place in downtown Toronto and will therefore generate a lot of media coverage in four metropolitan daily newspapers and numerous other media outlets.Fred the happy man (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sounds like crystal balling. ttonyb (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a major party candidate in an election, general or by-election regardless, isn't sufficient notability for inclusion. Winning the election is. ~~And you're missing the fact that she isn't a major party candidate in an upcoming by-election; the party hasn't chosen its candidate yet.~~ Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. Please consult the article. The Progressive Conservative party has announced her as its candidate. ^[1] --99.231.163.135 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but the part about how being a major party candidate in an election isn't sufficient notability for inclusion still stands. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and unless she wins the 4 February 2010 election, Merge with Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election on 6 February 2010 (wait at least a day after the election to merge, as people might still be looking for this information a day or two later). In the most recent, previous by-election, what I just described is in fact what the consensus did: keep and then merge the losing candidates into the 2007 party articles. I am suggesting keeping this article out of fairness to the candidate, not for its content.--Abebenjoe (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Even if she wins, how does this meet the criteria in WP:POLITICIAN? ttonyb (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Canada Politics group, we deem elected officials notable.--Abebenjoe (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – All? ttonyb (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Per WP:POLITICIAN, all people duly elected to a national or state/provincial legislature are sufficiently notable for inclusion, with no exceptions, but not at the county or city level. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abebenjoe, you're missing a detail: the article claimed that she's the PC candidate in the byelection, but as of right now she isn't. And even if she were, people don't qualify for articles solely on the basis of being candidates for political office. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She's a candidate for the Tory nomination[32] - the only candidate - and the nomination meeting will occur next Tuesday. Should we wait until then before deciding whether or not to delete/merge? Fred the happy man (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa; as recently as just a few hours ago, media coverage of the by-election was still saying that nobody had stepped forward to contest the PC nomination yet, and the timestamp on that article is 4:30 p.m. (i.e. 83 minutes ago). But I digress. Even if she wins the nomination, being a candidate in an election doesn't, in and of itself, make a person notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Electoral candidates only qualify for articles if they (a) win on election day, (b) were already notable enough for an article even before they were candidates, or (c) for either good or bad reasons, garner not just passing mentions in by-election coverage, but substantial coverage that's specifically about them. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to specify politicians that win a higher elected office such as an MP or MPP/MLA/MNA. Municipal politicians are not automatically notable, except maybe in a major media market like Toronto, Halifax, Calgary, Edmonton, Montreal, Vancouver, etc.--Abebenjoe (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.--94.182.84.165 (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)— 94.182.84.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN: being a candidate is not enough for notability; does not meet WP:N (significant coverage). -M.Nelson (talk) 02:41, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Bevin[edit]

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

The primary source of this article has ceased to exist, and no other sources appear to be verifiable to Wikipedia's standards. --Lholden (talk) 23:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Establishing a low polling political party is of a little notability but insufficient for an article about him. Some info about him could be incorporated into the The Republic of New Zealand Party article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. The nominator removed a link to the profile on Bevin at the party's website. I found an archived copy of that page at http://www.archive.org and added the archived copy to the article. Since much of the coverage of Bevin is for "men's rights" advocacy rather than party work, I think a separate article is warranted. I do not think it would be enough to mention him in the article about the party. He was notable as a party leader, and once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed the link as it was dead, and nominated the article as I couldn't find an archived copy of the information. --Lholden (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep, I'm seeing enough secondary source coverage to keep this article. Cirt (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* This issue is not whether there is enough secondary source coverage, but whether there's enoguh actually cited in the article, which to my eye there isn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2009 (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) 00:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into The Republic of New Zealand Party. Insufficient evidence of notability, but relevant to his party. MikeHobday (talk) 19:04, 6 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. AfD, as often said, is not for cleanup. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geibeltbad Pirna[edit]

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

Written like an add, contains orignal research, does not cite references, & fails WP:Plot guideline MWOAP (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This does not read as a unrecoverable article. It needs some sources but it is factual and some of the overly detailed information (such as prices) can be easily trimmed. Copyright of prose may have been more of an issue if chunks are cut and paste from the original website. I suggest this is raised for urgent recovery at WP:WikiProject Swimming.—Ash (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Written like an ad" can be improved upon; "Original research"? Which part does this refer to, as I'm not seeing that. "Not citing references" can be sorted out with a bit of searching. For example, it is one of 21 examples used in "Castillo, Encarna (2005). Spa & health club design. Design focus. teNeues. pp. 44–51. ISBN 9783832790745. Retrieved 4 January 2010. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" (although most of those pages are photos of the place, there is only a short paragraph of text — but the examples in the book are from around the world), plus a couple of other references at Google Books. I assume that your reference to WP:PLOT is about item 3 Excessive listing of statistics: The statistics here are in the form of prose, and look ok, albeit needing a bit of tidying up. AfD is not for cleanup, which is what I feel that this article needs -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs trimming, but subject of article appears to be notable. Time would be better spent cleaning up the article. Less time, nicer results. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:01, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kuwait National Assembly No-Confidence Votes[edit]

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

Motions of no confidence may be notable (1979 vote of no confidence against the government of James Callaghan; 1892 vote of no confidence against the government of the Marquess of Salisbury; etc.), but the fact that these motions were a) largely unsuccessful, or not even motions per se b) never against a Prime Minister and c) not covered in-depth by independent sources, leads me to propose deletion. We do record notable activities of parliaments, but do not compile, directory-like, the minutiae of their proceedings. Biruitorul ^Talk 02:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge sourced, notable votes to National_Assembly_of_Kuwait#Significant_events. If later organic and sourced growth calls for a separate article then so be it. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability, of course, is not tantamount to notability. We could start scouring Hansard or the Congressional Record and find votes being taken on every couple of pages; those too would be "sourced". Notability requires "significant coverage", something received neither by the topic as a whole nor by individual votes. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - For a subject with a dedicated article, yes. For individual components of articles they only need be sourced and relevant to the greater subject at hand. Hence my advocating merging the relevant, sourced votes to the parent article. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is quite notable stuff in the context of Kuwaiti politics. I've read about some of these in the past, and I follow Kuwaiti politics only in passing. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2009 (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, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While not as bad as I expected, this is really just a list of events. Important ones should be mentioned in the context of larger events, or even have their own articles. But no need to list them all together. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't like the setup of the article-- there are no results of an actual vote-- the topic of a legislature voting for an investigation of a member of the executive or judicial branch is notable. I don't see this as much different than a list of cabinet or high court nominees who failed confirmation (as an example in category form, see Category:Rejected nominees to the United States Supreme Court. I don't agree with the idea of creating separate articles for each of these persons as an alternative to having a single article. Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 4 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vahram Sahakian[edit]

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

Additional findsources:

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

IMDB page does not support notability Eeekster (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Evidently very notable. He's also been involved in disputes over Jehovah's Wintnesses apparently "Jehovah’s witnesses say that violence, in particular, began when during one TV program writer Vahram Sahakyan called on people to beat with rolling-pins sectarians knocking at their doors. On his website (www.vraert.com) Sahakyan writes: “Slam the doors in front of sectarians so violently that they roll down from the wave of the blow.” " [33]. He's also quoted and noted in many other sources outside of Armenia [34]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dramatist and director notable in Armenia. Okay. Gonna be tough to find his notability in United States press coverage. And likely just as difficult to find United States reviews of his Armenian film projects and reviews. And since Google does (yet) not translate Armenian, I'll wait for an Armenian Wikipedia to translate [35], [36], [37], and [38]... which even not being able to read them, the text does indeed seem in depth, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. Then of course, it'd be nice to get a translation of the hy.wikipedia.org article on the individual. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:34, 29 December 2009 (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) 01:29, 4 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) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Integrated Composite Tail Cone (ADVITAC)[edit]

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

The article is a advertisement obviously. And probably a hoax. MisterWiki talk contribs 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. --MisterWiki talk contribs 19:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, FWIW, I don't think it's a hoax. Here's an article about it, and it seems like a EU-style project. I'm not !voting one way or the other yet, however. tedder (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not enough important. --MisterWiki talk contribs 19:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is one of a fair number of EU sponsored research projects; there's been offsite advice about how everyone involved in them can create a Wikipedia page for each, without regard to whether they are notable or not.[39] Most of these are crystal ball material, explaining what each of them hopes to achieve. We all know about hope, unfortunately. This one sounds more concrete and interesting than some of the others, but as far as I can tell it's still rather pie in the sky at this point. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (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, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is basically crystal ball gazing and sounds like part of a state sponsored, coordinated effort to vandalize Wikipedia. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 11:39, 4 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 Rihanna#Products and endorsements. No prejudice against recreation when more reliable sources become available. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna: The Last Girl on Earth[edit]

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

Announced biography that, at this point, is failing the notability guideline, is based entirely on unreliable sourcing, and from a check there are still not reliable sources available that have picked this up or can even confirm it. Lots of blogs, amateur news at examiner.com, celebrity "news" at celebuzz.com or radaronline.com.

This may be real. If it is, it will in all likelihood become notable. At this point, it very much fails WP:V. Unless that changes, it has to be deleted. Amalthea 01:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until someone other than blogs and gossip rags confirm it. - eo (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL based on blogs and fan-fluff. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article in question is based on speculation from unreliable sources ~ DC (Talk|Edits) 05:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Confirmed by the book's publisher, Rizzoli, and Amazon.com - see references. XL XR2 (talk) 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on it, I'm of course much happier with the current state of the article. However, we really only know that the existance of the book has been confirmed by the publisher, but nothing more. The history section doesn't cover the book, and even the fact that it's a photo book covering Henwood's work with Rihanna is only from an unreliable source. I tried searching for anything new on it, but had no luck.
I have added the sourced parts back to Rihanna, but still believe that this topic should only be a redirect to Rihanna#Products and endorsements for now since it lacks verifiable content and fails community consensus on notability of books, at this point. Amalthea 12:02, 7 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. merge isnt an option for unsourced material so the valid policy based votes are for deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Agnes Hospital (fiction)[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "set" for a "reality show" is completely unnotable; I don't even remember this show three years after its last episode. I'm surprised this one exists and would not ask for redirection because of it's lack of notability. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Apparently this location was used in only one episode of a reality television series. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fairfield State Hospital which has been used as a location for several other productions of various sorts but which does not mention this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into MTV's Fear. A stubby article about a not independently notable set. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to MTV's Fear. So far, this has too little distinct info to be worthy of a separate article. Since it is possible sources can be found, it is worth retaining the edit history, and it can be unmerged if more info and sources are found. Sebwite (talk) 18:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is so sub-notable it doesn't even warrant a redirect. JBsupreme (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely un-noteworthy. Yaron K. (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say "completely" unnoteworthy is a little to strong in this case (see WP:Just not notable). This does pertain to a very notable subject. Therefore, I do believe a redirect (retaining edit history) is a fair compromise. Sebwite (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that logic - an article about a piece of gum chewed by Pope John Paul II also "pertains" to a very notable subject, but it's still completely un-noteworthy in itself. Yaron K. (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a redirect for now, but under #5 of WP:R#KEEP, a redirect is kept if someone finds it useful, even if that is not yourself. This is not a redirect for now, but I am proposing it be such. Sebwite (talk) 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you actually know of someone for whom this redirect would be useful in helping to find the article for MTV's Fear, or are you just speculating? Yaron K. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Merge to Fairfield State Hospital. Warrah (talk) 01:59, 5 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orland Kurtenblog[edit]

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

I find a number of results, which are really just blog posts and mentions of the blog's namesake. The only notability claim appears to be another blogger's naming of this one as one of his tops - no official award. Therefore no indication it meets Web. I earlier declined speedy as I didn't and still don't think it's an A7 StarM 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Star Mississippi's assertion that this fails WP:WEB. Specifically, criterion #1 isn't met, as detailed above; criterion #2 isn't met, as the award they received is not "a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"; and criterion #3 does not appear to be met, at least not so far as I can tell. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article basically says "This blog exists". nn Reso lute 02:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Much, as a hockey fanatic of the era, I enjoy seeing Orland Kurtenbach's name memorialized, I can't see what criteria of WP:WEB this site meets. Ravenswing 03:18, 4 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. The keep !votes, based on mentions of this phrase in Scholar, on the one good source, and on the theory author's academic status, are decisively outweighed by the deletes based on the absence of the significant independent comment on this theory which would be required for notability. If it is picked up and discussed by others, there may be scope for an article in the future. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective universe[edit]

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

Fails the inclusion criteria outlined at WP:FRINGE because there are not third-party independent sources which have noticed this idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I'm not sure about it being a fringe theory (it has been published in at least one accademic journal, and appears to have won a contest in another) however I do wonder about notability and the possibility to write an article based on multiple third party sources. It would seem the only sources available right now are Song's own, which is no good for an encyclopedia article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 496 mentions of the phrase on Google scholar, there is obviously enough material to write an article. — goethean ॐ 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of those seem to be relevant to the subject of this article, which is a particular notion called "subjective universe". For instance, the article entitled Jung, Hegel, and the Subjective Universe pretty obviously has nothing to do with the subject of this article. The relevant google scholar search for this AfD would be this one, which gives no independent sources at all. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article seems to have at least one good source. It is impossible for me to judge the importance or not of this theory. Better to keep for those who are interested. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Both sources are written by the originator of the theory. The "one good source" is presumably the one on the halting problem that was published in a real journal, but does not address the subject of this article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is borderline, because the paper is new and hasn't picked up much attention (at least not yet); however, Daegene Song is a legitimately published researcher, and it seems that the intent of WP:FRINGE is to prevent amateur yahoos like myself from writing articles about our own crazy theories, not Oxford Ph.D's. Plus, his idea is incredibly interesting and even potentially revolutionary. So in this case I say let it slide.... -Jordgette (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, that is the purpose of WP:OR. WP:FRINGE theories are often crazy theories published by people with some credentials. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. See my above comments to all of the "Keep" !votes above. This article has no independent sources published in reliable sources that directly address the subject (see books, scholar, news). Reliable third-party coverage is needed, per WP:FRINGE:

In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

This requirement is clearly not met. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two sources by', not about the subject. Completely lacking reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 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 merge to Emergency!. No prejudice against keeping if independent notability can be shown. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rampart General Hospital[edit]

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

Delete this fictional location that fails the WP:GNG with a lack of multiple, independent WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Dalejenkins. Fences&Windows 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination seems to be part of a deletion spree being made hastily as a spinoff of another AFD. This seems improper as, by nominating numerous similar articles together, but not as a group, the action tends to overload our system. The proper deletion process is not being followed - no discussion at the article, no effort to find sources, no effort to consider alternatives to deletion. Good sources for this topic do exist and I have added one to the article but AFD is not cleanup and our volunteer good will and efforts should not be abused in this way. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Emergency!. There's not enough material here to justify a separate article, and the fictional hospital has no independent notability. Colonel Warden's wikilawyering on behalf of these articles is beside the point; if someone says, "well, there's all these other articles," it's only to be expected that they are going to be looked over. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Emergency!. Fails notability on its own due to a lack of multiple reliable and independentn sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Emergency!. Fictional hospitals don't need their own articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:06, 6 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith (band)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article also exists on the Spanish Wikipedia: es:Lilith_(banda). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Delete, they're well past the usual "garage band" category of article we get, but I don't think they quite meet WP:MUSIC yet. Plenty of mentions on Google, but nothing in reliable sources that I can find. Will be willing to retract if something can be found in Spanish though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:00, 1 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) 00:22, 4 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 Charles Darwin. feel free to merge any sourced material from the history Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin200[edit]

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

Short article which describes an event which has been and gone. The article only talks about what will be, but has no information on what happened during the events and is therefore of no lasting significance. Suggest any salvageable content is merged into Charles Darwin. Simple Bob (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect – To Charles Darwin. Note to nominator, this could have been accomplished by just Redirecting to the Darwin piece. Only if there was a vigorous opposition to the redirect, should it have been brought here. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Charles Darwin. Although the article appears to be out of date, presumably the event came, was celebrated, and went. I'm not sure of whether this meets WP:EVENT – WP:PERSISTENCE and WP:EFFECT are failed, but a case could be made at least for WP:GEOSCOPE – but I don't think it would be particularly controversial to merge and redirect. Definitely worth a mention in the main article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm sure this event got some press coverage so a good updated article could be written. Don't merge People who go to Darwin's article are looking for information on him, not something that happened 200 years later. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, Charles Darwin already includes a section titled "Commemoration," with an entire subsection titled "Darwin 2009 commemorations." If you think that topic doesn't belong in the article, you should raise the issue at Talk:Charles Darwin, not in this AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will check that out. Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I will change my vote to Merge and split.Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:59, 5 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) 03:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoreEL Technologies[edit]

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

Small company that lacks notability. Sources all appear to be either the company's website or press releases. Was speedy deleted earlier under G11. Eeekster (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This is a technology company with businesses spread across Design Services and Product Development, Distribution and Training. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a technology company previously listed in wikipedia under the page heading H.264/MPEG-4 AVC products and implementations. The company has a H.264 Decoder IP core and all other companies listed on this page have a brief writeup on their products. It might be a good idea to provide details about this company as well since till a new page was started there was no information relating to it from the list of h.264 Decoders page. i am also the primary contributor for the article and am new to the rules of editing. Request you to kindly reconsider the nomination for deletionN.neeharika (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 4 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) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Berkow[edit]

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

Question notability and relevance. Seems to be an autobiographical article with very debatable value. Berkow also calls her husband's band "acclaimed" with no verifiable source. Clovehitch (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding significant coverage either (this pretty much sums up the only possible claim to notability though). This actress would meet WP:BIO if she was one of the stars of It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia; however, she was dropped before the show ever aired. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable film/TV roles yet. Yaron K. (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Some roles, but not over the threshold. Close though Vartanza (talk) 20:36, 4 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. Tone 19:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert G. Allen (author)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Entry is an advertisement and does not fulfill any purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadedtree (talk • contribs) 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm good-faith completing this incomplete nomination. It will be listed on the date seen in my signature, not the date the incomplete AFD was posted. tedder (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is an important author in the real estate investing community, although probably not one of the best. John Reed's criticism of Robert Allen. I should note that I own several of Allen's books, including at least one not mentioned in the article. Tangurena (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An advertisement? The tone is not promotional. Does not fulfill any purpose? The purpose is to provide encyclopedic coverage of a prominent author. AfD is not for cleanup. Notability concerns are not raised, but because they were in the first AfD: The subject of this article meets WP:BIO easily; as a matter of fact, he has an entry at Gale Contemporary Authors. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many mentions in NYT (including Best Seller lists [40] ) . Notable in spades. Collect (talk) 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should have been speedy keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:47, 4 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SpyFu[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. References given appear to be press releases (that do not count as reliable sources) or merely trivial coverage or mentions, which do not confer notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more in depth sources to the article. With regards to traffic, SpyFu ranks 2986, 4311, and 6352 on Alexa, Compete, and Quantcast resp. SpyFu also has 305k, 110k, and 5M indexed pages on Google, Bing, and Yahoo resp according to the web rank Firefox toolbar. Compare this to Adgooroo, which offers similar services and has an article: Alexa 45k, Compete 51k, Quantcast 209k; Google 160k, Bing 3.5k, Yahoo 1k. CrizCraig (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those confer notability. Having an Alexa ranking or pages indexed by search engines only indicates Search engine optimization or search engine marketing (SEM), not notability. Notablility is established by being subject to "Significant coverage" by reliable, secondary sources independent of the subject. --Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google Books search link spoon-fed above finds far more than enough reliable sources to confer notability. I know this isn't really relevant to the discussion, but I must point out that the nominator, who seems to consider him/herself to be spamfighter general, has the intensely annoying habit of indiscrimately underlining, italicising and bolding words, which makes the nomination itself read like the sort of spam that we got years ago before the spammers realised that such formatting detracts from the message. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 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) 03:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Drew[edit]

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

Unreferenced article on a voice actor who's done the voices for about a 1/2 dozen anime shows. No book mentions, awards, news articles, scholarly mentions, things named after him—that I can find. Does not seem to be a leader in the field. I cannot see that he has attracted sufficient attention to meet the basic biographical notability standards. Peripitus (Talk) 08:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete "weak" due to leading voice roles in two significant productions, thus having some notability. But the fact is US anime voice actors just don't get the sort of media attention that their Japanese counterparts do, thus making this unlikely to ever be expanded past the (short) list of roles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:42, 21 December 2009 (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) 00:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles require credible sources, especially biographies. As it seems there are none to be found, delete. Jennifer500 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jennifer. Alio The Fool 18:28, 5 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MainType[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) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage anywhere. Yaron K. (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:N. South Bay (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best I could find was this [41] and a couple other download blurbs, but nothing that I would consider to be significant coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not appear to satisfy notability guidelines due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:45, 10 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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gus Wickie[edit]

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

This page known as Gus Wickie does not meet Wiki notability requirements. It is just a stub and does not deserve to be in this site. If this page is going to be kept, the page must be extended and must have sources. IMDB does not count. The birth-death dates may be wrong, but the page should be deleted anyway. StevenMario (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable performer in cartoon history. A quick search turned up acceptable references, which have been added to the article. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - he may not be so notable, but he is a cult figure, but still, his brith and death date are unsourced.—Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenMario (talk • contribs)

Comment - I've struck through your delete vote, since that's taken as read from your nomination for deletion - you don't get to vote twice. As to his date of death, the year is sourced, just not the specific day. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search of google books also brings him up as the first voice of Bluto in several sources (none added any additional information that I could see, so I didn't add them as references). I did add him to Category: Year of birth unknown, since that fact is currently, well, not known. Wasn't sure how to address that in the body of the article., so left it as it was. Will check some dead trees versions and see if the answer can be rooted out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Some jerk on the Internet (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Recognizable voice of an iconic character. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Minor voice actor, but the article passes WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to satisfy WP:ENT; the nominator admits that he apparently has a "cult following," which meets point 2 of WP:ENT. As others have mentioned, appears to have enough coverage. Cocytus [»talk«] 19:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced and and subject meets notability guidelines. The subject's birth and death dates not being listed is irrelevant, there are more notable subjects than this where that information is unknown. Edward321 (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.