The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Daywalker. as per nominator and consensus (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daywalkers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete as non-notable term, author removed PROD and a PROD2. Article appears to be about a term used in Marvel comic and a South Park episode. Brambleclawx 23:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Daywalker. Brambleclawx 17:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's a term used in vampire fiction to describe vampires that go out in daylight without protection; South Park was being satirical in its usage of the term. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Explain term in an article on vampires or vampire terms.Steve Dufour (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Daywalker. 92.1.90.14 (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Daywalker. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Daywalker, as suggested. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to existing dab page at Daywalker no need for separate article at plural. PamD (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as a plural of Daywalker. Airplaneman ✈ 15:06, 6 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostly Talk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The notability of this internet talk show was in doubt in the last two AfDs, but now that it is in "indefinite hiatus", the likelihood that we can get this article to be encyclopedic is dubious at best. Self-published websites are our only references and independent notice from people outside the niche-field of paranormal speculation is not forthcoming. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although Coast to Coast AM comes close to being a reliable source, at least for the existance of a radio show internet talk show, that is not enough to establish notability. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons I gave in the 2nd AfD. Deor (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of in-depth independent coverage in decent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The authors claim they have added reliable sources, but all of the six external links point to websites regarding shows that the producers of the show have appeared on - one doesn't even have anything on the page, reading "SCHEDULE TO BE POSTED SOON". The only other source seems to be a very narrowly-aimed newsletter. I hardly think these are reliable sources, as is stated by a major contributor in the second AfD."Hello, we have added reliable sources to the "External links" section of the Ghostly Talk article." he says. Also, I am suspicious that the article was mainly created by people who are associated with the podcast, as words like "we" suggest. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - These guys apparently never even made an impact in the niche pop culture they were catering to. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:13, 5 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1S1K (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I found zero reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if sources were provided it would just be a slogan. Mention in sniper, at most. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It doesn't take long to see what this is actually about. The article's premise is that it stands for "One shot, one kill" (which redirects to sniper) and (by the way), it's also a prefix used by gaming clans, and (by the way), "One of these clans 1S1K CLAN [1] was started in 2004 and is still in existence today with several of its core members from the original clan in '04:" (1S1K-names of core members listed, and [1] being the link to the 1S1K CLAN website. Like Joe, I can't find any notability for the abbreviation. It's fairly clear to me that it's not used by snipers [1], except for the pretend kind. Mandsford 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article claims to regard a popular gaming phrase, however all that Google turns up is several fan pages of a gaming clan, rather than about the phrase. The article then only seems to list a number of people who're in a gaming clan - I don't think that's particularly encyclopedic. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:06, 5 June 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. I'm convinced of notability. Especially because of the Honored Member section. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Dapcevich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this mayor. The notability guidelines for politicians says "Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." The key word is likely. It doesn't say always. Joe Chill (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - Five reliable sources have been provided to the article showing this individual was the mayor of Sitka. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a mayor doesn't equal automatic notability. All of the sources are local news. I'm not saying that local news can't show notability, I'm saying that every single politician gets local news. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In all good faith, it meaning the citations get better. I'd recommend going with the close as I just doing the first page of Google ghits and saving the best for last. However the next citation will be pretty good as it's a US mayors' Kyoto accord. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:50, 4 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essam Hendawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Alleged to have been a member of a notable organisation. That's not just WP:NOTINHERITED, it's WP:NOTALLEGEDINHERITED. Nothing in the article suggests this person is notable. Mkativerata (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication this person is notable. nableezy - 16:25, 7 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nabeel al-Bora'i (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Alleged to have been a member of a notable organisation. And he owned a shop. That's not notable. Mkativerata (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete KITTENS alert. Back in April, somebody thought it would be a good idea to write lots of little articles [2], many of which say that someone is an "alleged" member of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and all these allegations are being made on people in the created Template:Al-Jihad. Notwithstanding the obvious WP:BLP concerns, these all seem to be sourced to the same 2004 book (El-Zayyat, Montasser, "The Road to al-Qaeda", 2004. tr. by Ahmed Fakry) that can't be verified, and there's no other indication of individual notability. Not sure how many articles we have about people who are "allegedly" members of a group that has been labelled as terrorists, but I see all sorts of problem. Mandsford 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no indication this person is notable. I am an alleged member of the Communist Party, I am not a notable person. nableezy - 16:25, 7 June 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. JForget 22:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Moffet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Otherwise non-notable individual "notable" only for his death. WP:BIO1E clearly covers this. Mkativerata (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose His death has received significant press coverage, and it has raised some political questions e.g. has the UVF fully disarmed as it has claimed, and what about Dawn Purvis? PatGallacher (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but is Moffet notable? All of that information can be included in other articles, eg the articles on the UVF and Dawn Purvis. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:BIO. See WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BIO1E. Edison (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very pointless, one-hit wonder material and is similar to Elizabeth Lambert for soccer Talladega87 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:SINGLEEVENT ... although "one-hit wonder" might have been better expressed! WWGB (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per WP:SINGLEEVENT. However, I would be happy to see an article regarding the shooting, rather than the victim. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 08:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sad, but Wikipedia is not a news source. Might be worth a mention in any article that covers post-Good Friday violence. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notable only for being killed. Manormadman (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Is only notable for being killed. Joe Chill (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (pending better arguments to the contrary) or rename to Murder of Bobby Moffet (as per suggestion by WackyWace ^{talk to me, people}). I don't deny Moffet became notable for being killed. However Murder of Robert McCartney and Brendan Burke have shown that that is not a disqualifier. The Belfast Telegraph reported extensively on Moffet's death, so evidently that occurrence has some importance, at least, in loyalist circles in Belfast. Otherwise please explain how Burke and McCartney disambiguate from Moffet in this regard. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comparing one article to another is generally a bad way of proving notability on Wikipedia. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. However, to look at the two examples you picked, one person's murder made the national news, and the other person had a good claim to notability before his death. That doesn't completely preclude the notability of a murder that only receives local coverage, but that would be the exception rather than the rule. See Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not a notable person - merely a footsoldier in a paramilitary organisation and killed by its leadership. Is every paramilitary/ex-paramilitary in N. Ireland going to have their own page? And I beleive his name was "Moffett". Billsmith60 (talk) 19:46, 10 June 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 WP:SNOW (a non-admin close). However whatever (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)]][reply]

Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

If this article is allowed to stay, what about the countless other no-hitters that ended up one-hitters due to an umpire or official scorer? Had Johnny Vander Meer not been the victim of a questionable call, he would have had three consecutive no-hitters, to give one example. Tsutarja494, the Grass Snake Editor (talk | contribs) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the event has achieved significant coverage, particularly outside of the sports world. It's not unusual for a sports controversy or a notable play to have its own article. For an event like this, it has been discussed in many different contexts - the historic possibilities of the perfect game, the implications for instant replay, and the sportsmanship involved. The information needed to sufficiently cover this event would probably be too much to include in either Jim Joyce's or Armando Galarraga's article, so I support there being a separate article to cover the subject. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Instant Lore - This should stay because it has become an instant MLB lore and will be discussed for a long time, I don't want this to end up like the 4th and 2, which is no longer had it's own artictle, eventhough it had effects on the Patriots season. Final answer, should stay permanet. Talladega87 (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The game has received national media attention and calls from politicians to overturn the ruling. [3] The article is well sourced and encyclopedic. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This event is unique and different from other near-perfect games in the way that it ended, with the questionable call at the base. Just about every other game in which the pitcher got the first 26 outs has ended as either a perfect game or with a clean hit (Maybe Milt Pappas' game could be an exception, but an article could be made on that game too). I agree with Y2kcrazyjoker4 in that the game is notable based on the implications of possibly expanding instant replay. Frank Anchor^Talk 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep With the unique circumstances of this game, it is more notable than the other two perfect games that occurred this year. I don't think this article opens the door for other "just-missed" games since the uniqueness of this event will probably never happen again. — X96lee15 (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Armando Galarraga nearly became the 21st pitcher in Major League history to throw a perfect game." But he DIDN'T. And becoming the 21st would have been of dubious notability anyway. Controversy surrounding the decision by the umpire? Under the current rules, the umpire decides. Period. I DO think the keeping of this article would open many doors for near-whatever things in everything down to the Knurdling Championship of Rutland. It may be (wiki) news, but notable on Wikipedia? I say no. Peridon (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A significant event in baseball history, and will become especially so if it leads to replay being used in MLB. The extreme news coverage of the event and the existence of articles on other notable plays and games seem to make this a clear keep. walkie (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL. It hasn't had that effect yet. When it does (if it does...), it may merit an article. Peridon (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For now, at least. By this time next year, it can probably be tucked into the main article on Armando. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Usually a simple delete, but with almost everyone from the umpire himself to the Indians thinking the call was wrong and all of the media attention, and it was not only a final out situation and may lead to more challenges and replay situations in baseball this definitely is a very unique case. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-dooper Keep, but re-name It's already become baseball lore, though I think it could use a new page title. --Raderick (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest "The 28-hitter Perfect Game"? It's already been used by a bunch of pundits. --Raderick (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what that name is supposed to mean, but in any case, it strongly violates WP:NPOV. This is an encyclopedia, not a fan-site. The article's name is fine. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Within minutes of the game ending, it was solidified as one of the most controversial games in MLB history. It is a well written and sourced article (although there's a disproportionate amount of ESPN sources). As far as renaming the article, I think the current non-colloquial title is very befitting. As with all new articles, it needs some work, and it's very important that the article stays away from speculative information about "what could happen" because of the game. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 01:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In fairness to the nominator, who appears to be a baseball fan, Harvey Haddix's game is in his own article, and none of the perfect games in MLB history have their own separate article. Still, what the hell, at the moment, people want to consult Wikipedia to read the details of this particular game. I'm sure someone will say Wikinews, and most people's response would be WTF is Wikinews anyway (what or where can be used for the W, variations on the F are encouraged). I believe that, eventually -- but not right now, and stop worrying about it-- it will be merged into Galarraga's article by baseball fans following a discussion on the talk page. Mandsford 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This'll be remember as a very significant screw-up in MLB history. It won't go away anytime soon. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's nothing incorrect or untrue on this article that is legitimate reason for it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.60.244 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, with a possible re-examination later. As of right now, I feel it doesn't run afoul of WP:NOTNEWS, however I'm willing to concede that its too close to the actual event to be sure my opinion won't change. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is suitably referenced, definitely notable may be merged later in player's own article, but enough substance to stand on its own. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - why are we even discussing this? Clearly notable. GregJackP (talk) 06:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This article should stay up, as it notes a time in baseball history that does not happen that often, if ever. Signothetimes90 (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination doesn't provide a reason to delete - just an incoherent other stuff complaint. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The controversial play in question will go down throughout all of history as one of the most memorable moments in Major League Baseball history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.180.16 (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bud Selig made it notable when he announced that this has event prompted him to review the need for instant replay in baseball. I'd say Jim Joyce's tears also make it notable! --User101010 (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge, although obviously the consensus is headed elsewhere. This could easily be covered at Armando Galarraga, a number of the keep votes are not based on policy or fail to address the reasons for deletion (eg: it will be significant in the future, or there's nothing "incorrect or untrue" about it). Hairhorn (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep per prior comments. A better page title might be considered, though.--JayJasper (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I know I'm swimming against the tide here, but all this can be covered at the Galaragga page. None of the actual perfect games have their own pages. Spanneraol (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, and this isn't a perfect game. It was stopped short of one because of a call, one that seems to have had more implications aside from deciding whether the 27th batter of a game was safe or out. There are numerous articles dedicated to blown calls, controversial endings, or memorable events/plays (e.g. The Play ("THE BAND IS ON THE FIELD!"), Music City Miracle, Disco Demolition Night, The Catch (baseball), Eli Manning pass to David Tyree). Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep One of the most memorable plays in MLB hisory, also could be the play that leads to instant reply in baseball.--Yankees10 16:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Certain games in baseball history are so significant and/or notorious that they deserve in-depth treatment. This belongs in the same category as the Pine Tar Incident, the Shot Heard 'Round the World and others. (Note to Mandsford: Your comment that other perfect games don't have have a separate article is incorrect. There is an article on Sandy Koufax's perfect game. I wonder why that one is singled out, especially since there is no article on the most famous perfect game ever, that by Don Larsen. Given the rarity of perfect games — only 20! — perhaps there should be an article on each one, as well as near-misses such as those by Harvey Haddix and Ernie Shore. But that is another discussion.) Thank you. — Michael J 17:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This article is of historical significance and of encyclopedic value. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also (sorry for the double post) the Johnny Vander Meer analogy is out of place. This was one out away from being a perfect game --not a no-hitter. There is no equivalent -if there were- it would have its own article. Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I wonder if this article would have even been created if Armando Galarraga's Wikipedia page had not been full protected by an overzealous admin. All the information that is in this near-perfect game article never had a chance to be included in Galarraga's own article. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per encyclopedic value. Also, (and I'm just being a baseball fan here) this is bigger than any perfect game (even though it's not one) in recent memory. However, that has very little to do with my point. But it does offer the chance at significant coverage. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We'll all feel stupid if we don't\. No question this is a game that will be talked and read about for decades to come, and it doesn't make sense just to leave it with a paragraph in the perfect-games article Thmazing (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. This game will, and already has, had a significant effect on the history of baseball. Domz (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Arguments about whether this counts as a perfect game and whether not counting it as a perfect game is grounds for exclusion miss the point - that the game is plainly enormously notable, like The Play or the Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final). Both of those occurred before there was a Wikipedia, but both were obviously matters of note just as quickly as this has become one. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in a few months it will be deleted, no worries. Prodego ^talk 04:05, 6 June 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. Clear consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Why list a porn site that, by many contributors addmission, has a clearly mysoginistic format and, also quite clearly acts as advertising for the website? Why do other mysoginistic porn sites not have wikipedia entries? What is the point of entering an article about every controversion porn site which is dedicated to humiliating women? Mondoallegro (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources to demonstrate the general notability of this particular site. Ultimately, this discussion has to be about this site, and not whether similar websites do or don't have Wikipedia articles. Bang Bus has been covered enough (and yes, to a great extent, for some controversies involving it) that it is notable enough for an article. —C.Fred (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, it's certainly notable and has been covered, but so is Ghetto Gaggers, so if the decision is to keep this site I will create an article for Ghetto Gaggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It sounds like the nominator does not like the site which is the subject of the article. "IDONTLIKEIT" is not a basis for deleting an article, if it has evidence of notability. Nor is "IFYOUKEEPTHISIWILLCREATEANOTHERARTICLE." The article cites references such as a 2004 Miami New Times article which calls it a "porn giant" and says it "often gets credit for being groundbreakers in the world of Internet amateur porn." There is a ref to a CommonDreams story with significant coverage. One ref is a story by TV channel 10, WPLG. The site won several awards from "Adult Video News" per the refs cited. These seems sufficient to make a notability argument. There are a couple of dead link refs in addition which should be fixed to see what they offer. Edison (talk) 22:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may not necessarily like the website myself, but I'm going to consider its article based on the merits of the article and not the nature of the website. The quotes that Edison has pulled above show that, regardless of what one thinks about the website, it's notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the miami times article in fact is a critique of the site, asking questions about the cost of this type of entertainment. Also, most of the other references are either from AVN or adult review sites, hardly notable sources of information. Many sites which deptict sexual abuse have been nominated by AVN, so what? What makes this site worthy of wikipedia article?Mondoallegro (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Satisfies WP:WEB and WP:NF with industry award wins. The GNews hit demonstrate notability according to the general guidelines. Wikipedia is not censored. We have articles on misogyny and misogynistic people. We can have one on a "misogynistic" website. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it's any comfort to the nominator, I strongly doubt that Wikipedia generates a meaningful amount of traffic to this or any other famous porn website. Its popularity may be slightly depressing but it's entirely independent of Wikipedia's article. 173.177.160.116 (talk) 02:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If it is any comfort to the nominator, I do not like the site, and think that its operators are misogynistic jerks, and that the videos are poorly filmed. Edison (talk) 04:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a) the article is poorly written and mostly opinion, not fact; b) the subject of the article is not notable. And yes, I recognize that nearly everyone will reject 'a' as a cause for deletion and argue that 'b' is false. Eh. I say our standards aren't high enough. Valrith (talk) 05:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I grant that misogony or hate-speech is no grounds for deleting an entry since wikipedia (rightly) covers one of the most notorious white supremecist groups on earth (Stormfront) and they're pretty much the epitome of hate speech, but in this case the article in question needs more clarification and more thoughtful critique included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondoallegro (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Bad faith nomination. Nom has admitted in comments that the site is notable, and misrepresented sources. Pointy nomination based solely on noms dislike for subject.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:27, 7 June 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. consensus support that the subject is WP:GNG notable (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion, though I am in favour of keeping it. I know this isn't orthodox, but we're getting into a minor edit war in which two editors have undone the page and returned it to a redirect to Conservapedia without discussion, while other users contributed to the article. Therefore, I think AfD is the more appropriate medium. If consensus says we keep the article, we keep it. If not, we redirect. SmokingNewton (talk) 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep for the following reason:

1. Schlafly has become SIGNIFICANTLY more notable outside of Conservapedia since the article was last deleted. He is Lead Counsel for the AAPS's bid to declare ObamaCare unconstitutional, and more importantly: He is currently going through the courts on a precedent-setting case about Senatorial Recall.
2. He has become increasingly well known in the blogosphere, especially in fundamentalist right-wing & christian circles (within American politics).
3. His dialogue with Richard Lenski was widely reported across the Internet and by a couple of serious news sources.
4. He is one of the best known Internet critics of Wikipedia. In the interests of both neutrality and fair coverage, I think he should be covered here.
5. I know we should try to avoid, in AfD, "If this is notable, then that is notable." But let's be honest, inclusion of celebrity's children who have achieved very little and are questionable notable is relatively high on Wikipedia. Even forgetting Conservapedia, as Phylis Schlafly's son who has made a couple of Newspaper appearances because he's leading important court cases - that should be notable enough. He's a well known name in many Internet communities, and for me: that's enough for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokingNewton (talk • contribs)

AfD is not the proper venue for deciding a "Redirect". This should be handled on the talk page if anywhere. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my mistake - although, does it not make sense? Blanking & Redirecting a page is basically the same as deleting it, whereas I want to keep it. I've tried to talk about it on the talk page, but two separate people obviously weren't up for taking part in that. If you could explain to me the best way to handle this, that'd be appreciated. Thanks! SmokingNewton (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also strongly in favor of just, oh, I dunno, discussing it. That's what the talk page is for. I'll start a new section so people can list sources that establish notability. Then we can informally (and without much drama) decide whether to turn it back into a redirect or not. --Sid 3050 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to Conservapedia. Fails WP:BIO due to lack of reliable and independent secondary sources with significant coverage specifically of him. He should be mentioned in the articles about other right-wing causes he is linked to. With respect to the argument "as Phylis Schlafly's son..." notability is not inherited. Edison (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Conservapedia. I don't see enough new sources to justify a different decision from the previous time we discussed this (not the 4th AfD in July 2008, but the merge discussion on the talk page in August 2008, which closed with a very clear consensus to merge and redirect). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Andrew Schlafly is now marginally notable now that his activity outside Conservapedia (such as his Recall Menendez activism) is being noted. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep. I know it's considered lame to !vote with a "per Foo", but SmokingNewton's bulleted list makes the clear case why the article should be maintained. TJRC (talk) 23:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • I feel that people are expecting a higher level of notability because this is a contraversial person. There're articles about minor actors who appeared in a couple of episodes of second-rate soap operas, and that's just fine, because there is no controversy. I'm a pretty liberal guy... and I don't accept what Schlafly says for a minute... but right now, I'm starting to feel like this is the Liberal Bias he's talking about. If I tried to throw in a left wing activist who wasn't unpopular and had all the same coverage as Andy, I don't think I'd find the same opposition. I hope we can have some serious debate, though. SmokingNewton (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that most of the potential Schlafly-coverage is actually Conservapedia-coverage. Schlafly is mostly notable through Conservapedia, most of the notable stuff was done through and at Conservapedia, so if he should get his own article, it's important to highlight (with sources) what he has done that's not just Conservapedia-related. And since people are now voting Keep after reading your arguments, here's my take on them:

1. We need sources. The currently new sources that go beyond Conservapedia-related coverage are the AAPS (the organization Schlafly is lead counsel for), Conservapedia and mention of his appearance in the recall issue. That's not a terribly impressive line-up, though the last one may have been a good start if anybody had bothered to discuss these things first before moving directly to AfD.
2. Being known in the US-centered politics-related blogosphere (by being a discussion item or through his site, which already has a long article) is a somewhat fuzzy metric, and I mildly doubt that it has a major impact on WP Notability (though I didn't doublecheck this, so I might be wrong).
3. The Lenski issue was handled through Conservapedia and is covered in its article already.
4. Even if we ignore the whole "All of this was done through Conservapedia and is covered in its article already" issue, "Andy Schlafly / Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia!" was just a minor blip in the first half of 2007 that completely failed to develop momentum, and his status as "person on the Internet that criticizes Wikipedia while also not being completely unknown" didn't make him notable even back then. How did that change? Did some of his recent criticism make it into any kind of mainstream beyond mocking notes? I can't recall anything.
5. If you know WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, why do you use it as an argument anyway?

This is silly, and your AfD may very well lead to this article being completely deleted. This should have been a simple sourcing discussion on the talk page instead of moving to AfD (by the guy who out of the blue decided to recreate it) without any prior discussion. Until there are some good arguments why being the lawyer for one side in a Supreme Court case makes you awesome and notable (Do you need to fulfill specific requirements to be allowed to represent someone in front of the Supreme Court or could any lawyer do that? How unique and special are Supreme Court cases?), I'll go with "Delete or redirect" since aside from that, his entire notability is just through Conservapedia. --Sid 3050 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: a notable person and for more than one reason. I've found a couple of recent sources that discuss Schlafly with no reference to Conservapedia. His notability appears broad enough to merit its own article. Justin W Smith ^talk/_stalk 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect - Since this discussion seems to have actually gone forward. There are not enough independent sources that do not rely/mention Conservapedia to warrant an article on Andy himself. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - In response to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reference, I guess I should've included my later comment about being contraversial as point 5. I feel that it is fair to point out that Other Crap Exists in this case - because other crap which is a lot less contraversial passes, and this doesn't. I feel like a higher standard of notability is being called for, due to the controversy. And that isn't a notability guildline. SmokingNewton (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the overwhelming impression that you have never read other crap, because if you had, I doubt you would make the argument that OC is fine here because OC. --EmersonWhite (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lead counsel for AAPS in a case that will never get off the ground, lead counsel in a case before the NJSC where the big questions is "Should we declare this obviously unconstitutional now or wait until after the signatures are collected to declare it obviously unconstitutional?" His notoriety as a critic of WP is nothing compared to Larry Sanger, and even if he were the #1 critic he hasn't done any thing outside of conservapedia, the blog no one can edit, to bring about any changes. Really, his noteworthy exploits extend to conservapedia and at its borders they end abruptly.' --EmersonWhite (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep AFD is not RfC. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect, because that's basically what the nominator is advocating. Notability has been sufficiently established and there's a good case to either keep the article as is, or keep it around as a plausible redirect and discuss Schlafly's involvement with Conservapedia in the Conservapedia article. Echoing the editor right above: AfD is not RfC; there's really no reason to delete the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is enough notability from his recent political/legal work to say he is not just notable because of conservapedia. Anyway does all that rewriting the Bible stuff really fit under conservapedia? Dmcq (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Conservative Bible Project is a part of Conservapedia (note the "a project has begun among members of Conservapedia" on their FAQ page). Where would you consider a more appropriate place for it? – iridescent 10:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I admit it's complicated because Schlafly regularly uses Conservapedia as his mouthpiece for whatever wild idea he has. Conservative Bible Project and pestering Lenski were both his ideas, but he then described them as being community projects. I guess we will have to go with what the RS say about them. If they overwhelmingly say "Andy Schlafly says X on Conservapedia", then yeah, it should count more for him and his notability. If they say "Conservapedia, which was founded by Andy Schlafly, has started X", then it should belong more into the Conservapedia entry. --Sid 3050 (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote from me yet (obviously it's either redirect or keep), but I think it's worth pointing out that Andrew Schlafly is Conservapedia, and repeatedly refers to himself as such. In his "news" items he's constantly going on about "Conservapedia is doing such-and-such" when it's Andy himself doing it, so he's already pretty well covered in the CP article. As Sid points out above, basically everything notable he's done has been through Conservapedia, with the exception of his lawyering, so in that field we have to judge him against the notability of other lawyers. His sinecure with AAPS doesn't seem to cut it on its own. The argument that the case against "Obamacare" clears the bar seems premature; I believe it is just one out of a slew of cases, and not one of the more important ones (unlike those of state DAs). The New Jersey recall case seems barely notable as it is, I don't think the lawyers on either side qualify on this case alone. The only question remaining is whether several almost notable things collectively add up to notability. I think both sides have their points. I'll think about it some more and look for sources. -R. fiend (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per having been received significant coverage and per the talk page being the better medium for discussing any edit wars. —fetch·comms 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Super Keep He has been on Colbert and is an expert in multiple scientific fields. Pirate^Argh!!1! 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. He may be fringey, but is notable and a public figure. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Public figures are notable per WP:GNG and it's hard to argue that this person is not a public figure in light of increasing amts of coverage (e.g. the Colbert interview). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 10 June 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griscuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Cookbook page. Heavily promotional, unreferenced. Contains anecdotal story. Doesn't show up on Google, so I'm assuming its just a family recipe. Didn't fit into any speedy category, and creator removed PROD, so here we are at AfD.

It looks like a mixture of advertising, how to guide, and personal essay. No sources. Pstanton (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SNOW delete - Not notable and Wikipedia is not a cookbook. --Triwbe (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:N. Its not even a recipe for a new food, just a neologism. It just says to cook the grits, mold them to look like biscuits, let them sit, then eat them when they've hardened. Grits says the food "can be left to cool in a pan or mold" and "can be eaten cold." Edison (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reliable sources haven't yet taken notice. First Light (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Google only turns up random uses of the term. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:44, 5 June 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Music jury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails WP:DICTDEF, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 19:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Maybe this could find a home in the Wiktionary. Gobonobo ^{T C} 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination seems absurd as this is in no way a dictionary entry - not a word, no etymology, no examples of usage, no pronunciation, no lexical analysis. The article might be expanded to include details of the Pulitzer music jury as well as Juillard as this appears in numerous sources. And then there are the juries such as found in Juke Box Jury. Lots of potential... Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Only the first line is definitional, this is not a dicdef article. Music juries are used in many prestigious musical conservatories. This stub is a small, but good, start, to having an article on the subject. I stumbled across this article to correct the misspelling of "Juilliard" (a fetish of mine), and was pleased enough that the article had been started to spend some time making some nonsubstantive edits to tidy it up. It should be expanded, not deleted. TJRC (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A music jury is a definate thing. I now know more about them then I did before reading the article. (I thought it was going to be about shows like American Idol and I was prepared to delete.) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: some sources exist covering the subject; not a dicdef. Possible merge candidate, but I'm unaware of any suitable target. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments above.-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 03:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. There's no way that a full article will ever be created on this subject. SnottyWong talk 22:48, 9 June 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) 00:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Man Where's My Guitar? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Triwbe (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't fuind significant coverage for this bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 03:08, 6 June 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. JForget 22:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yesoteric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Bootlegs are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Bootlegs are not assumed non-notable, they are generally non-notable. The ELs in this article, and the many hits found in a google search, show that Yesoteric has been the subject of sufficient attention to be notable. TJRC (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - in this case the assumption about bootlegs does not quite hold up because the album is much-discussed and had an impact on subsequent events in the band's discography. I have tried to find some better sources but what's in the article now might be all that's available. If anyone happens to find a couple more solid sources, that should settle the notability question. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, this is a bootleg, but every now and then you find one that has become notorious. This is one of them, and the Google searches show up more than enough, in the aspect of third party sources, to warrant keeping this article. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Like Undead Warrior said, this set is notorious. I'm sure the article could be expanded to address any concerns, but I'd certainly say it's notable. I'm not sure whether a source can be found, but I would personally guarantee that its existence and widespread nature played a huge part in the decision to release such expansive bonus material on Rhino's Yes re-releases as well as the "The Word Is Live" box set. —Shada Ng (talk | contribs) 16:50, 10 June 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. consensus for notability, nomination issues can be addressed through editing (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Core Curriculum (Columbia College) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

A personal essay on the core curriculum of a single college, tagged for speedy as an advert but not blatant advertising, only highly laudatory in tone. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep I'm afraid I don't really see why this has been brought back to AfD so quickly after its last one and it seems nothing has changed since the last AfD when it was resolved as 'keep.' If some time had passed or major changes had been made then of course it would be reasonable to discuss it again.--Wintonian (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I quote from the Keep argument of Novickas in the first AFD, 2 months ago: "National influence. Some book quotes - "Of these, none was more important than the general education movement that was launched at Columbia University in 1919" [4], "Faculty at Columbia designed the first courses for this educational model" [5], "With its roots in the trivium and quadrivium, the modern history of the core curriculum owes much to the creation of courses at Columbia during and after the First World War..." [6]." I endorse this strong argument for notability, and add book references [7] which talks about it and says that after 80 years of it being the basis of education, over half the current Columbia students said it was their reason for choosing Columbia.See also [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], pp100-103. See also"New Yorker" page 48, [16]. Life Magazine in 1950 said the "famous core curriculum" at Columbia started the idea of a general common education in 1919, and that it had been adopted by Harvard and U of Chicago. Google scholar shows lots of papers with discussion of Columbia's core curriculum, behind paywall, which might also be used to expand and improve the article. Deletion is not a solution to a need for editing an article about something which has multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, thus satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons noted above Cjs2111 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The complaints raised by the nomination should be addressed by editing not deletion. Here's another source: A Vision of Transdisciplinarity. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that its too soon to be bringing this back again, the last one ending in keep. If you have a problem with an article, use the article's talk page first. Plenty of coverage has already been found establishing notability for this. Dream Focus 13:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important and influential in the history of American education and is the subject of much commentary in third-party sources. I don't see any NPOV problems either, although the article is in need of a few citations. ThemFromSpace 09:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs major improvement, but I think this is quite notable as a pedagogical phenomenon. Eusebeus (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs major improvement, as was mentioned at the last AFD two months ago, not a single edit was made to the article since then to improve any of the issues raised then and it has been tagged again as promo, which it does appear to be and it has been brought again the comments are, keep can be improved by editing, there has only been one edit, to add the rescue template, if in a couple more months the article is unchanged I wouldn't be surprised if it was nominated for deletion again. Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 10 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5845 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unencyclopedic, unlikely search term. Prod was declined. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable per WP:NUMBER. Nothing mentioned here conveys "obvious cultural significance". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transfer - Transfer to Wiktionary --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would we say about it on Wiktionary? Nothing on this page is a "definition" of the number, it's more like trivia. (For instance, wikt:7 doesn't say "the number of days in a week".) rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think anyone would search 5845 to find it was the number of verses in the Hebrew Bible, rather they would find that fact out at the Hebrew Bible page. I can't see many people searching for the number 5845, to be perfectly honest. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - though I can prove by contradiction that all numbers are notable, WP:NUMBER proves we don't need infinitely many number articles.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Said the IP address. But seriously, delete per WP:NUMBER, not to mention it's a disambiguation page for claims, not actual articles. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteUnencyclopedic and Fails WP:NUMBER - we don't really need a list of 2 articles and who would search for 5845? I can't really add much to this discussion as I think its been summed up allreay. --Wintonian (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NUMBER. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Easy merge to 5000 (number)#Selected numbers in the range 5001-5999. People might be surprised to learn that Category:Integers doesn't have that many articles in it-- I think that a few years back, someone set out to write articles about every number and they got to 216 (number) and said, "You know, I think that this could go on endlessly" or "Screw 217!!". Thus, numbers tend to be described within a range, so that 300 (number) is a repository for numbers in the "300s". Mandsford 01:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there's nothing verifiable to merge here. For example, this article claims without a citation that there are 5,845 verses in the Hebrew Bible. However, Chapters and verses of the Bible says that there are 23,145 verses in the Old Testament. Do the differences between the Old Testament as seen by Christians and the Hebrew Bible as seen by Jews cause the number of verses to vary by a factor of almost 4 to 1? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that (even though I think the article should be deleted). It's actually said to be the number of verses in the Torah, or Pentateuch - the first five books of the Old Testament, not the entire Old Testament. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as utterly trivial and unlikely ever to be searched for. OK to merge as per Mandsford. --MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 11 June 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) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icomplete.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article is about a company that lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It claims a Dell Small Business Excellence Award, but it's not that notable an award. The company has some brief mentions. See [17], and [18] for examples. But that falls far short of significant coverage about the company.

Not a reason for deletion in itself, but there is also significant conflict of interest with article being changed from a despammed version to a more promotional tone. Whpq (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless it can be re-written in a less promotional tone. I don't think saying that they help small businesses, "enabling them to upgrade their business, get more done and save time and money" really meets WP:NPOV. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was rewritten in a less promotional tone. See this version. The primary problem is ntoability which can't be fixed with a rewrite or a reversion. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm not expert in business awards, but does the fact that "in 2009, icomplete.com was named as runners up in the Dell Small Business Excellance Awards" not establish notability? Runners up they may be, but Dell is a prominent company. I suggest we simply revert the page back to the less promotional version. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply - Dell may be a prominent company, but are the awards that they sponsor significant? When I did a quick check, I didn't find a enough coverage to convince me that they were. And in any case, they didn't win. And finally, I'd be more receptive to giving the award more weight if there were some evidence that anybody actually took note of them being a runner up in the award. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G11 (or WP:CSD#G7, as the author blanked the page three times but was reverted(?)). No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG, and the article was created and principally authored by the company's founder and marketing director. -- Rrburke (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the reasons cited by Burke. The primary editor of this article is Claire Hibbert, a co-founder of the company. " The company provides innovative Web 2.0 / Cloud Computing service that brings big business tools (CRM, calendering, e-marketing and telephony) to smaller businesses," seems to stray from WP:NPOV quite a bit as well. Normycakes (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:32, 10 June 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) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Branding engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. This appears to be a non-notable neologism. There are several sources but none of them offers more than trivial coverage, and several of them don't even mention the concept. In addition, almost none of the sources qualifies as a reliable source. bonadea contributions talk 16:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is rather difficult to understand what the article is even about, there is so much marketingspeak there. Could possibly be speedily deleted as spam. --bonadea contributions talk 16:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article is essentially made up of corparate jargon that would only be understood by an expert on the subject. It's hard to reach a consensus on deletion if no-one really understands what the article is about. If someone wants to translate the article so it is understandable and it appears to be notable, I will vote to keep it. If no-one volunteers to do so, it's a delete from me. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete May meet notability guidelines, but unless this article gets cleaned up to meet Wikipedia's encyclopedic standards, it should be scrapped. Hard to read, proprietary information on what appears to be a marketing search engine of some kind. Certainly a mess looking for an editor. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 18:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So confusingly written that it's hard to say whether it really means anything. Whatever it means, it's a bunch of gassing about how to make money fast on the Internet, and as such an unpromising subject. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:53, 5 June 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. hoax: no sources, reliable or even unreliable reliable nor unreliable sourcehoax DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flannery French (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This person supposedly has three published books. However, I can find no evidence of her or those books on Google, doverpublications.com, scholastic.com, Amazon, or WorldCat. I call hoax. LadyofShalott 16:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 16:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't find anything to do with this person, let alone reliable sources, on Google. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Possibly a hoax, if not then it's definitely non notable. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the previously A7-deleted version is probably the real "scoop" on this girl: she's a high-school student whose mother is arguably notable, but who is not herself notable. (There was some rather interesting IP vandalism to the mother's article recently as well.) LadyofShalott 18:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Either a hoax or just very non-notable. Either way it has no place here. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 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 Userify. Courcelles (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CyaSSL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Promotion for non-notable software product. Have not found any significant independent coverage. Haakon (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this article needs more reliable sources. Could you please move this article back into my User Space? Thanks. Chris conlon (talk) 17:49, 9 June 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) 00:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of software companies in Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Found while new page patrolling, typical WP:NOTDIRECTORY page. Unsustainable list "sourced" only to official webpages. Can be handled with categories. Rehevkor ✉ 16:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete classic WP:NOTDIRECTORY, redlink farm, excessive external links and if it sticks around will attract spammers. We wouldn't want a List of pawn shops in New York either. Bottom line, Wikipedia is not your local yellow pages. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 17:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintainable list--Sodabottle (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is what categories are for. Rename Category:List of Software Companies in Mumbai to Category:Software Companies in Mumbai. utcursch | talk 08:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not a yellow pages... Mr. R00t ^{Leave me a Message} 04:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, I think we can improve the article, like removing non-notable software companies names, only keeping notable companies name.KuwarOnline (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- There are other similar pages like List of Software Companies in Delhi, List of software and BPO companies in NOIDA.--^Nilotpal42 07:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. Joe Chill (talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per WP:NOTDIR. The vast majority of this giant list is nothing but red links and "footnotes" that point directly to unnotable company website.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 13:31, 8 June 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. JForget 22:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10tons Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

Crimsonland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this company in multiple searches. Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No assertation of notability, and the onlt things I can find on Google and on the page itself are links to the company's own website. I can find no reliable third-party coverage anywhere. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I had previously redirected their game Crimsonland to this article, per WP:PRODUCT due to lack of notability; therefore I am adding it to this discussion. Marasmusine (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both; Searching the web does not reveal any significant coverage of the company or their games. No other indication of notability. Marasmusine (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (Crimsonland) Delete - I found some coverage for Crimsonland from IGN which I added to the article.--Robixen (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coverage from IGN only shows notability if it is a review or news. All that the IGN link has is a game description which is not significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also found and added Gamespot page with release informations, does it count?--Robixen (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. Why do you think that a list of release dates is significant coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess you're right, but I also found 2 reviews: http://www.gametunnel.com/crimsonland-game-review.php and http://www.games-here.com/crimsonland_review.html. --Robixen (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Game Tunnel is possibly acceptable as a source [19]. As for games-here, I can't see any information on their staff or editorial, so probably not a reliable source. I'd like to see more coverage before changing to keep, but the game is at least verifiable now. Marasmusine (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found one more source, but I don't know if this review is written by their staff - http://www.manifestogames.com/crimsonland. --Robixen (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • • It says "player reviews". Marasmusine (talk) 08:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was talking about text above player reviews.--Robixen (talk) 19:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's probably a description, so I'm changing to delete, one article is probably not enough to establish notability--Robixen (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. article was improved, clear consensus to keep, (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Latma TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Claim to notability is tenuous. Page cites one news article which is barely a passing mention (only the first three sentences of the article are about this video, and they don't say much more than "this video was released", and don't say much about the troupe itself; the rest of the article is unrelated news); I only found one other possibly reliable source, and it is also a passion mention that doesn't seem to pass the one-event guidelines. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article now has a great many citations.Broad Wall (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—plenty of sources cited in the article, so I don't see merit in the nominator's argument. While the sources are mostly reacting to the latest video, they all provide background on the initiative behind the video, namely Latma. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just FYI, this is how the article looked when I nominated it with my meritless argument. The creator has since added more sources; I haven't decided yet if it changes my opinion about the article or not. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I do believe that the article We Con the World should be merged with this one. But let's leave the verdict on that for after this AfD. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well known in its circles before We Con the World and now known worldwide. Happy138 (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How can you delete this entry when the video is making major rounds on the Internet? There are many wikipedia entries much more worthy of deletion than this. Stand up to the plate, Wikipedia. You can do it. We know you hate doing it, but the whole world is not about the Left and what the Left would like everyone to believe. Man up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.221.66 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Latma is basically the main attempt by the Israeli "right" to get some sort of satirical voice, given the monopoly the "left" has over the TV here. This has been covered in the weekly B'sheva (Arutz Sheva's newspaper) more than once recently.Mzk1 (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Nominator's rationale for deletion was based on premises that are no longer true, and no other argument for deletion has been provided. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but merge We Con the World into this article - I don't believe it's independently notable, or that we need articles on both. Robofish (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as it is a popular TV show in its country. We should apply the same standard to all countries, not just the USA.--RM (Be my friend) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this could easily be seen as ONEEVENT and I understand that Afd, but the group was active long before. --Shuki (talk) 22:43, 9 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Young Liberals of Laval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. None of the current refs mention the group. Google searches on both the English & French versions of the name find only 2 hits from reliable sources, one from 1978 (which may not even be the same group, in light of the fact that the article seems to say the article group was recently founded) and this unremarkable one. Non-notable. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, should have been speedied, fails WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable, COI. "Largest political youth organization in Laval" is far too weak a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 5 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Real staffing group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Company claims to be notable; only Gnews hit is to a PRWeb "article." Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 5 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TB Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Not sure he meets the notability criteria. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources, and the books are all essentially self0published self-help thingies. One nomination for a poetry prize does not make him notable, methinks. Chris (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete some tentative indications of notability but I don't think it’s quite enough, if sources can be found then I might change my mind.--Wintonian (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 5 June 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 deleted (CSD G5) by Kww. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 16:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cat Master (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Appears to fail WP:BK, as I'm not finding evidence of reviews or attention in reliable mainstream sources or evidence that the "award" cited is at all notable. The creation of this article appears to be a response to the AfD for Bonnie Pemberton, of which this article is a verbatim copy except for the necessary changes in the first paragraph. Deor (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 13:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book is notable because it is an independently reviewed and award-winning book. "The Cat Master" novel meets the criteria found at WP:NBOOK, which is that the book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This article meets the minimum requirements for inclusion and that is all that it needs to be kept. Inniverse (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot the parts about "reliable sources" and "at least some of these works serving a general audience". Deor (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The below listed multiple book reviews (already listed in the article) are all reliable and independent from the author, and all serve a general audience:
• Felinexpress.com
• A Year of Reading
• St. Charles Public Library
• Powell’s Books: Staff Pick Inniverse (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I already pointed out at the Bonnie Pemberton AfD, the "independent reviews" that you are using are 1) a cat website 2) a blog 3) a library (which is not even a review - it is just a short sysopsis of the book amongst a list of cat themed books for children) and 4) a bookstore. If this is the is really all there is, then notability is most definitely not established. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cats aren't automatically notable? This is the internet. Otherwise, see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Pemberton.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL: felinexpress.com? you can't make this crap up!!!.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bonnie Pemberton - we don't need to have articles on the book and its author, as neither is notable independent of the other, and I'd say the author's article is the one to keep. (To clarify, I think the book is notable, but should be covered as part of the author's article rather than separately.) Robofish (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedied as WP:CSD#G5. Creator was a sock of User:Azviz. I still haven't figured out AFD closing yet, so I'll let someone else take care of that part.—Kww(talk) 14:53, 6 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beerathon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Appears to lack notability; unable to find any reliable, third-party sources that cover the topic. Davnor (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, made-up drinking game: The premise of the event is to drink 24 beers before the 24 hour deadline. The grandmaster challenge is to drink 24 beers in 24 minutes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There may be a number of definitions or uses of the term, but none are consistent, so until one becomes notable, delete. --Triwbe (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article fails to establish notability of the topic through references. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Beerathon is an actual even known throughout an entire organization and university. Web pages have been created concernig this event. It, like many other college drinking games or practices, is something hundreds of people participate in and the number is growing. I need more time to establish the references. However, if Beer Pong or any other drinking game has relevance on this site, I see no reason why Beerathon shouldn't either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewAA80 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 June 2010 — AndrewAA80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete per WP:MADEUP (again, I ask why there isn't a speedy criterion for games???). By the way, AndrewAA80, you should consider reading WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:52, 5 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interpol Demo Tape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unreleased, untitled demo tape WuhWuzDat 12:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In this case it's obvious that the item was never anything more than a simple tape shopped around to labels. The fact that it doesn't even have a title makes info hard to find, but apparently this demo is not even worth noting in the band's biography, as can be seen at their article. The fact that this demo was created can be mentioned there for historical purposes, but a separate album article is not merited. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Never released. Joe Chill (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NSONGS: "...Unreleased material (including demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only recordings) is in general not notable". --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 17:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn and no other comments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No evidence of notability. No independent sources cited in article, and none found on searching. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn JamesBWatson (talk) 12:46, 4 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Chalmers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unsourced BLP (yeah, ok, it has IMDb. No reliable sources). No major roles. ("Best known for" role is the voice of a secondary character in Angry Kid who "talks very little".) Unable to find any reliable sources, just IMDb (+mirrors and similar projects) and Wikipedia (+mirrors and similar projects). SummerPhD (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't help noticing that her supposed 'best known role' is so minor that IMDB didn't even bother crediting her for it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While Angry Kid is not listed on IMDB, the Atom Films series does exist,[20][21] and Chalmers CAN be sourced as being the voice of 'Litle Sister' [22] just as she was for the UK TV special for that series... titled Who Do You Think You Are... which IS on IMDB.[23] However, as she is barely creeping up on WP:ENT, lack of coverage fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This perosn already has an article on the Harry Potter Wikia,[24] where they care less for actual coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor actress. Fails wp:N.--Maashatra11 (talk) 11:37, 9 June 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 all. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Folkcracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Capcialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Base capitalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Creator appears to be promoting their own theory. No reliable sources available. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I declined to speedy delete this because it did not meet the criteria it was nominated under, but I do believe it should be deleted as Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day, which is what this appears to be, nor is it a soapbox for promoting a particular idea or point of view. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, invented. One of a series of non-notable entries from this user. Hairhorn (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete classic WP:NFT case. Creator appears to have made a whole bunch of articles along these lines, and seems to be really really confused regarding what Wikipedia is all about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. WackyWace ^{talk to me, people} 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails to establish notability through references. Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• It appears we have a snowball. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like someone is soaping the windows. By the way, I added two additional articles from the same editor, with the same problems. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Capcialism and Base capitalism, same reasons apply. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:26, 8 June 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) Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Irimescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Prsaucer1958 (talk) 02:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The article is about a non-notanle athlete. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject appears to qualify as notable under WP:ATHLETE since he is reported as having played in the top division of Romanian football as well as playing for the Romanian national team. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly passes ATHLETE having played Internationally for Romania, including WC qualifiers--ClubOranje^T 07:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly passes WP:ATHLETE. A lazy nomination. GiantSnowman 01:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as a romanian international he's inherently notable. 01:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
• Snowball keep - Obviously notable athlete (and also a notable politician). I spent five minutes and added two references and fleshed out the article a slight bit. Article clearly passes GNG and ATHLETE, although it ought to be expanded and better sourced (no reason to delete at all). Jogurney (talk) 02:16, 7 June 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 The Last Airbender#Casting. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Airbender casting controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Article presents information already found in page for The Last Airbender. WP:NOTNEWS, the movie hasn't even come out yet. Separate article not warranted based on lack of information and also information that can be presented in other article. Dylan0513 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy to creator's user space, looks like an article that has pontential but is unfinished nevertheless. Rohedin ^TALK 16:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to The Last Airbender#Casting where this subject is already discussed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per above. I don't think it warrants a separate article, besides, there's nothing to complain about, Aasif Mandvi is so asian, he's ninja!--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: I would say delete per the amount of WP:OR the article contains. However, the OR material can be removed. That would leave a duplicate of the The Last Airbender#Casting. So, as stated above, redirect to where its already discussed. Akerans (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The place for this is discussed in the casting section of The Last Airbender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.122.234 (talk) 05:29, 10 June 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) 00:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midi Programmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod, removed by anon IP. Personal essay on the job; borders on a how-to. Cites no sources, so it fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Zero sources. Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, what he said. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:37, 10 June 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I've nominated this article for deletion for several reasons:

• Poor prose especially in its lede and throughout the article
• Entirely unsourced with no references
• Makes far too many assumptions without given any sources at all to back them up and the only source that was given was a dead link to a site that doesn't exist
• What this page details is essentially only one facet of Irish Republicanism in Northern Ireland and thats the IRA and their political party Sinn Fein which are already well documented and sourced in their own articles - thus it lacks scope and range as it completely ignores other strands of republicanism in Northern Ireland that don't adhere to Sinn Fein/IRA
• It completely leaves out dissident republicanism and only mentioned Republican Sinn Fein once in passing sentence.
• The article seems to white-wash over IRA atrocities and the negative impacts of Irish republicanism in Northern Ireland
• The article adds nothing new that people can't already find in other better articles
• No effort appears to have been made to improve it

Any objects etc.? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Poor prose isn't a reason - why don't you simply fix it. Unsourced because you removed a reference - why don't you simply look for another such as here from archive.org or alternaively here. Assumptions should be flagged with WP:OR. Dealing with only one facet calls for expansion of the article - calling for deletion smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Etc, etc. The bottom line is: Does this topic merit an article? Is the topic noteworthy? The reasons you have given for deletion are not valid reasons. --HighKing (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I removed a dead link inline reference which was used for one statement not the entire article. The article qualifies for deletion on terms of virtually being a content fork. As i am not an expert in republicanism i am not going to major expand the article and seeing as very little effort has been made since this article was created to verifiably source it and even improve it - the article will no doubt remain the same. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) I can see me having to rewrite the whole article lol. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is notable, so does not justify deletion. The article can be improved and sourced; but as HighKing says lack of refs and poor writing are not valid reasons for nominating an article for deletion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Poor writing and lack of refs calls for rewriting, not deletion, especially for a notable topic like this. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep while the nominator makes some valid points, issues such as poor prose, POV etc are best addressed within the article by rewriting and expanding it. Valenciano (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. None of the points gives a single valid reason for deletion. The majority of the issues raised by the nominator, however, shows the need of a full revision of the article. --Darius (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a clear WP:SOFIXIT. Suggest the quickest way to fix this article would be to copy over the relevant information from History of Northern Ireland and The Troubles, but of which seem to have a lot more care and attention paid to them. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Fair enough, i accept and abide by the clear concensus shown here. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clean up and Merge into Irish Republicanism: Republicanism in NI is not a separate topic from republicanism in Ireland as a whole. Scolaire (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - i agree with that as some events in republicanism have effects on both sides of the border. If merged, use a redirect for the title to Irish Republicanism? Mabuska ^(talk) 19:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Merging, merging "should always leave a redirect". Scolaire (talk) 07:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Irish republicanism Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is poorly written, yes, but is too notable for deletion. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk  · contribs)} 23:45, 10 June 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. Tim Song (talk) 03:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Petersen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod. Clearly non-notable political candidate (has failed in the past; minor party candidate 2010); fails WP:POLITICIAN, also fails WP:PROF. The article has existed as an orphan since March last year. Frickeg (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --   -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator, is neither a notable politician nor a notable academic. Has recieved some coverage here in the Australian, here in the Brisbane Times and even an interview with Wikinews, but none of this suggests anything more than a perennial candidate for minor parties in seats where they have no chance.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• To take a contrary position I am tempted towards Keep. While the result of her candidacy is not rosy, she seems to have left enough footprints in the media to sustain an article. She was allegedly pollywhacked, her karate classes are discussed, her loss twice to Tony Abbott seems discussed (and again,.... hey even wikinews interviewed her. All this coupled with probable commentary for TV appearances, commentary on her production of the "Vagina Monologues", her published views on subjects that attract commentary etc. There seems ample independent discussion of her, perhaps as she has fingers in many pies ? Appears to meet the standards needed for a decent article - Peripitus (Talk) 13:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from, but don't you feel like a lot of this necessarily comes with the fact that she is unsuccessful? An individual who, by virtue of running high-profile(ish) campaigns with no chance of success, is consistently on the periphery of the political landscape will get coverage like this, but does that make her notable? I feel like the nature of political coverage by the media during elections (often covering scrappy underdog campaigns) will lend candidates such as these coverage disproportionate to their notability. Essentially, I feel like the coverage itself suggests that she isn't notable. Certainly it doesn't suggest anything that might satisfy the political or academic notability guidelines.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly in isolation they cast doubt as to her notability, your right she hasnt met WP:POLITICIAN nor does she meet WP:PROF alone but its the sum of these parts plus, her writting, her TV career, her radio career that combined makes her meet WP:NOTABILITY which is the defining policy, not the individual guidelines. Gnangarra 15:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, let's take a look at those sources. We can dismiss the karate one out of hand - it's a promotional piece on a local website, the Ipswich News. Her loss to Tony Abbott (by the way, the source that says she got 4.3% is wrong, it was 1.8% - 4.3% was her vote in Bundamba at the state election against Jo-Ann Miller) is a textbook case of being an unsuccessful candidate, even if it received a small amount of coverage (not much - you need a lot more to qualify for that). The "published views" are published on a site for a rally at which she spoke. Her production of the Vagina Monologues was at the Ipswich Civic Centre. All these things point to a moderately notable local identity (if we were doing an Ipswich wiki then she'd be in no question), but none of them point to wider notability. The only thing that is a possible cause for notability is therefore her appearances on Beauty and the Beast - which, quite frankly, I don't think really cuts it. Frickeg (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at where those sources are the National broadcaster ABC, BrisbaneTimes both hace profiles on her and discuss her background both are major media outlets not some local rag. Beauty and the Beast was a long running National TV show. Your objection is based solely on her being endorsed for as a candidate for an election that hasnt even been called, as I've already explained she met notability for the sum of her efforts rather than an individual event, which is the purpose of dismissing political candidates. Oh any by the way the election has not been called there's not even reasonable spectulation of any date just that its going occur sometime in the future. What has happen recently is that a discussion occured on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Notability_of_political_candidates about how to address articles of candidates if they are created, this article existed long before that. Gnangarra 03:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to that her notability extends beyond QLD an alleged assult was even covered in the Sydney Morning Herald Gnangarra 03:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objections are not even remotely based on the fact that she's running for the election. She'd be non-notable even if she wasn't. It was actually just coincidence that I happened to find this article just after the discussion at AUP. And, um, where's the ABC profile? I've had a look and haven't found it. So basically your approach is that she's notable because she is an occasional panellist on a daytime TV show and because she claims she was slapped by an ALP MP? My objections to all of the sources provided stand. Frickeg (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

can you please strike the statement Clearly non-notable political candidate (has failed in the past; minor party candidate 2010); fails WP:POLITICIAN from your nomination because your objections are not even remotely based on the fact that she's running for the election. So what is your reason for nominating the article? Gnangarra 07:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nominating the article is that it clearly fails the WP:NOTABILITY, WP:POLITICIAN and WP:PROF. You claimed that my objection was made "solely on her being endorsed ..." which is nonsense. My nomination had no political motivation, and was not a result of her candidature in 2010 - having found the article, I would have nominated it if she was running or not. Frickeg (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this appears notable article was created in 2009 by Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation looking at refs from 2009[25] there appears to be enough to confirm notability. One of those refs listed[26] confirms that she was a regular panelist on Beauty and the Beast plus her published books, plus her previous failure during the last QLD election and current endorsement for the next federal election. she's notable just that the article needs a cleanup, and some careful watching for probable COI editing. Gnangarra 13:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think Periptus has demonstrated more than sufficient coverage for this lady to pass the GNG.—S Marshall T/C 19:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She's well-known, and the sources demonstrate notability. Australians on Wikipedia have the most bizarre attitude toward political candidates - someone whose biography wouldn't be questioned if they didn't run for parliament tends to get their article nominated for deletion if they later do. Rebecca (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.She's one of the best known feminist academics in Australia, specifically in relation to the pornography debate, she's competed in "Celebrity Challenge" a theatresports event reserved for high profile, notable figures, she is well known for her TV and radio work, she's currently receiving a lot of attention in relation to her political candidature and even if she wasn't successful in previous elections, her profile was such that she was discussed at length by leading media commentators. Her book "Morality, Sexual Facts and Fantasies" has been discussed at length by academics. I believe several philosophy departments (I know of one in particular in NZ) uses her book as their first year text book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.220.236 (talk) 03:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)Comment. As Frickeg has pointed out above, the coverage about Petersen that does not relate to her electoral efforts would constitute a very tenuous claim to notability when taken in isolation. However, those !voting keep seem to be suggesting that the overall extent of the coverage (relating to both her political and academic/professional activities) satisfies the general notability guideline. My question to those !voting to keep is whether the content of the coverage suggest that she is notable, or is it just the volume of it. To me, while the volume is not insignificant, the content itself doesn't suggest that she is particularly remarkable. I prepared to be convinced, though.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• People can be notable for failing. Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards got most of his press coverage through coming last. The GNG doesn't ask whether someone's successful.—S Marshall T/C 08:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards was the UK's best ski jumper and a carrier of the Olympic Torch. I'm not sure the situations are comparable. Frickeg (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment I've done a quick google search on her. Already I've found that she has given papers at a number of universities, her book is being sold in the Uk, US, Europe and India (maybe others I didn't keep searching), she has put on plays in Melbourne, Sydney, Byron Bay and Ipswich, there's internet evidence that she is an artist, there are numerous articles about her teaching and being a black belt in karate, a number of university sites mention that she is a politics, English literature lecturer etc, there are a few references to the fact that she was on a national tv show, was the relationships expert for two of the most listened to radio shows in OZ, radio 2ue Sydney and B105 Brisbane. She is mentioned on several other wiki sites. I've noticed that she is currently being attacked by her political opponents. One needs to wonder whether this push for deletion is really about political interference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.249.29 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Comment I've just been told that she has received international media attention including BBC news coverage for her views on pornography. You don't make the BBC because you have won or lost an election in Australia. She has an international reputation, not just a national one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.220.249.29 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noteplease note you are welcome to make further comments or respond to question but please preface your comments with Comment and only express either Keep, Delete, Merge, Rename once. I have struck the all but your first opinion amd replaced them with comment Gnangarra 16:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a link to the BBC coverage I would definitely reconsider my !vote, but Google News returns no such result.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 03:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not in any way notable, but Patricia Peterson, former University at Albany professor, may be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What ? Read the Nutshell in Wikipedia:Notability. She has been noticed to a (possibly significant) degree by independant sources so she has some notability—the debate is about whether this is a sufficiency— and as such your bald statement appears to be lacking. - Peripitus (Talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, Peripitus. The general notability guideline does not say that simply because something or someone has received significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject it is thus notable. Rather, it says that this sort of coverage establishes a presumption that the subject is notable. Notability is indicated by significant coverage, not because of it. Something can receive significant coverage and still be completely unspectacular, as is the case here. Have a look at the revised article, which has been completely referenced. It has ten sources, and yet does not contain a single fact that might indicate that she is significant, unusual, interesting or notable.

Now I do not mean to say that the sort of coverage plays no part in establishing notability. If the BBC source had come up, that would have indicated international recognition, and I probably would have changed by !vote. However, this has not appeared, despite searching both the Google News archives and the BBC's website, and accordingly what we have is a well-referenced article about a completely non-notable person.  -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you are confusing notable enough to us with notable at all. Bearing has declared that she is not in any way notable (read worthy of writing about) but those in the press who write about her surely disagree. Well referenced to reliable sources means that, to some extent, the subject is notable because it is noted in such reliable sources. Just because something is not spectacular, interesting or unusual does not preclude an article and the converse is true - Peripitus (Talk) 08:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - noting that she passes notability in the absence of her political candidacy, not because of it. Orderinchaos 05:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like someone more adept at self-promotion than anything else. Is def. not "one of the best known feminist academics in Australia" (if she was, presumably she would have landed a job somewhere). Her book was self-published by a vanity press. She appears to have no publications in refereed, scholarly journals. And no details are provided about her PhD thesis (topic, year of graduation, etc). Presents herself as someone who has lived all her life in the local Ipswich community, yet lived in Sydney long enough to complete her degree and contest two federal elections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Church19 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 June 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.