< 1 March	3 March >

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Becto-[edit]

Spoof article. This is not the Arabic for nine. The rest is unreferenced rubbish - not substantiated by any online source, e.g. Google. Ian Cairns (talk) 22:36, 2 March 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 BBC News. EdJohnston (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Week (BBC News TV series)[edit]

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

I have tagged this article for notability, since it is a TV news programme which features a few BBC News reports from the past week. I'm not sure that really warrants an individual article, when the channels and organisations that create it and broadcast it are well represented with their own articles. Cloudbound _{(formerly Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to BBC News. Doesn't seem inherently notable, but there might be some text that's worth salvaging. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Kenneth Shriner[edit]

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

Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Switch to KEEP per PanchS save. well done ~~notable for but one heinous crime and suspected of others.~~ Dlohcierekim 01:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERPETRATOR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep — I rewrote the article as a short but clean stub using reliable secondary sources. According to this Spokesman Review article, "the facts of the Shriner case were compelling enough to trigger a statewide paroxysm of outrage" and "Meanwhile the Legislature, pprovoked by public outrage based largely on the Shriner case, is well on the way to enacting laws allowing longer incarceration of chronic sex offenders". this Seattle Post Intelligencer article. This Tacoma News Tribune article even states that "the furor over Shriner's attack led to the Community Protection Act of 1990" (see more about the Washington Community Protection act on Sexually violent predator). The coverage has been nation-wide, and as we're talking about an 1989 crime, Google News is not of much help. PanchoS (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: sorry to repeat Armbrust's argument, but even after the save attempt the criteria in WP:PERPETRATOR are not met. It is only a guideline, and there is always IAR as a way out, but as it stands it fails notability requirements. --Pgallert (talk) 07:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but now believe the coverage was significant enough to enough for general notability, and the case was important enough to have a far reaching impact on how we deal with monsters like the subject. I don't believe in "only a guideline". If it's a guideline, follow it when possible, but the impact tips me in favor of notability. "Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. " In this case, as much as I wanted to delete this, it does. <gnashing teeth /> Dlohcierekim 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article is vastly improved over what it looked like at the start. Dlohcierekim 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I further expanded it and found a number of additional relevant citations, including in academical works, including citations in Canada and Germany. While the question could arise whether according to WP:CRIMINAL the criminal act might be notable rather than the perpetrator, this case clearly shows that it was his criminal career rather than the single crime that led to a public outrage of this scale, finally forcing legislature to enact more severe laws against so called sexually violent predators. PanchoS (talk) 15:44, 4 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Pugh (Conservative politician)[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN. On the subject of his "bust-up", while this does provide coverage, it is carefully excised through WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you sure about WP:NOT#NEWS? It's turned into quite an incident on the Isle of Wight. The article is good too, and well referenced. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think that the recent event adds much to notability, but the subject does pass WP:POLITICIAN criterion 2 as a county council leader (or, to be pedantic, leader of a unitary authority which is co-terminous with a former county) who has received significant press coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having thought more about this, I have decided to vote keep. As Phil says, he has received significant press coverage, as seen in the references of the article. I do think that the bust up increases notability. Not many politicians are seen to say that sort of thing in public. As I says, it's a big topic on the IOW at the moment. Just look at these Ventnor Blog entries. I know not particularly reliable, but [1] 153 comments, [2] 255 comments, [3] 147 comments. These are all unprecedented amounts of comments for the blog to receive. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 19:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to both WP:BLP1E, anyone? much of said news coverage is about this incident involving the "bust-up", and all of it comes from the same, local source; precisely the type of paper to cover the council leader. If local news = passing WP:POLITICIAN, every councillor in Britain could have an article. I was also unaware that WP:POLITICIAN was intended to overrule our BLP policies. Ironholds (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It looks like the event at Cowes Yacht Haven isn't over yet. A number of councillors are now demanding a probe into the event by an independent body. (see [4]). Although it happened on the 18th February it still remains a very much discussed event. Editor5807^speak 13:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I struggle to see how this can be described as a BLP1E, the article does not give undue weight to any incident and the article gives a reasonable coverage of the individual as a biography rather than centred on any one incident. I also agree with Phil Bridger that the article does pass WP:POLITICIAN and would happy that any such politician, who has enough coverage for us write this good an article, should be kept. Davewild (talk) 20:45, 8 March 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) CTJF83 chat 09:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pepcid Complete[edit]

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

Unnotable "acid controler". No reason why every single product in a pharmacy warrants its own article. Speedy for no context was declined, this version was restored from history but new concerns arise. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long-standing brand name, formerly known as Pepcid AC. Plenty of hits here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as CSD declining admin and Per TenPoundHammer. This is a well-established brand name drug. Pepcid AC and Pepcid Complete return a total of over 300 Google scholar citations. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the Find Sources link above, Google Scholar returns 39 hits, many of which are trivial mentions. I'd have no objection to redirecting to Famotidine, as Pepcid currently does, if consensus decides this is better. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you search for the older name "Pepcid AC", you get a total of 300 refs. A redirection to famotidine would not be appropriate, as this is not the drug's sole active ingredient. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all the money the manufacturer spends on marketing, it should be "notable" keep per Irongargoyle and 10#hammer. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marketing doesn't count: See "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." and "Self-promotion, paid material, autobiography, and product placement are not valid routes to an encyclopedia article." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Generally, we check the history for better versions of an article before tagging for CSD. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IronGargoyle - prominent brand (as shown by scholarly Ghits); not a single drug. Bearian (talk) 06:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I would support a merge to Pepcid. Absent the marketing campaign, I find little difference between the non-medical coverage of the two, and I might point us to a much-less-advertised analog, Adderrall. I'd rather see all of these analog drugs covered under a single article unless their size becomes unmanageably large. I wouldn't fault the nominator too hard. There are massive regional differences in drug advertising. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to famotidine (which is what Pepcid redirects to). Basically, it's famotidine combined with common antacids. There's nothing in the article that can't be mentioned elsewhere, if it isn't already. If kept, then people who are impressed with the marketing campaign should work on bloating the article. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, Pepcid complete treats bloating. ;. Actually, I think the ad campaign is pretty obnoxious. Either alternate works for me, but I agree with Berian and Iron Gargoyle and Hammer abd Shadowjams. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you got the joke. Mandsford (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I use omeprazole myself. My reflux thinks Pepcid is a joke ;) Dlohcierekim 19:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep long established standard product, and by our usual guidelines, worth an article. There are clearly enough sources. DGG ( talk ) 16:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet the article is still in the same condition as before nomination, with no sources, and barely the slightest assertation of notability. There is no indication that its previous name was Pepcid AC in the article. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're using "assertion of notability" in the wrong way here. Articles don't need to scream out why they're notable in the first sentence. There only needs to be some indication that they might be notable. The discussion above supports the idea that it's a well known, frequently used, and notable product. A merge might be more appropriate, but whether or not its notability needs to be clearer in the article isn't an issue. Shadowjams (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question where are the multiple non-trivial sources for this "long established standard product"? JBsupreme (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment. According to Pepcids website and multiple hits when searching for "Pepcid AC Pepcid Complete", the products are NOT the same. So again, I'm asking where the notability of Pepcid Complete lies. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editors asking about notability should please inspect the search links above which are provided for this purpose. I did so and had no difficulty finding a good source from the wide selection available. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference you provided is effectively a catalogue entry, and fails the "significant coverage" requirement by some distance. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content.", which is what we have here. The only issue with catalogues is that we don't write like a sales catalogue. But this is irrelevant as the source provided is such a catalogue and we are not planning to write in such a style. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 7 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Yesterday (novel)[edit]

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

~~Not notable, fails WP:NBOOK.~~ Changing vote to keep and improve due to references and awards that would appear to make this book pass WP:NBOOK. –Chase (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See this article from The Age. A google news search also shows many reviews that are behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would be EXTREMELY surprised if any book by Scott Westerfeld didn't have enough sources to fulfil the notability guidelines. He's a very popular and successful YA author. I'll see what I can dig up to improve the article. UsernameRedacted (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is not inherited. –Chase (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia page of this book's author made reference to a notable award that this book won and I've found an additional one and referenced it. UsernameRedacted (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, this article would seem to pass WP:NBOOK. Changing my vote, but as a delete vote still stands, the discussion should resume. –Chase (talk) 01:02, 6 March 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 - Kept Pedro : Chat 20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins Properties[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

unnotable company. no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. does not establish notability. looking at the last afd, even this articles creator has abandoned it. only reason last afd appears to have ended was because participants do not like nominator. Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion on whether this article should stay or go, but you have appear to have missed the point spectacularly with your "only reason last afd appears to have ended was because participants do not like nominator". I suggest that you think more carefully before inserting foot in mouth next time. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sescondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be worthwhile to consider redirecting this article to Tom Cousins depending on the outcome of that AfD and if this AfD warrants it (and it looks like it will). TerraFrost (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources were added by Eastmain but I don't think they cut it since they're incidental (local only, or reporting the company's profits). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i agree. it does not matter what involvement cousins properties had with Bank of America Plaza since notability is not inherited Misterdiscreet (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added an article from The New York Times about one of the company's projects in Austin, Texas. In general, companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange are very likely to be notable, even though they aren't (in most cases) automatically notable. "Notability is not inherited" is sometimes misunderstood. If a company does something notable, then it is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article that Eastmain added was not from The New York Times it was another one from The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. A search of The New York Times for the past five years showed no articles about Cousins Properties. A general search of newspapers found a couple of one-liners in articles in The Austin American-Statesman that mention that Cousins Properties built and managed the 33-story Frost Tower until it was sold to Thomas Properties Group Inc. in 2007. It does appear that Cousins Properties is primarily of local Atlanta interest. --Bejnar (talk) 02:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

indeed. this article would do better in an atlantia wikia than it would on wikipedia Misterdiscreet (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Over 5,000 google news archive hits, a slew of which have Cousins in the headline. I have no clue why this is up for AfD.--Milowent (talk) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is up for AfD because it is non notable. and with three votes to delete (two votes and the nomination) and with one to keep the outcome of this AfD is clear despite your not having a clue Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I respectfully disagree. And vehemently in this case. This company appears to be a major developer, which has developed over 20 million square feet of commercial space, 20 million feet of retail space, 60 suburban developments, and is credited for having a major impact on the Atlanta skyline due to skyscrapers it has developed. The article may have been bare when nominated, but the company is simply not "unnotable" and it indeed has significant coverage in many sources. I cannot think of an AfD like this in recent memory, I am afraid said clue is absent from your noggin, Sherlock. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that is a nice bit of self-aggrandizing. why not add to the article that they are the most awesomest company in the world as well? Misterdiscreet (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of them before yesterday, but they are the most awesomest company in the world.--Milowent (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eleven independent sources, including the WSJ. It was presumably nominated because at that time there was only one independent reference, yet even that one was enough to show it a major company. Why one contrtbutor thinks that stories reporting the company's profit are irrelevant puzzles me considerable because that's one of the key things that makes businesses notable. Why another contributor thinks that showing involvement with a major project is not relevant puzzles me also, because that's another of the key things that makes businesses notable. But a just previous comment that counting votes in the middle of the discussion is not only appropriate but an argument for deletion in its own right really leaves me speechless. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn due to a decent rescue job by Milowent. Could have done with a few thinly-veiled accusations of bad-faith but there we go, happy to withdraw nomination. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misterdiscreet got my dramarama up a bit, sorry 'bout that.--Milowent (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) I didn't close the discussion as there's delete !votes by the way, so didn't know if it was appropriate Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And will all those who wanted this article delete, kindly remember that all you have to do is click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, to find coverage of something. In this case, there were 5,370 results for "Cousins Properties"! Dream Focus 07:51, 7 March 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.

Scott Rasgon[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - appears to be notable after all. The article is highly dependent on primary sources, which is bad, but this can be resolved through the editing process. JBsupreme (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel Sweeties[edit]

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

Delete, this is a non-notable webcomic which fails GNG. The limited coverage it does have is superficial, such as appearing in a long list of names in the Editor & Publisher journal, the remainder of coverage coming from blogs and the like. JBsupreme (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, probably Google Books reveals a few sources for this (in print, no less). This contains a lengthy interview with the cartoonist. Here is another shorter interview from Wired. This book published by the University of Michigan refers to the comic, but there's no preview; this one from Rough Guides has an entry for it. There are also a number of news sources of varying length and depth refering to it.[5]--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. This strip was nationally syndicated for a year, replacing Foxtrot. If that doesn't meet notability requirements for a comic, then what does? -lethe ^{talk +} 01:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep specifically per lethe. thats it thats all. the rest is windowdressing.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The webcomic has gone from web only to published in print, which is a vote of confidence in commercial terms. My vote is clear, but I would note that to properly argue "keep" or "delete" requires a degree of quantification: could someone kindly define the vague and subjective terms "non-notable" and "limited coverage"? What are the exact cut off points? The absence of definition gives an unfortunate impression of arbitrary decision, IMHO worth avoiding. Cheros (talk) 09:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following lethe - national syndication is key here. The article could do with cleaning-up and more coverage that isn't just plot related. (Emperor (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, even without newspaper publishing, this is a WP:NOTABLE webcomic with significant coverage in reliable sources. Ted Rall has a whole chapter in the book "Attitude 3: The New Subversive Online Cartoonists" dedicated to it, putting it on the level of other notable webcomics like The Perry Bible Fellowship, Eric Monster Millikin, and Dinosaur Comics. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:57, 3 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jed Brandt (activist)[edit]

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

I cannot find any independent verifiable resources which talk about Brandt's notability. (Plenty of references to his published works...) Based on how it was originally written, it seems to be a fluff piece trying to capitalize on Glen Beck's reference to him -- which smells a lot like WP:NOT#NEWS to me. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 22:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is a joke in here somewhere, but I won't be the one to make it. JBsupreme (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to what you consider an "independent" "verifiable" resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.99.253 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anon, please read WP:V and WP:RS and the accompanying essays and links. It explains it all. But the issue here is not so much sourcing, as it is "notability" as per WP:NOTE. --Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, that explains it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.99.253 (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge and Redirect into Brecht Forum The article needs cleanup, but political activists (left and right) do not have a specific notability criteria, and hence general notability WP:NOTE applies solely, and I think this subject meets the standard in his specific context of extra-parliamentarian political activism (in particular, he has been published by reliable third parties, who makes him an author who was attacked in the mainstream media - notability is a line in the sand, and I think this crosses it). There are some issue with sourcing that can be fixed (the subject does show up in google and has been involved in notable efforts as a notable, documented participant in these efforts). Certainly he is propelled to the forefront by Glenn Beck's attacks and I can understand the whiff of WP:NOT#NEWS Cobaltbluetony feels, because I also get it. But Glenn Beck attacking someone is not pedestrian, and there is reason why the attack happens: this subject is recognized as an influential person (one of the measures of notability) in his melieu, and while notability is not inherited, it is certainly contextual: of all the people who speak of communism in the Bretch Forum (I mean, the Forum is named for a card-carrying commie :D), Beck chose Brandt for a reason. Notability cannot be revoked, so even if Glenn Beck changes his mind, for better or for worse, he has made Jed Brandt wiki-notable. That said, even if my argument is not convincing, and the community feels this is not article-worthy, I offer that rather than deletion, a merger of the web available biographical information and the FoxNews link be included in Bretch Forum as a section, because it would allow to access the information on this particular controversy, which based on the notability of both Glenn Beck and the Brecht Forum, its not a trivial matter as per WP:NOT#NEWS. There, I did my WP:ARS job for the time being, where is my cookie? :P--Cerejota (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia is about more information not less. This has become a very notable subject, since he was given not just a few minutes, but almost an entire show (rant) by Glen Beck, who has a large audience following on Fox. There will be lots of traffic, as a result, looking for an entry about this published activist, who is now in Nepal covering the Communist movement there (which won the elections, btw). So, when people come to look for info, on someone who is now in the public eye, I'd hope Wikipedia will not let down those who come here expecting to find information. Notability for activists as Cerejota points out is rather general per WP:NOTE, and this meets that criteria.76.14.42.191 (talk) 09:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with the above, so Strong Keep. If Gleen Beck is devoting nearly an entire show to him, he is notable. --Postbagboy (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Brandt's activities and current news-worthyness is notable and relevant enough to constitute an article. While there is too much information there on his life story and as per Cerejota, the article should be cleaned up (rather than deleted). I am also concerned about the frivolity of this call for deletion, which appears to be motivated by personal opposition to Jed Brandt. Hauser (talk) 10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - if we can get some decent sourcing here from reliable, independent sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I see no question of notability. --Mista-X (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Really? Really?? Please, find me two references not referencing Glen Back's piece that establishes his notability. Please! And I'll withdraw. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the article was conceived because Beck says in the famous clip that he couldn't even find a Wikipedia article on Brandt. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty obvious case of WP:ONEEVENT. There is no coverage of this guy prior to the Glenn Beck thing. He is not a known political figure, even within radical left politics. He is just some guy who happened to say things that a TV host could showcase for his own questionable purposes. EvanHarper (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With regards to Brandt's published writings, speeches, organizing and activism, how is he less notable then people like Joseph Epstein (writer) or P. David Hornik or Bill Whittle or Kathy Shaidle? I can tell you none of these people had half an hour devoted to them on a highly rated national television show (who complained about Brandt's lack of a Wikipedia entry), not to mention Brandt's work on left (and some non-left) publications, in addition to speeches, organizing and activism he has been engaged in. Do a Twitter search for Jed Brandt[6]. Then try Kathy Shaidle, Bill Whittle, P. David Hornik or Joseph Epstein, all who have been deemed worthy of having articles. Ruy Lopez (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment for one thing, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. For another, some of your examples are clearly not comparable; Epstein is an editor at one major national publication and a frequent contributor to many others. And: a Twitter search? Really? EvanHarper (talk) 07:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "major national publication"? The largest publication Epstein has printed in has a circulation of 80,664. Time magazine, the 14th largest publication in the US, has a circulation of over 3.3 million. The 89th largest publication in the US, the New Yorker, has a circulation of over 1 million. Those are major national publications. A magazine with a circulation of 80,664 is not a major national publication. Also you say WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Are you saying these people (other than Joey "80664" Epstein) are non-notable? If so I will send them all to AFD and note that you agree they are non-notable. If you think they are notable, then as I have said, Brandt is more notable than them.Ruy Lopez (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The Twitter search was revealing in that it shows he is all over the blogsphere now, being blogged and talked about online by a significant array of bloggers. Given that Glenn Beck shined his spotlight all over this guy, his notablity has skyrocketed, and continues to grow, a snowballing effect that Wikipedia is part of. Ignoring this is a bit delusional. Once the bell is rung, it cant be unrung, the guy is notable enough for mention on Wikipedia. Otherwise, everyone is going to be talking about him except Wikipedia. Remember, this is not just some fringe news coverage, this is Glen Beck, we are talking about, mainstream number one rated in terms of viewers, and it was not a short mention, either. This is a no brainer, KEEP. 76.14.42.191 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Blogo-buzz has little to do with WP:NOTABILITY, and Glenn Beck is practically the definition of "fringe news coverage." Things do not become notable just because a pundit talks about them; again, see WP:ONEEVENT. EvanHarper (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Glenn's views might be extreme and fringe (teabaggers), but his show is a highly rated in terms of how large his viewing audience is, and this is mainstream Fox news, not some little cable station. EVERYONE with a TV basically just got Jed Brant beamed into their living room and consciousness. I might be exaggerating a bit, but not by much. I just noticed that this has entered into the “Top in all topics” list on Digg.com:http://digg.com/politics/Glenn_Beck_claims_progressivism_leads_to_Nazism_Oh_really It’s interesting to see this talked about so much now outside of this converstation. Here’s the story that digg links to with video http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/glenn-beck-claims-progressivism-lead 76.14.42.191 (talk) 09:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
Comment Not sure if anyone else has followed Glenn Beck's show, but he did it again. Yes, again, he ran a show on Jed Brandt, doing some typical MacCarthyist anti-communism, scare story. Anyway, now its not just a 'one time event," since Glenn Beck is attacking Jed Brandt TWICE. I also notice more blogs repeating it, as is usual in the right-wing echo chamber.76.14.42.191 (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentMake that three times now. http://video.foxnews.com/v/4060298/americas-flirtation-with-extremes/?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a16:g2:r1:c0.076972:b31271496:z6 and http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,587789,00.html. They both play and discuss Jed Brandt.76.14.42.191 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to closing admin - There is an argument to be made around WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS applies here, but I am of the view that it is misapplied in this case. Having been in many AfDs and DRs etc (hell, one almost got me blocked for 24 hours! - and am a veteran of Epic ArbComs and never got blocks from that, so try to make the mental picture ;), I can say without a doubt the community's intent in supporting the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is based on the intent of trying to WP:POINT because someone is hurt that their article was baleted, or cannot tolerate the existence of that article that was kept - that is, to keep AfD trolls at bay from arguing endlessly that *their article* got deleted or *that article* got kept. In this particular discussion, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS doesn't apply because the comparison is one gauging current community consensus around what is notable and what isn't, which can only be reasonably done by looking at previous consensus. There is no attempt, that that I can tell to be pointy. Quite the contrary, a reasoned argument was made for deletion and has been followed by reasoned arguments for keeping. Regardless of outcome, I ask the closing admin to concentrate on the cardinal point of notability keeping in mind the following:

Notability is not a hierarchy, it is a line in the sand - you are either notable enough for an article or you aren't. Certainly before the Glenn Beck segment(s) this threshold was not met. The question is if these segments changed that. Ultimately, this is the most important aspect and the pivot for a decision for or against deletion.
Notability is not the same as notoriety; one must avoid WP:IDONTKNOWIT - In general BLPs are for people who are notable in their field of endeavor, which can be as mainstream as national political leaders, as obscure as particle physicists, as scary as serial killers, as pedestrian as an elected official, as crazy as a conspiracy theorist etc. It is not a measure of how well known a person is to global society, but of giving readers a wide view of the people in a given field, for which they are known for. L. Ron Hubbard is notable for being a sci-fi writer and a founder of a religion - that he also was a musician is not a measure of notability for him. In this case, I argued that the field is extra-parliamentarian political activism, specifically the (self-identified) communist left. So we have to determine if Jed Brandt is actually notable in that field or not. To try to measure this article by any other yardstick would be to not base oneself in what notability has been generally been seen as.
Notability is not a subjective criteria - notability can be verified, by reliable sources and by supporting (primary, tertiary or secondary) sources that are not reliable.
A good measure of notability is if the given article can be linked to other articles that already exist - that is, it is not going to be an orphan and will add important information to the linked topics.

I already made an argument to keep or merge, so I am not revisiting it, but the discussion seems to have lost some focus on what is meant when we say notability in wikipedia.--Cerejota (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is the fourth show on Glenn Beck where he mentions Jed Brandt: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4066227/workers-of-the-world-unite Show me someone else who is on Glenn Becks four times, and I bet that person has a wikipedia entry.76.14.42.191 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not see the notability here. Cerejota's reasoning is coherent but does not, in this specific case, convince me. Someone else is going to have to write about the subject before WP:N is met. And even if being mentioned by Beck would make someone notable, we have a fundamental problem here: no other sources mention him or give any detail, except for his own website--so the only two possible sources would be Beck and subject, and neither are reliable sources, and you'd be left with a stub that would look very much like that of a fictional character written in in-universe terms. Drmies (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was not notable prior to the Glenn Beck shows, so notability stemming from the few shows is WP:ONEEVENT.--Pink Bull 04:30, 9 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Methods of website linking[edit]

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

WP:HOWTO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Seems too thin on sources, too heavy on OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong keep' A lot of work in this article, copy edit, perhaps, deletion no --Jemesouviens32 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Needs to be cleaned up not deleted. Boston2austin (talk) 00:21, 5 March 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 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Docker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability seems to come from the fact that he was capped for Pakistan (article claimed 3 times) but although he was named as sub, and somewhat bizarrely it seems he didn't come on as he left his shirt in the changing room, I cannot find any evidence he played. Thus as only played semi-pro football and in league of wales which is not fully professional, I would say he fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - didn't realise I had already nominated this before and a decision had been taken to keep on basis of WP:GNG being met. This nomination can be withdrawn Steve-Ho (talk) 22:45, 2 March 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) 00:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baya Michaelson[edit]

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

The subject fails general notability and notability for musicians. I could find no reliable sources. TheTito ^Discuss 21:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 2 March 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) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live at Gibson Amphitheatre: August 15th, 2007[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Hilary Duff is a notable musician, but this is not a particularly notable release. Per WP:NALBUM: "Album articles with little more than a track listing may be more appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article, space permitting." This article is little more than a tracklist and a paragraph consisting of an overview of the content and original research. If this were to be deleted, sufficient information could be located at Hilary Duff discography, so a merge is unnecessary. –Chase (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to note that the arguments (for both keep and delete) raised in the last AfD were poor.

"This is not a major album release, it is released on I-Tunes only." That's not why it should be deleted; it should be deleted because there's hardly any verifiable info about it.
"It's also her first live album." Irrelevant.
"Why is this being considered for deletion when many other exclusive iTunes albums/EPs aren't?" WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, some iTunes-exclusive albums are more notable than this.
"This is her first live album, its part of her discography, so it has to stay. NO matter if it doesnt have a major release, its important to her music career" An album that didn't chart anywhere isn't very important to her career, if you ask me. And this doesn't have to stay just because it's a part of her discography; note is made of it at Hilary Duff discography and that should suffice. –Chase (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 3 March 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) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C-DUBB[edit]

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

Delete, article about a WP:BLP which appears to fail WP:MUSIC and GNG, lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ferdausi Rahman[edit]

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

Probably a non-notable person. If the article is to be believed, she's famous in Bangladesh, but there is only one source provided, and Google doesn't turn up anything else. Bobby Tables (talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(No opposition from me to a speedy keep if someone fixes the sourcing issues...my Google search earlier was teh broken and as such I probably shouldn't have nominated this article for deletion...) Bobby Tables (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The artist is a well known singer in Bangladesh. She was in fact the first singer to appear in the first program of the erstwhile Pakistan Television in 1964. She was (And probably still is) the host of a very popular Children's Musical program on Bangladesh Television. I believe the spelling variations of her name led to your not finding any google hits ... there have been multiple articles/media coverage on her work. For example:

Down memory lane - Ghazals of Feroza Begum and Ferdousi Rahman in Delhi, Daily Star, July 16, 2009. "The timeless works of two Bangladeshi nightingales -- Ferdousi Begum (now Rahman) and Feroza Begum -- were presented at “A Feast of Ghazals,” an evening dedicated to the singers of yesteryears in New Delhi.".
Ferdausi Rahman honoured, The Daily Star, July 19, 2009. "Veteran artiste Ferdausi Rahman was honoured at the Radisson Water Garden Hotel on July 17. As part of 'Gunijon Shongbordhona' programme, Ferdausi Rahman was greeted with a standing ovation at the event. Her melodious voice and popular songs have found a special place in the hearts of millions. A legion of A-list stars paid homage to Rahman with special performances and moving words on her contribution. The theme of this year's programme was "Aji jhoro jhoro mukhoro badolo diney.""
Social roles of celebrities, Daily Star, November 12, 2004. "Ferdousi Rahman, is a name known and loved by millions for her outstanding contribution to music. "
BTV revives 'Esho Gaan Shikhi', Daily Star, August 19, 2006. "It should be mentioned that the programme started in 1964 and quite a few prominent cultural personalities of today have participated in the show as students at some point. Ferdousi Rahman became known to the young audience throughout the nation as 'Khalamoni' (aunt), as she was called in the show."
National Film Award of Bangladesh, 1976, Best Music Director (film)
Ferdousi receives lifetime achievement award, Daily Star, 2008-05-23.
http://nation.ittefaq.com/issues/2009/12/20/news0165.htm Ferdousi Rahman, Nashid Kamal at Aamar ami, The New Nation, 20 December, 2009. "She is familiar as 'Khalamoni' in the country's musical arena. She is a moderator of BTV's one of the most popular programmes 'Esho Gaan Shikhi.' She is the only daughter of legendary artiste of the subcontinent late Abbasuddin. She is Ferdousi Rahman. When she was six years old she rendered song in a programme titled 'Khelaghar' in radio. She received President Award of Pakistan Pride of Performance in 1965 as the youngest singer. Therefore she also got national award as best music director. She has travelled in many countries. Although she got her primary learning on music from her father, later she got training from maestros in India. "
Already mentioned in the article, she is the winner of one of the highest civilian national awards of Bangladesh, the Ekushey Padak.

I can easily go on with the references, but I guess I've proved my point of opining strong keep here. Hope this helps. --Ragib (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ragib's research. Clearly notable person in her country. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs to be expanded and cited, not deleted. Google brings up many, many useful hits.ManicSpider (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. ManicSpider (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow/speedy keep. Per all the above keeps. The nom may wish to consider withdrawing nomination, to save the time of editors who otherwise may visit this issue in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is poorly sourced, but this is no excuse for nom as sources are abundantElen of the Roads (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep Clicking on Google news search at the top of the AFD shows plenty of mention of this person. Always search for references BEFORE nominating things. Dream Focus 07:54, 4 March 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) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venik[edit]

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

Non-notable software package Bobby Tables (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. 2010-01-15 - Version 0.1. That says it all about the expectation for secondary coverage, and I can find none. Pcap ping 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google shows no signs of significant coverage by reliable sources^[7]. — Rankiri (talk) 13:40, 3 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PIXELearning Ltd[edit]

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

In my opinion, this company does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, self-published sources as all references, appears to have been written to promote the company. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources are independent and not self-pub. This is Gamasutra's siter site (article advertised there [8]). The FT article has just a brief mention (and is incorrectly listed as being in The Economist, although a google news search indicates that a different article in The Economist may have a mention as well). There's some book coverage [9] and some 40 citations in google scholar. Pcap ping 13:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable, verifiable independent secondary sources (WP:COMPANY). Amsaim (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pcap. Sources seem reasonable to me. Amsaim, could you address what you find to be the problem here? Hobit (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I declined a speedy - for unambiguous promotional-ness - but thought that the article should probably be deleted at AfD. However, Pcap's sources sway me towards keep: the first one, in seriousgamessource, looks reliable as far as I can make out and together with the book and Gscholar mentions adds up to notability in my mind. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news finds dozens of results mentioning the company.[10] They must be doing some notable things. Dream Focus 08:15, 7 March 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 Don't repeat yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Single choice principle[edit]

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

There seems to be little [11] independent coverage of this principle. Pcap ping 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Don't repeat yourself, until there's significant content? However, if you want to keep it, here's a second source: pages Page 61-63 of Object Oriented Software Construction (2nd ed.) by Bertrand Meyer (at least according to http://www.geocities.com/tablizer/meyer1.htm#singlechoice aka http://www.reocities.com/tablizer/meyer1.htm#singlechoice ) Again, same author. But this seems to be a popular phrase in CS class discussions of architecture, whether or not Eiffeil is discussed. Could also be listed as a design principle for object oriented design. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. -- samj _in^out 01:30, 6 March 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) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greekenese[edit]

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

New page by new editor. No references, and appears to be something that was just made up off the cuff. Google search reveals it as a sort of mutated portmanteau of "Greek" and "Chinese", but food is not the only applicable idea for the term.... Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the best place to present someone's own recipe. WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:OR. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 00:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 16:41, 4 March 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. EdJohnston (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Closet (short film)[edit]

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

I'm sorry but I just can't see this as notable. This is a short film that has appeared at a specialized festival, and not had any general release. I was able to find one significant review in what looks to me like a reliable source, and nothing else that was non-trivial. The only other currently cited source is the IMDB. Does not seem to pass any of the criteria at WP:NOTFILM. DES ^(talk) 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my nom unless independent, reliable sources are found that reasonably establish notability. Notability is the only issue I see here that would warrant deletion. DES ^(talk) 20:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see this as meeting notability guidelines. One reviewer called the film a "B" movie. At first I thought I would find non-trivial coverage, but a search that includes "In the Closet" draws a number of false positives. Saw nothing more than brief reviews in passing, and they were few and far between. Also, the article does not assert any significance. The J. T. Tepnapa article indicates the film was nominated for the Iris Award, so perhaps a redirect there would be in order. Dlohcierekim 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - some sources recently added show an award nomination. As the article was nominated for deletion only 3 days after creation, I do not believe that reasonable attempt at improvement has been made before raising for deletion. Please follow the guidance of BEFORE. Ash (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I do assure you that I looked in both Google and Google news for sources, and i in fact added a reference and the "Critical response" section. I may have missed a source, but I did make a serious WP:Before attempt (I also declined a speedy deletion request). DES ^(talk) 18:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources added:

http://www.gayporntimes.com/hardnews/2008/05/19/brent-corrigans-in-the-closet-frightfest/ appears to be self-published, and I'm not sure if it should be considered a Reliable source.
http://www.afterellen.com/node/58880 simpl;y states the award nom. It might not be an RS, but it links to http://www.irisprize.org/10895.html, which does appear to be reliable for the fact of the award nomination.
http://www.doorq.com/blog.aspx?b=3006 appeard to be by the creator of the film, and so is not independent, but in any case simply repeats the fact of the nomination which seems well established. But it does not contribute to "substantial coverage".
http://www.peccapics.com/View/id,186 announces that the short film has been included in a commercially released CD compilation. This is apparently a page from the publisher, and so is not independent, but should be reliable for the fact of the compilation and its contents, and the fact of the release probably adds to notability.
http://outfest.org/outfest/outfest.html does not appear to mention the flim at all, and does not even support the statement that the festival occurred in 2008. (The page looks like it is under construction, and the last listed "previous festival" is 2007.)

I'm not sure whether these together amount to notability or not. DES ^(talk) 18:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

***With regard to your assurance that you Googled, fair enough. However, you followed point 3 of BEFORE by tagging the article for improvement, I see little point of then immediately raising an AfD if you intended to give suitable time for the improvement you were asking for. If there are grounds for expecting improvement then an article should never be deleted. Ash (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares. Let it go: discuss the nomination, not the nominating editor. TJRC (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Commet Being nominated for the Iris Award does not make the film notable. I mentioned the nomination earlier. I think ~~it's insulting to accuse others of not looking for a way~~ an adequate effort was made to improve this and ~~snarky to chide the nominator with~~ citing BEFORE, is unwarranted. ~~as if suddenly~~ No new information has come to light that makes the film notable. The nominator declined the speedy and brought it here for discussion. If he were reckless and in a hurry to delete, the opportunity was then. It does not take 3 days or one day to search for sources. All I found were trivial references and no indication of meeting notability requirements. Dlohcierekim 18:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and yes DES, those links are trivial. Dlohcierekim 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Dlohcierekim, making uncivil comments and striking them out is not a retraction. If an admin with as much experience as you behaves this way in an AfD then frankly the discussion is not worth having. I shall now strike my comments from this discussion rather than putting up with tiresome nonsense like being called snarky. I have seen far too many badly behaved and uncivil admins of late. Do what you want with this article; I'm taking this page off my watch-list so if you want to discuss your uncivil behavior please do so on my talk page.' Ash (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In spite of the new sources, deos not seem to meet any of the criteria of WP:NOTFILM. Lets consider those criteria.
- "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." Obviously not fulfilled, none of the reviews known are from nationally known critics, nor can the CD be called "wide distribution", I think.
- "The film is historically notable" All the sub criteria refer to recognition that occurs more than 5 years after release, which can't apply here.
- "The film has received a major award for excellence..." I'm not sure if the Iris Award should cout as major, but in any case this film did not win, it was one of thirty nominees.
- No evidence of a national archive or being the subject of a college-level course.
- Which leaves the general criterion: "...has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I see two fairly substantial reviews. One seems to be in a blog, and one in an online alternative news source. That is, IMO, at best marginal. If there were two more like the "This Week in Texas" review, i might think this notable. I also suspect that like individual songs, individual short films (12 minutes in this case) are rarely individually notable. DES ^(talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  With respects DES, you're quoting "attributes to consider" as if they were mandated requirements. All WP:NF suggests is that if those attributes existed, editors might be diligent in a search for sources. And as you note, many of those attributes are totally inapplicable to a short independent film that was released only last October. As for the Iris Prize, it is indeed a pretty big deal and highly notable among the LGBT community of filmmakers. Guideline accpets that independent short films and more specially independent LGBT films do not get reviewed by "nationally known critics" in the same manner the major studio's, highly-touted and financed blocbusters do. Being notable to the LGBT community is notable enough for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelQSchmidt: In general, (in my experience here) the criteria of a notability guideline are treated as mostly mandatory if the subject doesn't fulfill the general notability guideline, that is if sources with significant discussion of the subject to establish it's notability haven't been found and presented. If sources to establish notability have been found, fine, that ends the question. If not then if one or more of the alternative criteria is fulfilled, then in general people will presume notability. If neither is true, then usually the subject will be considered non-notable unless there is a very special reason why not. It doesn't seem to me that the general criterion has been fulfilled, although that could be debated. There is some coverage, so what is sufficient is a judgment call. Therefore I went down the list of alternative criteria, to see if any of them were fulfilled either. None seems to be, IMO. I will grant that a prize or award notable within a particular community, such as the LTGB community, is enough for notability, we don't cover only mainstream Hollywood culture, and should not. But is being one of thirty nominees for the award enough to make this notable? In particular is "gayporntimes" a reliable source, or is it more of a self-published blog? if it is a blog we have exactly one review, the TWIT one, from a reliable source. You say "Guideline accepts that independent short films...do not get reviewed by 'nationally known critics'" Where does it discuss an alternate way of determining notability for short films. WP:NSONG says that individual songs are very rarely notable. Does/should a similar principle apply to short films? if not, why not? DES ^(talk) 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any claim to notability is imaginary. Fails the general notability guideline and Notability (films). --Bejnar (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search for the name of the film and the name of the director, reveals two results. [12] Google news search considers those valid news sites. Dream Focus 01:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually look at those, they are not reviews, the first one has only a single sentence about the film which, roughly translated reads: The young and popular porn performer Brent Corrigan, for example, protrays a disturbing emissary of evil forces in the short film "In The Closet" by Jody Wheeler, which was presented with a good success at the Iris Prize Festival 2009, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. The second one has exactly the same sentence in the same paragraph. --Bejnar (talk) 03:01, 8 March 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) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DVDFab Virtual Drive[edit]

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

New software article written by a WP:SPA. No independent sources. Hello, goodbye. Pcap ping 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I can't qualify this as spam per se, since it is free software, it certainly is not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Freeware from a company that also makes the non-free DVDFab. Pcap ping 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:24, 2 March 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) 00:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every Subway Car[edit]

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

This track is not a true single (right now) with no radio play or video release; it's merely a preview track from the album. It's not notable TheHYPO (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - perhaps in the near future WP will have to come up with a new guideline for "single release" when the song is released to iTunes rather than radio and record stores. Surely the wave of the future... but for now this song is not notable per precedent. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 3 March 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) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ponsmere Hotel[edit]

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

I'm unable to find any substantive treatment in reliable sources that would satisfy the general notability guideline. Deor (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Deor (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete - I, too, can find no reasons to keep it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to dwm. If dwm goes away, consider merging to Tiling window manager instead. Or, renominate for AfD EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dmenu[edit]

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

This is a component of dwm itself at AfD. Prod was removed as controversial. Pcap ping 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to dwm. --Gwern (contribs) 19:24 2 March 2010 (GMT)
- That article looks bound to be deleted as well. Pcap ping 19:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable component of non-notable software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not independently notable, and no sources provided. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to dwm ; if "dwm" is deleted, then so will this be, if not, then it should be in that article anyways. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep as per the Arch Linux Magazine 2010-01 “dmenu is probably one of the most widely used minimalistic applications for Linux. Originally built for use with the dwm tiling window manager, dmenu has since found use in virtually ever other tiling window manager as well as several floating window managers, most notably Openbox”. Draketo (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arch Linux Magazine looks like a self-published blog and not an actual magazine. Just take a look at its main page. — Rankiri (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Arch Linux Magazine is a newsletter put out by the Arch Linux distro and has a list of authors/editors. The official copy of that issue ArneBab mentions is at http://www.archlinux.org/static/magazine/2010/ALM-2010-Jan.html According to the statement of responsibility, the Executive Editor's handle is Ghost1227, so I think finding a mirror at a personal site called ghost1227.com is not surprising. :) Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the article survives, mention in Tiling window manager, since it is used with some notable ones by default. --AVRS (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to dwm and, assuming said article survives, list it along with other common suckless X tools. Although the dwm-tools Debian package outranks dwm in both the Debian[13] and Ubuntu[14] statistics of recently used packages, dmenu is technically on par with whereis, another pointless stand-alone article. Regarding notability, dmenu is the officially recommended application launcher by unrelated projects like Xmonad[15]. —Ive-Ive (talk) 10:31, 8 March 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 Into the Mouth of Badd(d)ness. EdJohnston (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aggravation Plantation[edit]

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

Article consists of fan trivia, some of which can be added to album article Into The Mouth of Badd(d)ness. Otherwise, WP:NSONGS is not met. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given that Brown Brigade looks like an nn article it follows that this would be just as nn. Misterdiscreet (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - disagree with what Misterdiscreet said about the band above. They are notable and their article is pretty well sourced. We just don't need articles for each song. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cost-performance ratio[edit]

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

A combination of original research, foretelling the future and defining a term which belongs in Wiktionary, if anywhere. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary - If it had to be deleted or moved to Wikitionary, this article should be moved. Just because you're not a fan of the Singularity like me, it doesn't mean you have to disregard articles about our future. GVnayR (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't care one way or the other about it. But creating random articles and adding references to existing articles that reference it is a direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Just because the idea is cool (and I agree it's a cool idea) doesn't mean it is inevitable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment - I have toned down the article a bit. Now it's other people's turn to expand on it. GVnayR (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, otherwise transwiki to Wikitionary. I made some changes that should make it more clear where this term is coming from and that it's part of futurist speculation. Should be OK now. causa sui × 21:32, 2 March 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. Article can be userfied on request EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nanotech Age[edit]

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

Blatant crystal balling, thinly veiled by appearing to describe a trope in science fiction. The part that isn't crystal balling is pure original research. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have been doing my part to eliminate some of the OR and reference more of my work. Hopefully, this is good enough for the critics now. GVnayR (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The page still contains innumerable "will happens". Just because Kurzweil has published a book speculating about the future does not mean you can write an article about that same speculation. Including it as a summary of key points in an article on the book? Fine. Writing articles about it as if the speculation is an established fact? Not fine. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reponse to comment - Instead of trying to delete the article, why don't you rephrase the "will happens" to "may happens?" That way, we can end this petty issue and move on with our lives. GVnayR (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Because "may happen" applies to nearly anything under the Sun. The reason we don't predict the future is that "may happen" would cover articles on all sorts of absurdity which is inherently unverifiable and non-encyclopedic. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - ~~Fine then, I will change my vote to transwiki to Future Wikia. This valuable article won't be deleted a second time. GVnayR (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete or userfy as a large batch of synthesis and crystal-ballery. Taking a bunch of references that say "with that technology, this may be possible" and stringing them together doesn't make an article. Bfigura ^(talk) 18:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC) updated 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then what does make an article? If you want to take over editing this article, be my guest. Since my work about the future isn't appreciated here, it's your article now. GVnayR (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I'd start here: WP:BRIEF. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To answer the question: Conforming to Wikipedia's standards. It's a great article for wikia, I just don't think it's suitable for Wikipedia. If you want to move it to Wikia, by all means, do so. (I'm not sure how that works, since I've only every transwiki'd things to sister projects, I don't know how that would work for wikia). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I already placed it in Future Wikia under an anonymous IP so that part of the job is done now. GVnayR (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see much speculation in this article. What I see is encyclopedic coverage of other people's speculation in primary sources. It would be better if the article's language emphasized that it is merely documentation of an existing body of work (rather than a representation of it), but that is easily fixable and hardly a deletion rationale. causa sui × 21:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that all the speculation is sourced (and sourced very well), the problem I see is that those speculations are combined using synthesis. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 21:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair objection, and the article could use some work, but I think deletion is throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. The article needs help, but it's an unusually good effort for a new contributor (on a worthy topic, mind you) who seems willing to respond to peer comments and criticism. We ought to be directing our efforts to helping him understand what is wrong with the article so it can be improved, especially since he seems to be so willing to accept direction from more experienced editors and then put in the effort himself. causa sui × 21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's very well done, but I'm not sure the problem is really fixable. This is a very well done (and well referenced) essay. I'm not sure how to go about removing the synthesis while keep any decent chunk of material. However, userfying would at least ensure that this stays around in accessible place for fixing (or so that the references can be mined for other potential articles). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*::: You put up a pretty convincing idea, causa sai. Because you had to guts to stand up for my article, I'm changing my vote back to keep. GVnayR (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete impossibly indefensible synthesis and original research. each and every reference would have to specifically mention "nanotech age" or a close variant, which on cursory examination they dont. if the creator wants to try to choose some of the best refs and add them to existing articles, go ahead, esp. if some of them do refer to nanotech in a way not covered in the main article on this. ray kurzweils article doesnt even use this phrase at this time. perhaps a mention should go there first. as to whether there is a possible article here: maybe, but this content is almost completely useless. ok, if enough people are willing to do this, trim to a stub, then rebuild carefully.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This Nanotech Age article has to do more than just nanotechnology. It deals with the "state of the world" by the year 2025 when the Nanotech Age age is supposed to take place in. As a holistic transhumanist, I believe that everything is interconnected to the Nanotech Age and to each other. GVnayR (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Feel free to expand the article on Transhumanism with a limited amount of the *well-sourced* material here then. Creating an article to expound on your personal interpretation of your pseudo-religious beliefs isn't an appropriate use of Wikipedia. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Merge to Transhumanism. If nobody likes this article, then it should be merged with an article just like this one. GVnayR (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hard to say whether it's true, but it's certainly notable. -- samj _in^out 01:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well intentioned, but not reasonable as an encyclopedic article. This would be an excellent opinion piece on a site encouraging original research, but it is not satisfactory here because a large array of views have been assembled with no coherent source (for example, "would most likely be fructose" is sourced, but has no relevance to the article topic). The content is essentially WP:SYNTH built on an unimportant speculation about the future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 6 March 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. Article can be userfied for anyone who thinks they can find sources, even in Swedish EdJohnston (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coca Cola Cowboys[edit]

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

Unreferenced after 4 years, no evidence of notability, dictionary definition of term, but I highly doubt that wiktionary will think this notable either. A phrase simply taken from a song isn't enough to make an article, songs aren't reliable sources. I recommend DELETE. - Wolfkeeper 17:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable term. Seems more suited to urban dictionary than wiktionary Bfigura ^(talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to "C. C. Cowboys", covering the song itself instead of the pejorative term which was derived from the song. PanchoS (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the topic the article covers though, would that even be notable? Unless it's changed by the end of the review it should be deleted, and possibly should still be deleted even then.- Wolfkeeper 23:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT "Dictionary entries" and/or "Usage, slang and/or idiom guides". Orderinchaos 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Keep Imperiet is without much doubt the biggest Swedish post-punk band (lead singer Thåström was also singer in Ebba Grön, perhaps a bigger punk band in Sweden than the Sex Pistols were in the UK, this is no hyperbole). It was one of their biggest hits (Imperiet#discography), though not so big as to become an idiomatic part of the Swedish language, that would be a bit of an exaggeration(is there any song title like that in English? O.P.P.? Must be some more examples.) I have now rewritten it as a translation from sv:wiki, taking away the phony dicdef and the pro-Soviet slant.^walk victor falk^talk 04:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, per User:PanchoS, Rename to C.C. Cowboys, the correct name of the song. ^walk victor falk^talk 05:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  Sure go ahead with the move, but it's simply completely unreferenced, and doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines, so in the meantime it still seems to be delete-worthy.- Wolfkeeper
  - It's true that it might be very difficult to find English sources; on the other that's very easy to find in Swedish. And Wikipedia's policy is notable in one language, notable in all languages.^walk victor falk^talk 18:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - There's certainly no requirement that it be referenced in English, but if it's not referenced (which is the current situation after many, many requests) then it can (and should) be deleted. FWIW the Swedish article is not referenced either.- Wolfkeeper 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From when the afd started until now, the subject of the article changed from a term to a song.--Pink Bull 04:41, 9 March 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 Love (The Beatles album). Any salvageable, sourceable content can be merged to the target article if desired - the history has been left intact at Love (sampler album), where this article was moved to after the nomination was created ~ mazca ^talk 14:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOVE (4 Track Sampler)[edit]

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

Perma-stub with no sources, marked for merge since last November. As far as I can tell, there is no meaningful content, but even if there was (or if someone adds some), it can and should be merged into Love (The Beatles album). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - as suggested by Justin and the person who added the suggestion to the article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:29, 3 March 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) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Cross, Kahnawake[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable unreferenced personal memorial, unlikely to be salvageable. Deconstructhis (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non notable one event. Nuttah (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources provided aren't convincing. One predicted a release in September, 2009, which did not happen. Article could be recreated if good sources appear EdJohnston (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shakurspeare[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Othan than the website of record label, there are no reliable sources of this upcoming album. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Karppinen (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Karppinen (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a substantial and reliable information in following sources: allhip-hop, Rolling Stone, New Zealand Herald, Paste Magazine, LA Times music blog (etc). WP:CRYSTAL is not applicable in this case, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The sources mentioned above were published earlier last year, with no recent confirmation of such album. WP:CRYSTAL might apply with the fact that no recent details of the album is being made. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 01:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources linked by user:Vejvančický.--Pink Bull 04:45, 9 March 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. Clear concensus to delete, but without prejudice to recreate should notability be established in the future -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NAJMS[edit]

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

Relatively new journal, not indexed anywhere (except by the Library of congress, which indexes everything). Article creation premature, not notable yet. Does not meet WP:Notability (academic journals) or WP:N. Crusio (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per nom Polargeo (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while it does exist, and that's usually my inclusion criteria for journals, this one seems to have more editors than papers published suggesting that it's not quite ready for primetime. Add to that that I could find only two people that included it on their CV. Google turns up nothing substantial. And it has not been cited in the literature. So I'd recommend deleting for now, but recreating if it ever becomes regularly cited. -Atmoz (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically per nom and Atmoz's research. I have to say, I have never seen a journal with so many editors. It makes you wonder a. what all these people do and b. if they ever get it done. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually pretty normal for clinically-focused journals (see here, or here, or here, or here....(wow)). The vast majority of these are unpaid reviewers/referees. -- MarcoTolo (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal

I disclose my conflict of interest with the journal, for I'm one of managing editors and an editor of the journal. I also would like to thank you for your consideration and valuble input on the journal.
We are fully aware of the editor number problem, and are shrinking it down. I also submit you a piece of suggestion. Go read the articles, not just the editorial board member names. A hidden fact/concern is that there are too many Chinese? We are also working to diversity our editorial board. However, please do not judge an editorial board or a person just by his or her race ethnicity, if this comes to your mind.
Please give careful consideration of your own qualification(s). Please do not easily following what the "nom" says. Sorry, I'm new and don't get what "nom" is. Educate me on this, if you will. This medical journal is primarily for clinical and translational research. If you merely have any medical training or qualification, please take caution while judging its value or impact. Because it does not fall in your expertise, and you might not be the right person to review. Do not get me wrong, however, you are of course entitled and welcome to express your thoughts and constructive suggestions, freely and independently. Our goal is to promote general public health at large.
Let me just briefly introduce one of our recent articles: The breast cancer screening is under scrunity for recent research suggesting it does not find new "bad" tumors, rather "ok" or slow growing tumors. What does it mean for general practitioner, here comes our commentary: Early Detection and Prevention of Breast Cancer- A reflection of the USPSTF 2009 recommendation -- Jon Zhang (talk) Jon Zhang (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "nom" is the "nomination" (the top four lines of this discussion) or the "nominator" (myself). If somebody votes "per nom", it means that this person agrees with the deletion rationale presented. As far as I can see nobody here has commented upon the diversity (or lack thereof) of the editorial board, just on the fact that most people that are on the board do not even bother to mention this in their CV. Nobody here either comments on the quality of the material published in your journal, as that is not the subject of this discussion. We try to establish whether the journal is "notable" in the sense that this is used in Wikipedia, which is independent of quality (indeed something of very low quality or a very bad person can be very notable just because of that). If your journal publishes good quality material, I am sure that in time it will get cited frequently, included in major databases, covered in independent reliable sources, in short, become notable. However, at this point this is not yet the case and WP is not a crystal ball. --Crusio (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment

CV listing: Google propably was used to come to the conclusion that "most people that are on the board do not even bother to mention this in their CV". The fact is most of the board editors did not update online CVs, or simply do not publish their CVs online. List a couple with CV here: Calvin Pan and Lanjing Zhang.
I do not agree to include a journal without looking into its article quality. One may at least rely on journal's reputation, which however is associated with its article impact and quality.
It came to my impression that inclusion in indexing agencies, aka SCI and Scopus, is your sole resource/requirement of inclusion in WP academic journals. Pubmed and google scholar are excluded according to your guideline, WP:N. How to define the reliable resources, and who? It is exactly the reason why I object to your guideline, WP:N, for potential controversy, misuse and misleading info.
Inclusion of NAJMS article in WP is a much smaller matter than the inclusion criteria/guideline itself. Again, I appreciate the time and efforts on initiating the project, of you and Headbomb. I have deep passion for the WP since my first contribution to it in 2005, and wish it become better and better. This is the WP community, at the end. Thanks! Jon Zhang (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Yes, this is not an attack on the quality of the journal, it simply means that we think the journal has not been verified to be notable (in the Wikipedian sense). Young journals have an uphill battle here because they didn't have the time to become highly-cited, and are often not yet indexed by relevant databases. Most people are convinced that journals are notable when they are indexed by one or more selective databases, or are the official publications of large professional associations (or national ones), although there are other ways to show notability (usually that means the journal is controversial, or otherwise made the news). So basically, the creation of this article is premature. Assuming NAJMS become notable in the future, the article can be recreated. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, "we don't think that we have enough independent(!) sources to write an article about this journal" (the sole issue at hand here) is completely unrelated to whether the journal can be WP:CITEd as a reliable source in other articles. To give an example, we have plenty of independent sources complaining about the lack of peer review at Medical Hypotheses, so it gets an article, but most medicine-related editors would still prefer that papers from that journal not be cited in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Echoing Crusio, a journal doesn't really exist to to the world if it isn't in PubMed. And independent review, as is provided by selective indexing, is needed to give strength the implied claim that it is a trustworthy journal, which is less clear from a glance at the articles as it is for, say, BMC Surgery. I've probably expressed myself more harshly than my opinion is, apologies for that. Narayanese (talk) 11:07, 4 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Underground EP[edit]

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

Non-notable EP, possible bootleg, fails WP:MUSIC. Karppinen (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 3 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AJ (English Singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, unreferenced, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 14:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please find info that has been found online for AJ from page 1 on google

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/young-Bristol-pretender-new-prince-pop/article-1832231-detail/article.html http://itunes.apple.com/gb/album/get-up-jump-single/id315556809 http://www.emusic.com/album/AJ-Get-Up-Jump-MP3-Download/11466893.html http://video.google.com/videosearch?client=safari&rls=en&q=aj+get+up+jump&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=xCSNS_D-H6f20gSslojMCw&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CCIQqwQwAw# http://amiestreet.com/music/aj-2/get-up-jump/ http://images.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=aj%20get%20up%20jump&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Peter-Andre-Yate-Christmas-lights-switch/article-1530938-detail/article.html

just a few! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teampoptart (talk • contribs) 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing those, but please note that the only WP:Reliable sources in that list are the two Bristol Evening Post articles. One is a profile of AJ, but the other only mentions him in passing. One profile in the local press is a good start, but on its own doesn't constitute significant coverage from WP:Reliable sources. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single local newspaper giving significant coverage falls short of WP:MUSIC. Polargeo (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sorry, not notable just yet, but best of luck with his career and maybe we'll see him on WP in the not too distant future. BTW do Jedward know he's pinched their hairstyle? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still a long way short of notability requirements. Nuttah (talk) 15:17, 7 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Factory[edit]

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

Prod contested on the grounds that "i did not put that plot on," whatever that means. Future product with no assertion of notability, the only reference is a wiki, and it is a clear case of WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough to establish this. WP:CRYSTAL Polargeo (talk) 14:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPECULATION. Maybe this can be recreated once there are enough sources to fulfill WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced speculation. Bfigura ^(talk) 18:57, 2 March 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. Blatant copyright violation of http://www.myspace.com/bareinfinity (CSD G12). – Toon 20:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bare Infinity[edit]

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

Non-notable band; the article makes grand claims that are not backed up with any reliable sources. Does not pass WP:MUSIC. Warrah (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even the grand claims made aren't that impressive. Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Speedy Delete with no refs it is difficult to determine whether any of the claims are notable, however there are no claims in the article that scream notability (quite the opposite) and so a major trawling of the internet to establish notability is not a productive use of time. I have done some searching and nothing really springs out at me. Polargeo (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - article is a possible copyright violation from this site[16]. (GregJackP (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Changed to speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12 Polargeo (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 2 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

220 Twentieth Street, Arlington, VA[edit]

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

Non-notable apartment building. This was deleted once before on my PROD, but recreated today, so here we are. Basically, the citations are two blog posts on commercial real estate blogs, a Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries page that does not mention the building at all, and the property manager's website, stating that this building won the Delta Associations Mid-Atlantic Multifamily Award in the category Best Adaptive Reuse Apartment Project, Mid-Atlantic, a non-notable business award. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. This appears to be a pretty average apartment building which won a minor award, which doesn't make it notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real claims to notability. No significant coverage at more than a very local specialist level. Polargeo (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I like a good debate over building notability, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/930 Fifth Avenue (compare the number of sources we've unearthed on that one), but this one seems difficult to justify.--Milowent (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: IMHO this is NOT notable. Dancing is Forbidden (talk) 16:51, 5 March 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 clear consensus to merge from this AfD as it is suggested as an alternative, thus a proper merge request would be best to gain consensus on whether to perform that. Consensus to keep is clear however, --Taelus (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GraphPad Software[edit]

I am nominating for deletion three articles: GraphPad Software, GraphPad Prism, and GraphPad InStat.

They are all mostly written by User:HarveyMotulsky, who is the CEO of that company. I do not believe this is a dishonest move, but there is still a important conflict of interest. It does seem like it is a nice program, but I'd be more comfortable if a third party were too add the entry. If we remove the entries that are not from that user, there is very little left, just barely enough to make a single stub article. Therefore I think the three articles should be deleted entirely. If another user has something to say about this, then, the article can be recreated. However, even if that were to happen, I am not sure it would pass the notability threshold.

Tony (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (the software articles) WP:COI says "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article, though other problems with the article arising from a conflict of interest may be valid criteria for deletion." The originator has met the requirement for declaring an interest on his home page (but not on the articles' talk pages). I judge the contents to be simple descriptions, without overblown claims, and there are links to independent reviews of the software. In general the description is at a comparable level to other articles in Category:Statistical software. Melcombe (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Issues about merging some of the articles and COI can be dealt with in the articles there is no clear reason to delete. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - Merging them all would be a good option, but there is no reason to delete them, there does not seem to be blatant POV pushing in the articles which warrant to request their deletion under WP:COI. -RobertMel (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GraphPad Prism is pretty widely used in the scientific community, and seems to have enough reviews in legitimate pub (Ars Technica, etc). While there might not be a need for all the articles, a merge would work. Also, hand nominator a trout per Melcombe. Bfigura ^(talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Had I not seen here that the author has a conflict, I wouldn't have known. Everything looks good to me. No objection to a merge, if that's where consensus goes - but the articles are fine as-is. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the articles in question, and indeed I am the CEO/founder of GraphPad Software. I never tried to hide this, and used my real name and stated my title. I'd be happy to answer any questions. GraphPad Prism is used by well over a hundred thousand scientists, which I think makes it notable. I think it makes slightly more sense to keep the three articles distinct, but can understand why some would prefer they be merged. HarveyMotulsky (talk) 14:06, 3 March 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 Texas's 23rd congressional district#2010 election. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hurd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject fails WP:POLITICIAN.
WP:SPIP and WP:ONEEVENT concerns since he is a candidate.
SPAM concerns based on previous inclusions of promotional sites.
WP:PROMINENCE concerns without other candidates having pages.
Slight precedent concern since candidates typically do not have articles. Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong~~ delete. This is Mr. Hurd's self-posted CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Changed to speedy delete, going G4. See the first AFD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Retracted speedy, see below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he wins the primary, then I rhink there would be a case for notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ switch to Redirect. Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN in that he has not served as an elected official >/= mayor. In reviewing the media coverage, I found only trivial mentions about his being a candidate for office. Often, papers will write a brief Bio or profile of a candidate. I have not found such. While it would not establish notability, it would be a good third party source. It's absence shows the subject has not yet reached even that level of notability. I believe that even winning the primary will not make him sufficiently notable. He must win an election to meet WP:POLITICIAN or receive non-trivial coverage to meet WP:BIO. I would also agree that there is the appearance of a self-promotion in light of the previous AfD, but I am unable to connect the creator with the subject. While the benefits of a Wikipedia article are obvious in this situation, I will assume the good faith of the creator. God bless to the candidate and best wishes, but we'll be happy to include the winner of the upcoming congressional election, whoever that may be. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on G$ I already did that, and reversed myself. Present article is sufficiently improved that it is not merely a repost. Better sourcing, new material, more media coverage. I would decline on that basis, but I've already commented here, and that miht not be the best course of action to take. Dlohcierekim 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Call it retracted then. I'll get it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Switch to Reidrect per election results and my comment below. If he does in fact lose the run-off or the election, we can revisit deletion then. Dlohcierekim 16:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN; without prejudice to remounting should he meet that standard. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Texas's 23rd congressional district#2010 election. WP:POLITICIAN asks us to preserve content about candidates: "the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election". --Mkativerata (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No need for redirect. Anyone looking for info will look there, and the subject is adequately covered there. Dlohcierekim 20:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect is appropriate. First, Will Hurd is a very viable search term that should be redirected to the page - Texas's 23rd congressional district#2010 election - that has content about him; and secondly, a redirect preserves the history of Will Hurd for later restoration. WP:POLITICIAN requires a redirect as a general rule. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see. Thank you. Redirect will be fine. Dlohcierekim 20:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was also thinking redirect but was concerned it would lead to thousands of redirects for other politicians. I really don't mind but could jest see ti getting out of hand. And someone mentioned it above and I should have done the same: Best luck to the guy, this will be a article if he gets it, and nothing personal.Cptnono (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...the problem with thousands of redirects being? --Mkativerata (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be plenty of work to implement (but would effectively end in arguments about (WP:POLITICIAN) and would create thousands of underused and essentially blank pages. Redirects are also not necessarily for searching. And even if the intent is to aid searching, we run into concerns over it only being needed for a few months if he does not win. So thousands of pages could be created that will receive minimal traffic for a short period of time. We also have a search option and his name already gets a hit at the proposed target page. A redirect seems to be not needed here. That might be something to take up at WP:POLITICIAN instead of here though. I just checked it out more and there has been some recent heavy discussion over there. Right now it says t redirect so if that is the way it is then no problem. I think it is silly myself but my primary concern is removing this as an independent article.Cptnono (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<--outdent I will be pleased to redirect in articles created about not-yet-notable candidates. :) Dlohcierekim 22:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Scroll down to "U. S. Representative District 23" and you'll find that Hurd was the top vote-getter in his race and is headed to an April run-off. - Dravecky (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Election Night Returns". 2010 Republican Party Primary Election. Office of the Secretary of State of Texas. March 3, 2010. Retrieved March 3, 2010.

Way cool. Thanks for the link. Winning the run-off will make the case for Redirect much stronger. We can then simply reverse the redirect if he wins in November. Dlohcierekim 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. If he wins, or otherwise becomes notable, we can undo more easily. Ray^Talk 19:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've warmed up to the idea and it appears to have support. As the originator of this request, do I need to withdraw it or can an admin simply make the move?Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, be sure to keep an eye on the April runoff results. - Dravecky (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: Reading sources like the one below has intrigued me. Before this gets converted to a redirect (and even with such on-point coverage he fails to reach WP:POLITICIAN but might make WP:GNG anyway) could the closing admin please copy to my userspace? I'd like to keep poking at this article in the event that he should win the election. - Dravecky (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stroud, Scott (January 22, 2010). "Former CIA agent makes District 23 race interesting". San Antonio Express-News. Retrieved March 3, 2010.
  - Copy it and paste it into this redlink: User:Dravecky/Will Hurd or put it in your personal sandbox. Please remove the categories since they will be linked to the mainspace.Cptnono (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect for now, until when he wins. fetchcomms☛ 13:48, 4 March 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.

Jack Garson[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KingOfTrash[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO. No reliable sources shown in any GHits other than the one BBC local interview cited, and the standard requires multiple non-trivial items. No charted songs. No awards. Article is written by manager, violating WP:COI. Author states on talk page that Wiki article is essential for career, violating ~~WP:SOAP~~WP:PROMOTION. MuffledThud (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge that you leave this page on your site as although not hugely noteable, KingOfTrash is known within the industry and has a growing fanbase across the UK and Europe. It would seem unusual that an emerging artist has no representation on wikipedia, especially one that is connected to the Gay Rights movement in the music industry. Not only a performer, but songwriter, his work is selling well on i-tunes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.131.133 (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC) — 94.0.131.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not for "emerging" musicians, and the above stated it perfectly - he is not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

for your information "Emerging" does not mean un-noteable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinips (talk • contribs) 13:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the not notable comment was directed at the statement that the previous IP editor made, which said "not hugely noteable." To qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia, a musician must meet the standards of WP:MUSICBIO, but I don't believe that KingOfTrash meets that standard. In addition, there is a conflict of interest issue, and the article appears to be added for promotional reasons. (GregJackP (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment: "Emerging" means "not important yet but somebody thinks they may be in the future". Hence, it almost always implies non-notability. — Gwalla | Talk 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I only see one article from the BBC that talks about him at great length. The rest is Facebook, iTunes store, and otherwise inconsequential. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:32, 2 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western Imperium[edit]

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

This article is unencyclopedic, and frankly constitutes little more than asinine gibberish. There exists no genuine historical, academic, or intellectual current upon which to base this article. One of its authors cites the book Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, by Francis Parker Yockey as apparently the principal intellectual underpinning of the idea ("Western Imperium") that this article purports to be about, but this seems to be based entirely on the fact that both the title of the article, and the name of that book, both contain the word "imperium." No page number is cited, and as one who has read Imperium, and is otherwise familiar with most of Yockey's work, I can assure you that it would be impossible to accurately cite a specific page or pages taken from that book to such an effect, as no such material is contained within its pages. Additionally, the author(s) cite Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker Yockey and the Post-War Fascist International by Kevin Coogan as further evidentiary basis for the notion that this idea of a Western Imperium has some authentic tradition within the intellectual history of post-war National Socialist thought. Again, no page number is cited, and again, it couldn't be, as I can verify, having read that book as well.

I apologize for such a lengthy summary, but the reasons why this article ought to be deleted are somewhat esoteric, and may not be immediately evident to the average laymen. In the simplest terms, this article is nothing more than the school boy day dreams of Skinheads. Its existence is entirely reliant on the doubtlessly accurate supposition that most people haven't read Yockey's Imperium, or Coogan's biography of Yockey, and are thus unqualified to determine that this article is all made-up crap. But I can assure you, that is exactly what it is.

I can envision someone being reluctant to agree to delete this article, for fear they may be perceived as censoring an article that is of importance to a decidedly unpopular segment of society, but as a person within a related corner of that unpopular socio-political milieu, again, I can assure you that this article consists of little more than the science-fictional ramblings of ill-informed persons who have almost certainly not read the books being cited as source material, and who probably wouldn't understand them if they did. If the person(s) who cited such sources did read the books in question, then they would appear to be liars. Without any actual source material within the intellectual history of the political far-right upon which to base it, this entire article degenerates into merely some-crap-someone-made-up-over-at-Wikipedia. And that is precisely what it is, alas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOKeeffe (talk • contribs)

Per DGG, I am adding to this nomination:

Delete There seem to be three articles where there should be one: the article on Francis Parker Yockey, the article on the book, which essentially amounts to a table of contents Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, and this. The one to keep is the one on the author. The poresent article is a cross between an essay and promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per DGG's reasoning. No reason to fork this. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yockey and his book, Imperium, have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO AT ALL WITH THE ARTICLE Western Imperium. The only connection between them is the word "imperium," and some ridiculously inaccurate commentary in that article, which attempts to make it appear as if there does exist some connection. Imperium is, indisputably, the second biggest book on the extreme right, after Mein Kampf. I don't think there's any real question its sufficiently notable to warrant an article of its own, even if the present quality of that article may be very low. To judge the two articles, Western Imperium and Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, as a single whole, is like conflating an academic text on waterfowl with a Donald Duck comic book, and claiming they are equivalent, because they both mention ducks. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Western Imperium, as it appears to be essentially original research without proper sourcing. Not sure about Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics - it might be notable enough for an article, but then again there's so little content in it it can easily be merged to Francis Parker Yockey anyway. Robofish (talk) 02:07, 4 March 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. Clear consensus to delete, as unencyclopedic/unmanageable/already covered -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of causes of diarrhea[edit]

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

A hodgepodge of information that could easily be addressed in diarrhea with better sources. JFW | T@lk 08:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This list will become an unmanageable and useless repository of obscure diseases, and has no hopes of ever being complete. There is also a possible content fork issue, as the diarrhea article already contains a differentials section, which should be appropriately expanded and referenced. If some of the content of this list can go in there, then that is fine. Also note this discussion regarding such articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#List_of_causes_of..._articles. PDCook (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Like List of causes of fever, we are not a medical encyclopedia, and if we were to implement this, a category would be better. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~~A category isn't a bad idea here.~~ PDCook (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That I don't get. Why would we want either? Anything good enough for a category is good enough for a list, and vice-versa. I would agree that this indiscriminate list of diseases, where diarrhea is one of the symptoms, strays too close to self-diagnosis, and is already covered, so Delete. If kept, there should be some disclaimers, inclduing one that says "We recommend that you read this on a portable computer rather than at your desk." Mandsford (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. In looking at several disease articles, I note that none of them are placed in Category:Causes of symptomX (with the exception of Category:Causes of death). So I suppose there is little precedence for such categories. PDCook (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is granted, Mandsford. At this time, I emphasise my if in my !vote. I really don't forsee such an implementation - the self-diagnosis potential alone is, to me, what kills it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unmanageable list, also seems more like a diagnose yourself page often found on the internet. -RobertMel (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Already included Gastroenteritis and Diarrhoea and better references. Graham Colm (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Information in this format is not manageable and add little. Lists of this sort are not useful without context for each item in the list.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a valuable list of differential diagnoses, and should not be deleted. If you have a specific problem with the list, either fix it immediately or move it to the article incubator for improvement. Immunize (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic and unlikely ever to be encyclopedic. Much better would be to add a Causes section to Diarrhea. Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 9 March 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. Clear consensus to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of causes of fever[edit]

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

A hodgepodge of information that could easily be addressed in fever with a better attempt at sourcing it to WP:MEDRS. Delete please. JFW | T@lk 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These lists should be kept, as they are useful lists of differntial diagnoses. Always think first of improving an article before you think of deleting it. Immunize (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I think the inclusion criteria for such a list is somewhat clear, this list will become an unmanageable and useless repository of obscure diseases. In fact, a quick browse of the list suggests it may already be there. At the same time, I don't see how it can ever be complete. There is also a possible content fork issue, as the fever article already contains a differentials section, which should be appropriately expanded and referenced. If some of the content of this list can go in there, then that is fine. Also note this discussion regarding such articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#List_of_causes_of..._articles. PDCook (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. First, we're not a medical encyclopedia. Second, more than this can cause fever - which makes this, in my opinion, something that is more suited toward a category, if anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What's that suppose to mean? Wiki has a complete List of diseases and it's nowhere on the level this list is wrt sourcing. Sandman888 (talk) 17:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually, a category is not a bad idea at all.~~ PDCook (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Fever is not a defining characteristic of most illnesses. So it would be like a Category:Words containing the letter e -- Colin°^Talk 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Removed my support for a category. PDCook (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is extremely frusterating when other users continually break down your hard work. Immunize (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have heeded the advice I've been giving you over the past couple of months. PDCook (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per JFW. Graham Colm (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though Wikipedia is a medical encyclopedia among many other types of encyclopedia, information in this format is not manageable and add little. Lists of this sort are not useful without context for each item in the list.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. About as useful as "List of words containing the letter e". As the fever article says, this is an extremely common symptom. The fever article already covers the important causes so there's nothing to merge. Colin°^Talk 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while its true that fever is a notable symptom of many diseases, its NOT true that fever needs having a list like this, as so many diseases and conditions bring on elevated temperature. its probably more notable to list infectious diseases that DONT cause fever. this doesnt seem to serve much of a purpose, certainly not for someone trying to research the origins of fever. maybe a short list of illnesses that often produce fatal fevers? basically, per colinMercurywoodrose (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fever is a non-specific symptom, which I don't think is best addressed by a laundry list of the 1,000+ diseases that might be associated with it. Additionally -- in the list of surmountable, but still irritating, problems that indicate the unmanageability of the list -- the definition of fever this page gives is wrong, and some of the listed causes don't actually produce fevers (they produce non-fever hyperthermias). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition is my doing. I starting rewriting the intro based on the definition in the fever article, but then realized the list article was a bit of a hopeless case. So perhaps the definition in the fever article also needs to be changed. PDCook (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of the last time I checked (weeks ago), the definition at fever was correct. An elevated body temperature is only a fever if that elevation is caused through a particular mechanism. Identically elevated temperatures through all other mechanisms are hyperthermias, not fevers. It is not merely a matter of the number on the thermometer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This hodgepodge is unencyclopedic beyond repair, and is useless to Wikipedia's readers.—Finell 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could have the list undergo a move to my userspace if needed. Immunize (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC) ^{Superscript text}[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic and it's not plausible that it could be fixed. Much better would be to improve Fever; if this results in a subarticle Causes of fever so much the better. Eubulides (talk) 18:40, 9 March 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 is that the topic is notable, and effort is being put into improving the topic. --Taelus (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powergaming[edit]

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

Delete. The article violates our no original research policy. The sources cited are all blogs, including GeoCities which was killed off by Yahoo! something like 6 months ago. (!!) If stubbed down to a dictionary definition then, well, you know the routine... JBsupreme (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hard to imagine how this meets Notability guidelines. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your imagination is not a reason to delete. Do you have some evidence, please? Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - and I'm ignoring the rules on this one. It's sort of a neologism, but most of this stems from a quasi-jargon term in various and sundry gaming communities. I predict that this will make its way into common vernacular (yes, I know...), but even accounting for this, it's enough of a common term within the games community that I think it should probably stay here. If it is deleted, though, no biggie. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Don't need to ignore all rules; see my sources below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, DFW. Good show, sir! =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pcap ping 16:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination contradicts itself, saying that the article is original but then complaining about the quality of the sources. If you have nothing to add to this weak argument, please see WP:PERNOM. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stub, then rewrite and possibly rename to power gaming. Note that the one word spelling not used in the scholarly works in this area! There are indeed good references for this topic, e.g. this book chapter, but most of the current contents is not directly supported by such references. Furthermore, several links to google books pages were added to various paragraphs that simply did not support them. Other book sources I found [17] [18] [19]—the latter two mostly cite Taylor 2003, found by User:DustFormsWords below. Pcap ping 06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it definitely needs work, and probably merging with some or all of its "see also"s. I remember reading an article about this in Dragon (magazine) back in my RPG days; I have no doubt that reliable sources do exist, just not online ones.--Father Goose (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a large collection of Dragon, so I'll see if I can take a look through in the next few days and see if there's a good reference, since that may be as close to a reliable source as there is for the RPG community. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article I remember is mid-late 80s, and it had definitions of all sorts of related player types: munchkins, monty haulers, etc. This page has a good basic set of definitions of those terms, completely consistent with my understanding of them, although I doubt it would be accepted as a reliable source. "Monty haul" turns up a lot of good sources for related terms: [20].--Father Goose (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "The way we really play" from Dragon #106? BOZ (talk) 12:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds about right, though I haven't seen the article in 20 years. It probably won't have the term "powergaming" per se, but I remember first reading about the general concept, and various terms for it, there.--Father Goose (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not "powergaming", just "Monty Haul" from my cursory once-over. In the 2nd edition days, I remember the term "Min-maxing". It's really all the same thing, or all part of the same thing; your stats/benefits/rewards are more important than even the fun of the game itself! BOZ (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's why I suggested the merger; min-maxing is just powergaming applied to character creation and monty haul is powergaming at the campaign/setting level.--Father Goose (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to write upon this notable topic. I have added a good source and done some rewriting. The article may be improved further in accordance with our editing policy and so should not be deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is definitely a notable article here. The concept has been mentioned in books and articles (sometimes as "powergaming", sometimes "power gaming") and seems to have been adopted by business and stock companies as well. Doing some more research now, but I believe this article needs fixing, not deleting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicSpider (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - Notable enough to inspire satire here. Wizards of the Coast write an editorial in their regular column on the topic here. Dice of Doom (a blog with editorial oversight) runs a six part series on it starting here. Always Strike First (which appears to have editors although it's not clear) discusses it in a wargaming context here. Glenn Blacow's early approach to player typing from 1980 lists "powergamers" as one of his four basic player types (link here) and Bestheda developer Ken Rolston uses it casually in an IGN interview here in a way that shows he expects any reader to know what it means. The term's prevalent enough to have become a term IT companies use to describe a high-end gaming rig and it's been appropriated as the name of a prominent pro-gaming team. Poor sources and poor content aren't an AfD issue where the topic is itself notable; if you have problems with the quality of the content feel free to fix it. Please consult WP:BEFORE before making AfD nominations. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just realised nom is JBSupreme who I know normally DOES use WP:BEFORE. Probably could have used a bit more rigour this time though, dude. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references added since article was put up for deletion.[21] Okip 02:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of which were fake [22]. Not hard to see why WP:ARS has acquired such a "reputation". Pcap ping 06:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but my (online) sources above are good, and if you're looking for offline sources try Play between worlds: exploring online game culture‎ (Taylor, 2006) or The pleasures of computer gaming: essays on cultural history, theory and aesthetics (Swalwell, 2008), which both explore the motivations of power gamers and gaming community reactions to that play style. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I must admit, I am quite offended by being accused of adding faked references. The one you cite here was NOT a fake reference, though there may have been a more pertinent reference I could have used. It was used as an example of how the concept is now being applied in other fields apart from gaming. I understand that you are just trying to make Wiki better, but would suggest you read WP:Bite and WP:GOODWILL before suggesting fellow editors make up sources in future. ManicSpider (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC) (Sorry, I meant WP:GOODFAITH)ManicSpider (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - ManicSpider, I think the issue is not that the sources are nonexistent. It's that they touch on subjects only vaguely related to the topic. The sources you added do not mention the phrase "power-gaming", at least not on the pages you lined to, and do not back up the paragraph in the article to which they are attached. Do you see the problem with this? In a borderline AfD, adding spurious sources could give the article the false appearance of being properly sourced, and result in a "keep" result when it really shouldn't. Not to mention, it is misleading to our readers. I do not doubt that you have acted in good faith, but certain members of the Article Rescue Squadron have been known to concoct phony sources on purpose to game the system and subvert the AfD process. This, of course, reflects badly on the entire ARS and explains why, as Pcap notes, the ARS has developed a reputation for dodgy behaviour. A shame, because there are quite a few ARS members who do good work and edit in good faith. Perhaps those editors ought to pull the problematic ones into line, but that's probably a subject for a different discussion. Reyk _YO! 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi Reyk, all the sources do mention the term, which is how I found them using a google search. I haven't been editing for that long, so perhaps I have made an error, but all the sources I cited were examples of how the concept of power gaming is used, which is what the article was referring to. I apologise if I've made an error and the sources were not substantial enough, but they definitely all did mention the phrase and they definitely were all put up in good faith. That is why I was so distressed by the allegations above. ManicSpider (talk) 05:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news and Google Book search links at the top of the AFD. I see plenty of places this is used. The term has been around since the early days of Ultima Online. Some people are obsessed with stats, and would take up mining, and do it compulsively, just to watch their strength raise. You do something you wouldn't do otherwise, and are not required to do at any stage of the game, just to get your stats up in the fastest way possible. Dream Focus 03:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly any. A few mentions of the word in books. The news links are completely irrelevant. Searches do not write an article. Pcap ping 06:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pohta, with respect given to your passion, I've cited now eight reliable sources above, six of which constitute significant coverage and two of which are indications of the term's mainstream usage, which took me all of ten minutes to find using Google. If a person's not equipped, skill-wise, to use Google to turn up sources relating to a special interest area, then possibly they shouldn't be making AfD nominations in that area. I'm saying that in the general; JBSupreme's work is generally good, this appears to just be an abberation. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This mainly due to the difference in spelling, see above. Just clinking the links wasn't insta-enlightenment as advertised. Pcap ping 07:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first page of results I see for Google news search has [23]. And what about Google book search? Plenty of valid hits on the first page there. Dream Focus 17:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found and my own personal knowledge that this is a fairly commonly used term/idea. Hobit (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of sources located, though it could definitely use some work. Resistor (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- well attested in reliable sources. The article needs work, but that's a matter for editing, not deleting. Reyk _YO! 00:22, 4 March 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. As the chart that was used to show notability is deprecated, the consensus is clearly to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quebre As Correntes[edit]

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

fails WP:NSONG. simply charting at no. 43 for 1 week is not sufficient for notability. mainly mentioned in third party coverage with other songs [24]. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song has charted, and is therefore notable. The nominator's claim that this is insufficient is clearly incorrect. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That might be true. But the chart that's used is listed on Wp:BADCHARTS, so is automatically discounted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't expect anything less than a keep vote despite this song clearly not meeting WP:NSONG. LibStar (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of the related article Fresno.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seems like you copy and paste this identical argument without saying how it meets WP:NSONG. LibStar (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete: The charting claim was on hot100brasil.com, which is listed on WP:BADCHARTS. It's an amateur compilation, and exhaustive search has demonstrated that it has no notability. Thus, this fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 05:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have several AfD's for articles about individual songs by Fresno and they're pretty much all the same. A basic mention of the fact that the song was released as a single, a video was produced, and the video has supposedly become popular on YouTube. *Fr@nkl!nG* is claiming in all cases that the articles should be kept as relevant for the band's history, but there are the same issues with WP:NSONGS in all cases. Tidbits of historical trivia can be added to the article for the parent album (in this case, Ciano (album)). Per precedent and longstanding WP guidelines, there is no reason to keep this and the other song articles. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty much fails WP:NSONG. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:41, 9 March 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.

Barrie Lynch[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. with thanks to FT2 for rescuing it. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychonaut[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced, full of issues. If this topic is worthy of an article at all, it will have to be written from the ground up anyway, so this might as well be deleted. A cursory Google glance and a look at the single external link makes me think that it's a worthless neologism. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is painfully bad, and it's understandable why someone would want to shoot it in back of the barn to put it out of its misery. However, current condition is not a criterion for deletion. A Google book search suggests that finding some sources won't be terribly difficult (although actually rewriting the article may well be). The five seconds I spent on that search simply reinforce what was found at the last AfD, which is that the article has potential and should not be deleted.--~T P W 05:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The essay that you link to, WP:DEADLINE, cuts both ways. We are not on a deadline to include articles in Wikipedia, either, and those which violate policy (and continue to do so after 5-7 days) can and should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've linked to an additional essay in my original comments that is more relevant. I also interpret the deadline essay differently - don't rush to create an article if you don't have sources, but don't rush to delete it just because you don't have the time to source it yourself, either.--~T P W 14:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if kept rename as the dab page should be at the primary name. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete (conditional)~~ Revert to stub - As TPW says, there appear to be good sources available for this article. That same fact was noted in the first AfD and led to that 'keep' decision. In the intervening 22 months not one reference was added. I have left warnings on the talk page and tagged the H out of the article. It's likely that those working on this article have "other things" on their minds besides the status of this article and we should give up on its improvement. If no one responds to this AfD with some proper refs in the next few days, I vote we ~~Delete~~ cut it off just above the ground. Joja lozzo 06:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm concerned about the issues raised by Joja above, but the topic is notable, and I don't know that the article needs to be rewritten wholesale so much as it is in desperate need of sourcing. It's not an out and out disaster, it's just disastrously unsourced :). I'll say this: hesitated a bit before going the weak keep route. I just generally dislike deleting articles on notable topics just because the article itself is flawed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If good sources are in fact available, and if this can be adequately rescued in time, I will reconsider. In its current state it violates FAR too many policies to remain. JBsupreme (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...such as? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject of the article is a real, meaningful, and notable concept. The relative quality of the article is a separate issue. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in moment it violates WP:V. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: For those of us who value the topic's notability, is Revert to stub an option? Joja lozzo 14:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to stub an article myself, so sure. Might make it more likely that this article will grow into something useful. You may find some opposition from editors who feel that a stub will be more prone to deletion if the present lack of improvement continues, but I would think that pointing to the previous AfD should be sufficient to demonstrate the article's potential. --~T P W 17:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not be opposed to starting over, but I'm not sure I would be comfortable with stubbing as the outcome of an AFD. If it's all the same to you, and tell me if it's not, I'd rather keep and then stub. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hopeless WP:OR with zero references, better restart from scratch. Based on this reliable source, I have doubts the article can be anything more than a WP:DICTDEF peppered with original research. Pcap ping 23:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But blast back to stub and start over with care.TheRingess (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but current version needs stubbing and restarting. The concept itself seems both notable and encyclopedic, it's the flimsy and unsourced article on it that's at fault. Note this historic version (last time I edited it) appears to show a number of more useful resources and links; I haven't evaluated them in depth but they may provide a slightly better starting point for a restart. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of usage on Google Scholar:

Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, Volume 30, Issue 4, June 2006 "Drugs on the web; the Psychonaut 2002 EU project" [25]
International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 18, Issue 3 "A Psychonaut's Guide to the Invisible Landscape: The Topography of the Psychedelic Experience", Carpenter, [26]
Addiction Research & Theory 2008, Vol. 16, No. 3 "Ketamine Case Study: The Phenomenology of a Ketamine Experience" Psychonautics refers both to a methodology for describing and explaining the subjective effects of drugs, and to a long established research paradigm in which intellectuals have taken drugs to explore human experience and existence... This article reports a case study... based on a retrospective written self-report by the psychonaut... [27]
Ralph Flores, 2008 "Buddhist scriptures as literature: sacred rhetoric and the uses of theory", A comparable claim would be made years later by Robert Thurman, in the introduction to his translation: ... Tibetan lamas could be called psychonauts, since they journey across the frontiers of death into the in-between realm [28]
Technoetic Arts: a Journal of Speculative Research "The shaman reborn in cyberspace, or evolving magico-spiritual techniques of consciousness-making" They are 'probes' sent out into the real world to represent and align with the inner world of the ancient shaman and modern psychonaut [29]
Clinical Toxicology, Vol. 45, no. 4, 2007 "New Drugs of Abuse", van Riel, ...In recent years it is used mainly by psychonauts (relatively small group of drug users who like to experiment with hallucinogenic drugs in order to gain deeper insights and spiritual experiences)... [30]
"Guided imagery: creative interventions in counselling & psychotherapy" Hall, Hall & Stradling O'Connell and O'Connell (1974) coined the term psychonauts... [31]
"Qat-induced Hallucination Quadrantanopsia and Hallucinations", Blom, A person intentionally employing qat for the purpose of exploring the psyche may be called a psychonaut... [32]
CyberPsychology & Behavior. August 2003, 6(4) "Importance of Cyberspace for the Assessment of the Drug Abuse Market: Preliminary Results from the Psychonaut 2002 Project" [33]

As well as widespread non-scholarly references. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything in those refs that could be used to expand the article beyond the dictdef I already found above. Pcap ping 08:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is. A dicdef means there is little to say beyond typical dictionary information - (definitions, origins, history of usage, examples of usage). In this case we have enough to cover an entire philosophy section covering views on the use of substances for exploration of the psyche, a history section of this kind of usage from religion through into contemporary culture, and across a range of specific cultures from Tibet to Shamanism to the hippie era (which is different from the history of the word), the actual and discussed use of the topic as a route in therapy (main article: Psychedelic therapy), psychological aspects of such usage, current views from various fields such as therapy through to drug abuse analysis, descriptions of the subjective experience it labels (as discussed in scholarly writings), and a list of some notable individuals such as Aldous Huxley who are widely considered to have used substances for exploration of their psyche according to authoritative reliable sources. Plenty to sustain more than a dicdef. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. It is to be expected that the article is imperfect as most of our articles are poor. Our editing policy is to keep them in mainspace for further improvement. Discussion of these putative improvements belongs on the article's talk page, not here. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Colonel Warden said. K2709 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real thing, as seen by a Google news search. There enough mention of people who are called psychonauts in the news, to warrant an article explaining what it is. Dream Focus 19:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article has serious problems, but it's a notable subject and I believe strongly that the article has the potential to become decent. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stubbify. The article is abominable, an example of everything we don't want. I'm convinced that there could be a good article with this name, but that article will share nothing with present one. Ozob (talk) 00:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Try this as a starting point - User:FT2/Psychonautics FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated (ie rewritten) article per many comments above. On review didn't seem to be much point not doing so. It's still incomplete and lacks topic coverage, but within its limits its a viable stub, contains reliable sourced information, and is reasonably sourced and balanced. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With FT2's recent inspired work I think we can close this discussion. Changing the subject to the methodology rather than the practitioners gives the piece a straight forward, clear, encyclopedic tone. Joja lozzo 04:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was abominable and I am not interested in the subject. However, both these matters are beside the point. The rewritten article is fine for letting people know what the subject is about and so it now improves the encyclopedia. Even the references are satisfactory. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the improvements. Sud Ram (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs more improvement of course. I hope I can make a few good contribs here... Denial (talk) 18:17, 8 March 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. Although it is debateable whether there are the major roles normally required to meet WP:ENT, the concensus here is clearly to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yasuhiko Kawazu[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ENT and article is WP:PUFF, notoriety is trying to be established with list of voice credits, but none of the roles seem major. avs5221 (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Not sure I get the how a list of credit is WP:PUFF (which isn't even policy), and I haven't seen most of those shows - but Corin Nander from Turn-A Gundam is a one of the main antagonists in that series. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese sources, including the ja.wiki article, give a rather impressive list of credits, which should be gone through to see whether any are lead roles -- if so, then it would be a keep as passing WP:ENTERTAINER. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, almost all of those are tiny roles. Few even have names, and a lot of those are obviously one shot parts. It's certainly possible there are major roles in the shows I'm not familiar with... Doceirias (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Improved a bit but i'm no miracle maker. --KrebMarkt 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did some sourcing and fixing. That nothing but some jury rigging. So far a litany of secondary roles. --KrebMarkt 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've noticed that the filmography is woefully incomplete. I will work on adding a more complete filmography soon. —Farix (t | c) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After adding a more complete list of voice roles, I have to say that the Kawazu does pass WP:ENT for having several major roles in notable series. Among them Sago, one of the four main protagonists in Shinzo, and Glide from MegaMan NT Warrior. —Farix (t | c) 22:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking pretty iffy to me. The role for H2O for example isn't even mentioned on the series page. A whole lot of secondary roles but almost nothing that says "signficant" to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look at himself and series he's been involved with, there's enough significant, even lead, roles in his resume hidden among all the bit parts that I'm going to say he passes WP:ENTERTAINER and so is a keep. One wonders why his career is so highly variable, though. Out of curiosity, has anyone checked the usual voice acting magazines for coverage of him yet? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With that many notable series the voice actor has done work for, they are clearly notable. Dream Focus 09:18, 6 March 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 is to keep -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Bey[edit]

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

Not a notable religious leader. Ism schism (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while this person was arguably not a notable (in the sense of sincere or enlightening) religious leader, he was highly notable (or notorious), considering he was a major player in the politics of a major us city, and was connected to various criminal enterprises, according to news reports. can be quite heavily sourced. to be honest, i havent even checked the current article for its overall quality, but that of course is irrelevant as long as the man was notable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of significant coverage, of the person, article has room to improve. Wikid ^as© 11:54, 4 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ulgoland[edit]

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

I'd say move this to its relevant book article, but that's already tagged as WP:PLOT and this doesn't meet WP:NOTE on its own merit. avs5221 (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as unsourced plot summary. Reyk _YO! 22:27, 5 March 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.

Jerry Babb[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montana Avenue[edit]

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

Not sure if a notable enough street. Doesn't follow article conventions. Needs to be throughly cleaned-up and perhaps split if kept Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 03:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Montana Avenue is known for being a very chic and upscale retail district in Los Angeles and Santa Monica. There is coverage from the likes of Los Angeles Magazine and the Los Angeles Times [34][35] and the book Hometown Santa Monica: The Bay Cities Book. [36] --Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the Texas and England stuff is gone, the article is kinda short, and it still needs to be rewritten Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough third-party coverage for the street/district to meet notability criteria. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:54, 7 March 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. Arguments for retaining the article are weak and don't address the nominator's concerns. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desde Quando Você Se Foi[edit]

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

can't find anything really notable except self-claims of being a top viewed video on youtube Alan - talk 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok the article is not great, but is not 2 million plus views on YouTube some kind of notability? Poltair (talk) 10:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yep we should create articles for everything that gets 2 million hits on youtube. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we should also make glib remarks every time someone raises a question. Poltair (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - here I will disagree with Poltair and argue that the article is about the single and not the video, and there is little evidence that the single is notable. I don't believe popularity on YouTube confirms notability for a song (per precedent). Minor information about the single release and the video can be merged to the parent album Redenção (album). DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin, pasting the exact same comment into multiple debates increases the likelihood that your remarks will be discounted by administrators evaluating the debate. Just thought you should know that. Also, you aren't being very specific, just baldly stating that it "meets all specifications." Very few articles actually meet all Wikipedia specifications, and this certainly is not one of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NSONG. 10 hits mainly passing mentions in gnews which includes Brazilian press. [37]. LibStar (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, popularity on Youtube does not confer notability, and the song does not pass WP:NSONG standards, to my eye. Basing this on googling the title + "fresno," largely similar reasoning to my similar vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O Acaso do Erro. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Looks a permastub, never charted, no awards, no cover versions: fails WP:NSONGS.—Kww(talk) 05:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. All things considered, no clear agreement either way. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Acaso do Erro[edit]

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

non-notable EP album (at least I couldn't find anything notable about it) Alan - talk 07:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ok the article isn't a masterpiece, but I searched Google for "O Acaso do Erro" fresno and got 66,000 results. The trouble for me, is that they are mostly in Portuguese, but the number suggests that there might be some degree of notability. Poltair (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS should be avoided. see my search on gnews. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poltair (above) is right about the many Portuguese sources, so it's difficult to determine if those sources are reliable. However, many of them appear to be unreliable blogs, social networking sites, download services, etc. But instead of deleting for this reason I recommend adding edit tags to possibly encourage the folks behind the article to cough up some more sources in translation. This goes for the band article too. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life history of Fresno in the same band.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

how does it meet WP:NSONG? LibStar (talk) 06:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 02:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Poltair's comment, the results of a Google search on the article title + "fresno" don't show anything like reliable, verifiable third-party coverage. It's a ton of links to file sharing sites, streaming music sites, etc. News search turns up nothing. I'm not surprised that Googling the Portugese for "the chance of error" turns up 66,000 results, hehe. The band may be notable but this album, to my eyes, is not. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete fails WP:NSONG. 6 gnews hits which includes Brazilian press [38]. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 2 March 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) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kadish[edit]

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

Poor tone, no sources, tagged for issues for 13 months. Only hits I could find were trivial. He was indeed nominated for a Grammy, but according to the lone source the nomination was split among seven people and he didn't win. Writing songs for others doesn't make you inherently notable if nobody ever says anything more than "Kevin Kadish cowrote song X." There are a couple incoming links for songs he's written, but again, notability isn't inherited. Article created by subject as well, so WP:COI is in full effect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:MUSICBIO says that being nominated for an award makes a person notable, but as I interpret that, that's for the artist. Here, Kadish was just a writer on two songs on Mr. A–Z. Minus that, he doesn't really seem notable otherwise. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 2 March 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. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikspeak[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:N. An electronic dictionary application with no independent coverage. Pcap ping 12:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 09:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based upon nom's own rationale. JBsupreme (talk) 07:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two trivial mentions 2-3 years ago and that's it. Doesn't bode well for a piece of software, I imagine it was obsolete before it was ever released. Wine Guy~Talk 11:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seemingly non-notable application. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 2 March 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) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jacky Jules[edit]

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

I can find no notable references to this album (lots to the song "Jacky Jules") - nothing on their label's site. And even if it is on the cards, an article for an album not due out for another 10 months seems like pushing WP:Crystal a bit. -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. On a search I found multiple links for lyrics and mp3 downloads, but no discussion of this album in a reliable, secondary source. LeilaniLad (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation a bit nearer the time. I'd be surprised if the title of an album, never mind its contents, or even the specific release date, really has been confirmed ten months prior to the release -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 2 March 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) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sura Studies[edit]

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

Non notable. Original research based article. Lack of even one Reliable Source. Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY. No sources, so it's just one editor's pure conjecture. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:14, 2 March 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, heading to WP:SNOW.. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Mining Museum[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. only 2 hits in gnews. [39] those wanting to keep must provide evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least there is some documentation that it exists, a national museum should be worth an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep A verifiable "National Museum of..." is likely to be worth inclusion in Wikipedia. Some evidence of this one's notability is "Sourt Africa," a guidebook which says it is "worthwhile" and "provides a fascinating introduction to commercial goldmining in Zimbabwe, past and present." Google Book search results indicate it has some coverage in several books. It is also known as the Kwekwe National Mining Museum. It also has significant coverage in the three references included in the article. Edison (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; expand, etc. Tony May (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOICARE? Tony May (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - its national. its a stub. its got refs. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 15:10, 4 March 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.

Teresa Borcz Khalifa[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playcrafter[edit]

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

Very big ripoff clone of the article Roblox. Jeremjay 24 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jeremjay 24 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here -- one, you did not give any real rationale per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and second, if you nominate you don't 'vote' too. --Teancum (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But on the basis that no reliable sources were found. Incidentally, the article this supposedly copied, Roblox turned up no reliable sources either and might be considered for deletion as well as I couldn't find any significant coverage for it either - all the sources on that page but a few are primary sources, the rest are press releases or passing mentions. --Teancum (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I rewrote the whole article, and i am very sorry that a member of playcrafter thought it would be a good idea to rip off the roblox article, some of the things in the article didn't even add up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitydelta (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent coverage, ergo no evidence of notability. Nuttah (talk) 17:42, 7 March 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. Decently strong consensus that the song isn't sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O Preço da Flor[edit]

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

can't find anything notable about this song other than it's a single that was never released to radio. Alan - talk 06:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Mallu Magalhães (album) because the article has little more than fan trivia about the video. That can be added to the album article. (My exact same comment for the AfD on another song from this album.) DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life story of singer Mallu Magalhães the same.

It doesn't even meet the basic quality guidelines for articles Alan - talk 23:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources, so it seems to fail WP:NSONG. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NSONG. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 9 March 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 This list meets WP:LIST and WP:CLN guidelines as well as WP:GNG. There is room for improvement and unverifiable entries should be challenged on the talk page. Mike Cline (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mallu Magalhães songs[edit]

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

nothing but a song list, not even marked as a stub. Most songs not notable, if not deleted, would at least be better merged to discography, even then, doesn't seem needed at all Alan - talk 06:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The list provisions are pretty liberal about what kind of lists get to stay; multiple redundant lists are seen as useful aids to navigation and help with sorting information in ways that aid users. "Nothing but a song list" is not a reason for deletion. See WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DustFormsWords. Poltair (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets all the specifications of Wikipedia and is part of the life story of singer Mallu Magalhães the same.*Fr@nkl!nG* (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list has no verifiable definition in accordance with WP:Source list, without which it is just a collection of loosely assoicated of topics without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A verifable definition is also needed to demonstrate that it is not the product of original research. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Gavin.collins. WP:Source list doesn't make any reference to a "verifiable definition", although it does specifically say that "difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page" (ie solved through discussion, not AfD) but in any case verifiability only applies to contentious or challenged content. Despite all of the above, the list starts with the words, "This is a chronological list of officially released songs by Brazilian Folk singer, songwriter and musician Mallu Magalhães," which clearly defines the scope and organisation of the list. If there's dispute about whether any particular song falls under that heading it can be resolved through normal editing, not via AfD. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every list has a definition, even if it is only the title. For a list to demonstrate it is not original research, it must provide a verifiable definition of what it is about, even if that definition is as broad or as vague as the title itself. In the context of songs by Mallu Magalhães, who has defined what is or is not a "officially released song"? If a reliable source can be found can provide an answer, then perhaps this list has a rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia, and can be saved from deletion. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:Source list, ambiguities in the scope of the list are to be discussed on the article's talk page, not solved through deletion. I wouldn't think there's much difficulty in determining what is and is not an "officially released song" but in as much as there's a difficulty it's something that can be solved by a better phrasing of the definition - it's not fundamentally unfixable. A list of songs by a notable singer is a worthwhile list, and if you argue that either the singer isn't notable or the songs don't belong on the list that's not an argument to have through the forum of an AfD. I feel you're confusing "things in this article that need improvement" with "reasons to delete this article", which aren't the same thing. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you will find that policy is quite clear that whether content comes in the form of a list article or standalone article, it needs to be verifiable by an external source. Wikipedia policy places a buden on every editor to provide details of where they have got their informtation from, and this applies to list articles as well as standalone articles. There is also a requirement to provide evidence that a list is not original research, by citing reliable sources that are directly related to the list. As stated earlier, every list has a definition, even if it is only the title. For a list to demonstrate it is not original research, it must provide a verifiable definition of what it is about, even if that definition is as broad or as vague as the title itself. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 23:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That's not what WP:V says at all; content only requires sources where it's contentious or likely to be challenged. Further, the fact that an article contains unverifiable information isn't a reason to delete an article under any policy (except where the lack of such sources makes it fail WP:N) - it's a reason to work on fixing the article. I've I think said all I can say on this here and at your talk page - and I have to say that other than as a matter of principle it's hard to care a lot about whether this particular list actually survives or not - so thank you for your politeness and your reference to policy and I look forward to working with you on other articles! - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No compelling arguements for deletion, despite the continual relisting to try and force one. Lugnuts (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I rather take exception to Lugnuts' remark there. The "continual relisting to try and force one" is an overly-cynical, and unfair, characterisation of Wikipedia's administrators.
Having said that, DustFormsWords' remark (above) seems to conclude the matter and I am not sure myself why it would be relisted twice. DFW quite correctly points out that the individual elements of a list need not be notable, and that the list subject itself need not be notable provided that it serves a navigational function that's helpful to end-users (rather than being a promotional or marketing-type list).
I don't agree with Gavin Collins at all. It's not usually hard to tell whether a song's "officially released", and to claim we need an exact definition for that is simply pettifogging. There may be cases where there's a legitimate dispute around one particular track, but that needs to be solved by interested editors on the list's talk page, rather than by unilateral deletion.
All in all I think this discussion is over, all the necessary points have been made, and I would like to invite some passing admin to close it accordingly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playcrafter[edit]

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

Very big ripoff clone of the article Roblox. Jeremjay 24 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Jeremjay 24 01:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things here -- one, you did not give any real rationale per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and second, if you nominate you don't 'vote' too. --Teancum (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - But on the basis that no reliable sources were found. Incidentally, the article this supposedly copied, Roblox turned up no reliable sources either and might be considered for deletion as well as I couldn't find any significant coverage for it either - all the sources on that page but a few are primary sources, the rest are press releases or passing mentions. --Teancum (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I rewrote the whole article, and i am very sorry that a member of playcrafter thought it would be a good idea to rip off the roblox article, some of the things in the article didn't even add up! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitydelta (talk • contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of independent coverage, ergo no evidence of notability. Nuttah (talk) 17:42, 7 March 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 Cesar Gracie. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 09:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Gracie Jiu Jitsu Academy[edit]

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

Seems to be mostly WP:SPAM and WP:PUFF. Remove that and it assumes WP:INHERITED, which does not give it notability. avs5221 (talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hardly any third party coverage [40]. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cesar Gracie. JJL (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cesar Gracie. The bio section from Gracie's article is almost entirely cut/pasted into the Academy article (or vice-versa). --TreyGeek (talk) 16:16, 2 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ActionScript Foundry[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Shallow advertisement for the company. Pcap ping 20:00, 2 March 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. Redirect can be created if necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Research Students Conference[edit]

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

This is an orphaned article, and is not notable. -m-i-k-e-y-^{Talk / C} 01:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Research Students Conference Probability and Statistics. This article seems to basically be a disambig page with only one entry on it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect., but I shall probably propose the other article for deletion. Many conference series are notable, but one intended for UK postgraduate students (called graduate students in the US) to present their work is very unlikely to be. DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage of the general theme or the specific get togethers. Nuttah (talk) 17:52, 7 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Young (radio)[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded but I removed the prod as the talk page content and article history indicated to me that deletion is not uncontroversial. Original prod rationale by MrMacMan (talk · contribs) was "Non notable radio personality. Has been unsourced for over a year and within that year few edits have moved this article foward."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As somewhat faulty nominator of this deletion, i of course recommend deletion for above reasons. MrMacMan^Talk 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of independent coverage and being married to someone notable doesn't cut it. Nuttah (talk) 17:55, 7 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purebread[edit]

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

Non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fans have created separate articles for several songs from this album (Into The Mouth of Badd(d)ness). None are notable enough per WP:NSONGS. Various background tidbits from each song can be added to the album article if relevant. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:25, 2 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blame the Wizards[edit]

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

Completely non-notable song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSONG and seems to be pure original research. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fans have created separate articles for several songs from this album (Into The Mouth of Badd(d)ness). None are notable enough per WP:NSONGS. Various background tidbits from each song can be added to the album article if relevant. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:26, 2 March 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, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal-Lee Naomi[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant GHits, no GNews/Books/Scholar hits, and most tellingly for a model, no GImage hits. (GregJackP (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting Wikipedia criteria for notability. While I can accept that the person has been in television commercials and some music videos, and that she was interviewd in the non-RS Rap Models.net, she need coverage that meets notability guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:52, 5 March 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.

Damir Primorac[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Demo[edit]

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

Unsourced stub article on a demo album. Alternatively: merge/redirect to Radiohead or Radiohead demos. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's got to go, I say merge to new article Radiohead demos. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough for a stand-alone article. I recommend adding text about this and other demos to the appropriate "History" section at the Radiohead article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:42, 2 March 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) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shindig Demo[edit]

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

Unsourced stub article on a demo album. Alternatively: merge/redirect to Radiohead or Radiohead demos. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's got to go, I say merge to new article Radiohead demos. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough for a stand-alone article. I recommend adding text about this and other demos to the appropriate "History" section at the Radiohead article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 2 March 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) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woodworm Demo[edit]

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

Unsourced stub article on a demo album. Alternatively: merge/redirect to Radiohead or Radiohead demos. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it's got to go, I say merge to new article Radiohead demos. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough for a stand-alone article. I recommend adding text about this and other demos to the appropriate "History" section at the Radiohead article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete, or rather (more accurately) no interest in deleting it. Apart from the nomination this has attracted only one comment, which seems to oppose deletion, and the nominator has not returned to address this comment. I might perhaps have re-listed this, but I do not see that a second relisting would attract any further attention.

A "no consensus" outcome does not prevent this article from being nominated for deletion in future. However, I would encourage anyone considering that step to communicate with User:Jt sass and actually answer his/her question below, in a helpful way, before renominating. We need to encourage new editors, not put them off with bureaucracy. NAC by —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC). [reply]

The Jersey Syndicate[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 00:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I did wrong when trying the start a new page. Could you please help me understand? I was just trying to do a writte on the New Jersey band, The Jersey Syndicate. I don't see anything written that violates any Wikipedia policies.

Jt sass (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 04:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 09:56, 9 March 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) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanae Shintani[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable WP:BLP article, fails WP:MUSIC with a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Fails WP:MUSIC Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 00:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:41, 3 March 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) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Shaw[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E avs5221 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO Yutsi ^Talk/ Contributions 00:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable one event. Nuttah (talk) 18:14, 7 March 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. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My dog, Poofle[edit]

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

This article does not assert notability. It is unreferenced. It seems to exist as a way to host this story, which may be total fiction. There is also a link to another page that, upon opening, has a completely fictional story on top. Ham tech person 00:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, ((db-animal)). Intelligentsium 00:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Speedy delete - Pets are not notable, A7. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:15, 2 March 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) 00:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ugly Tree[edit]

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

There's some flash in the pan news due to its closure in early 2009. Otherwise unremarkable. avs5221 (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-it is not notable.E2eamon (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it no longer exists it is not likely to become more notable. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is this even considered an article? JBsupreme (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Is further commentary really necessary? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Speedy close. (non-admin closure) TerraFrost (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cousins Properties[edit]

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

User:Malleus Fatuorum thinks this is a "self-aggrandizing fluff piece". I don't think it's self-aggrandizing but I will concede that it may be fluff. Also, although I think a speedy deletion is excessive, I don't think an AfD is TerraFrost (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't a game of Stick-it-to-Malleus. You're the only significant editor to that article. If you think it should be deleted, say so and (as the only other editor) I'll delete it as G8 (or whatever the number is). If you don't, then don't nominate it for deletion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if it's deleted or not and I have no objection to having its fate decided by consensus (which is what should have happened in the first place) TerraFrost (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close in the absence of a policy-based reason to delete. AFD is not for making a point; if you want the article deleted, please offer a reason why - it's non-notable, it's a violation of BLP, or something. Others have edited it, so your request as the author is not sufficient. If Floquenbeam concurs, though, I don't object to a G6 Housekeeping deletion - but we need a request for that from you. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intended it as a way to get consensus - to see what others think. I don't see that as being excessively pointy, either - just as a way of soliciting opinion. Per WP:OWN, this article isn't mine to do with as I please and I don't think it appropriate that I - as the principal author of it - be the one to decide it's fate. TerraFrost (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]