Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 19

< 18 June	20 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W (programming language)[edit]

Painfully non-notable progamming language. Sgroupace (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No assertion clear assertion of notability. The only sourcing is to the language creator's web site. Searching for sources due to the single letter name of the programming language is difficult but using Viktor Toth to try to tease out sources proved fruitless. -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Whpq. --AuthorityTam (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not just is there no clear assertion (it might be deleteable under A7 as web content), but there's clearly no proof of notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian folk dance companies[edit]

No content whatsoever, just a link farm. No evidence that any of these entries are notable. This sort of thing should be on dmoz, not here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A3 Consists only of a rephrasing of the title and external linkspam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to speedy it until I noticed that the tag had been removed. But I suppose this linkfarm can be given a couple days more before being pruned. Reso lute 02:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed the original prod. There's no content, only links. If someone can demonstrate that a fair numnber of the organizations have a WP page, then thelist could stay sans the linkfarm of course. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 04:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suppose it doesn't exactly fall under A3, because it has a See also...but this is a textbook example of a link farm. Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glanford Park FC[edit]

Non-notable football club. It gets very few google hits, and those are to wiki sites and oldfriends.co.nz. The references in the article are to a British club. Possible hoax. gadfium 23:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. you can't give an indoor soccer team a wikipedia page. that's dumb. this belongs on facebook. plan 8 (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete : fails the GNG and not competing in a professional league. dramatic (talk) 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete as non notable. Kiwikibble (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Christians[edit]

Assistant professor with no evidence of any unusually high academic impact (such as highly cited papers) that would allow a pass of WP:PROF #1 at this early stage of her career, and who clearly does not pass the other criteria of WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder, would change my mind if she could be shown to pass WP:PROF or the GNG. Abductive (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well referenced article of a published academic. Beltline (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This user is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of banned User:Azviz -- if the close is close please check the status of this editor at that time. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:PROF, you'll discover that "published academic" is not a sufficient criterion for keeping an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PROF, lacks impact, lacks significant coverage. Maybe notable in the future but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 14:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ACADEMIC. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The content shows a successful career, but no evidence of notability. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost certainly not notable, unless some of the papers are extremely important, and there is no indication of this. It is exceedingly rare that someone who is still an assitant professor will have achieved enough professional recognition to meet WP:PROF. It was unrealistic to mark this article for rescue. DGG (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS shows only 1 peer-reviewed publication (Christians AD, Columbia J. Law Soc. Prob. 1999) which has been cited 4 times. (Oddly, this publication is NOT listed in the article, though it does appear on her CV.) Note that the other papers listed as "peer-reviewed publications", may not actually qualify in the academic sense. For example, "Tax Treaties for..." seems to be some sort of conference paper: Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 05-10. Perhaps someone closer to the legal profession could weigh-in on these papers. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Individual does not appear notable. rmosler (talk) 06:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant Films Inc.[edit]

As per the last AfD, there are not significant third party sources to establish notability, and the only real source that does exist appears to be a local-only award. I'm relisting this to generate the discussion the last didn't create. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. The awards they've received seem fairly minor and local. ~ mazca ^t/c 23:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional, reputable 3rd party sources now. Please remove this page from the Articles for deletion category. --Coldman42 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not how it works, Coldman42. Delete, per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps the sources are reliable, but there's no significant coverage. Google Maps is a good example — I trust it unless I see otherwise, but it's not a particularly good guide to anything except geography. [With the exception of the local St. Albert Gazette, none of the sources even mention Blatant Films. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is a lack of significant coverage to indicate notability. The only coverage found is from the St. Albert Gazette which is a community paper published two times a week. The awards is relatively minor being provincial in scope. -- Whpq (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Fox[edit]

NN individual - BLP1E is getting bit by a shark Hipocrite (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, more than one event. Designer of the first shark cage. One of the world's foremost authorities on the great white shark. Both of these now sourced in the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticle needs improvement, but Fox is known for much more than the single shark-bite event. Murtoa (talk) 05:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable - although the article is a bit spammy as it stands, but that is a quality issue, it is capable of improvement. Orderinchaos 20:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The man is clearly notable beyond one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable for more than one event. Even has a museum named for him in Glenelg, South Australia. -- Longhair\^talk 21:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Diligent WP:BEFORE would have shown notability beyond one event. Article needs cleanup, but that's not a reason for AfD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable expert of long standing. WWGB (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wirtland[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Closing administrator, please know that this official Wirtland blog post has urged meatpuppeting on this article.

Micronations articles that show up on wikipedia are rarely notable, this one doesn't even claim any land. Most of these articles receive a bit of media attention at first, as a curiosity rather than real news, and then fade away. I'm not seeing anything here that sets this one apart. This topic has received a bit of media attention but is it enough to establish notability? Is this something that will simply fade from anyone's interest, including the promoters, shortly. The claim of issuing a coin is interesting but just a claim at this point. RadioFan (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RadioFan. It is your right to delete my article, of course. I can, however, try to meet all the requirements which were listed. A micronation is a micronation, and one cannot expect a macro attention to them. However, Wirtland has got TV coverage in two of world's countries when it was just six months old. There are also endless articles in non-English countries, particularly in Bulgaria, and Bulgarian wiki article has been in place for several months now. Also, I wanted to tell that I tried to follow the model of ATLANTIUM article (http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Atlantium), and I have consulted with its author George Cruickshank. He seems to be one of editors of Micronations category. Without his approval I would not have spent so much time in creating this article. I hope this time will not be wasted. Thanks and I hope you give Wirtland a chance. Regards, Witizen (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen[reply]

Аз не съм голям фен на английския и затова пиша на български.По голяма простотия от това да се заличи нашата държава Wirtland не бях чел отдавна.Какви са тия глупости не ми стана ясно.

I disagree with with deletion of this article. Is it not important wish of 500 people to be citizens of Wirtland? Or maybe majority should force over minority? And at the end freedom of express is one of most important freedoms over the World. Romeo Ninov, proud Witizen

I disagree with deletion of this article. I am very excited about the idea of a country that has no borders. The landfree aspect is precisely why it is notable; it stand out against other micronations like Sealand (which has far fewer citizens!) Lizzit, Witizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.218.37 (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to a short paragraph at List of micronations. I just cannot see anything in this article that shows why this micronation is notable. The Bulgarian article (which translates very well using Google) contains less information than the English one. Neither English nor Bulgarian articles contain any relevant incoming article-space links (there is a link from National Register of Historic Places listings in Westmoreland County, Virginia, but that is not relevant). Thryduulf (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Е.. .. ......., Thryduulf! Е.. .. ......, ти казвам. Не искам с теб да разговарям, защот' си прост ......... . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.62.184 (talk • contribs)
- [machine translation of the above from Bulgarian to English: "E.. .. ......., Thryduulf! E.. .. ......, I say. I do not want to talk to you because 'you simply ......... ." Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]

This Micronation has achieved a lot more in one year than many micronations featured here have, and especially more than what they have done in their first year. Wirtland has more citizens than a few of the micronations mentioned, too. Bokontonian (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the beginning, I understood WirtLand as an intelligent sociologic experiment.I took notice about WirtLand in LinkedIn, a serious place where we, members, do not "play", where we discuss our professional topics,entrepreneurships, etc.WirtLand is not a game, and it is not a common social network. It is the way to "see" in real time how a group of persons (nowadays around 700), can "build" a nation, their institutions, chambers, and It is notable, even though being an Internet-based country.PAM, another proud witizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.197.224.249 (talk • contribs) [copied from talk page by Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Delete, no real evidence of notability. However, don't expect this link to stay red long — places on the National Register of Historic Places get so much coverage that they're notable, so I'll be recreating as an article about a historic house in Virginia. Nyttend (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, if this is kept (not that I believe it should be), this article should be moved to Wirtland (micronation) and a hatnote added at the top of your article about the historic house in Virginia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By the way, there won't really be a need to merge anything; the micronations list already has a paragraph on Wirtland. Nyttend (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a micropatriologist and someone who runs a website devoted to such affairs (The Microfreedom Index, aka "Microfreedom.com"), I would like to see this article retained. Wirtland has managed to attract a bit of publicity in the media and more than a handful of members in its one year of operation than a number of other similar projects. It is an interactive project and one that should be studied more. Other web-based "nations" haven't lasted this long, nor have the attracted this many members. Unidyne (talk) 01:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax - criterion G3 ~ mazca ^talk 00:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Circle[edit]

One of a series of articles about supposed TV series (others to be nominated separately), with no transmission date, broadcast channel or production company. No references and absolutely none to be found. Despite the lack of transmission there is still an episode guide which suggests at least some inside involvement. Also nominating List of Love Circle episodes. I42 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal ball.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pointless article Triplestop (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Crystal ball nothing, it's a hoax. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Addyjuly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 hoax ukexpat (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax. Meets speedy criterion A3. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Church House (TV Series)[edit]

One of a series of articles about supposed TV series (others to be nominated separately), with no transmission date, broadcast channel or production company. No references and absolutely none to be found. Despite the lack of transmission there is still an episode guide which suggests at least some inside involvement. Also nominating List of Church House episodes. I42 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I42 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blatant hoax - deleted under criterion G3 ~ mazca ^talk 00:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Heights[edit]

One of a series of articles about supposed TV series (others to be nominated separately), with no transmission date, broadcast channel or production company. No references and absolutely none to be found. Despite the lack of transmission there is still an episode guide which suggests at least some inside involvement. "these children have created, produced and made everything in this show" strongly suggests not a "real" show. Fails notability and verifiability. Also nominating List of Higher Heights episodes. I42 (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is neither independent notability nor reliable third-party resources Rirunmot (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 hoax ukexpat (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ramones concerts[edit]

Unencyclopedic listcruft. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Do not believe the list meets any of the criteria for listcruft:

The list was created just for the sake of having such a list: There was a request for the list on Talk:Ramones
The list is of interest to a very limited number of people: Extremely notable band, page has already been visited 20 times after one day of existance
The list is a violation of Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: notable historic info on a very important band
The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable: completely verifiable and notable as mentioned
The list cannot be expanded beyond a handful of terms: certainly well beyond a handful of entries
The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable: There were a finite number of shows, with no chance of further shows
The list has no content beyond links to other articles, so would be better implemented as a (self-maintaining) category: content is an important historical record
The list is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia: could be included in an encyclopedia of punk or even rock music
Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available: completely neutral and verifiable
Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas: no original research went into the list
The list's membership is volatile and requires a disproportionate amount of effort to keep up to date: historical record of past events, there will be no new Ramones concerts --J04n(talk page) 22:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no way in Hell could this ever be sourced. It's indiscriminate and unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The whole list is sourced to Bessman, Jim (1993). Ramones: An American Band. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 0-312-09369-1. J04n(talk page) 22:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's only one source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the first paragraph Wikipedia:verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia...has already been published by a reliable source..." There are also bound to be reviews of individual shows, but that IMO goes beyond the thresholdJ04n(talk page) 23:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would a list like this, if it were copied verbatim from a single source, constitute a copyright violation? Them From Space 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "one" source is unquestionably a high-quality source per our WP:Verifiability policy. Sourcing clearly meets our standards. As the information is essentially raw data (date, location) of public events, the information is not copyrightable. There is nothing copyrightable (e.g., commentary, unique/idiosyncratic presentation of data) that has been duplicated from Bessman. DocKino (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I have the Bessman book, and the list is 100% completely verifiable from it. 10lbhammer, with respect, you might want to check the article's references before you declare it "indiscriminate and unferifiable". Bessman is not the only source available; there are other published works on the Ramones which list many of their performances (punk rock is the topic of my masters thesis, and I've collected several volumes covering the Ramones including histories of their performances). As an extremely notable band (considered the first punk rock band, now adopted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame), nearly all aspects of their history have been covered by reliable secondary sources, including lists of their gigs. In answer to Themfromspace's question, no it is not copyvio if it is simply a list of places and dates, as lists of raw data are not creative works, and even if it were the list is not copied verbatim from the source (note the creator's comments on the talk page). Jo4n's summation of the article's merits is 100% on the money, and the nominator's rationale is completely invalid, based entirely on not liking it with no basis in any policy or guideline. The article passes all of our core policies and I can't imagine that there's a snowball's chance of anyone being able to prove otherwise. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, encyclopedic, no convincing argument for deletion.--Michig (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but I would like more than one source. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per J04n, not listcruft. Rlendog (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawal by nominator. After further discussion with Tothwolf, we've decided that it meets notability (as it's a popular software), though it needs a lot of work. ^blurred _peace ☮ 20:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PJIRC[edit]

The IRC client does not assert notability (has not been mentioned in any reliable sources). Searches on Google turn up download pages and support forum requests (that including Google News as well). Google Books shows two relevant results, but the two books do not assert notability of the software either. (one is a Wikipedia manual, and the other an IRC hacks booklet) ^blurred _peace ☮ 20:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 16:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaakov Kopl Yarminovich[edit]

Deletion proosed: non-notable subject, a lacrimose legend, a nonexistent source. --Lute88 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Step 2 of the AfD listing process was not completed properly. It has been fixed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails notability. It seems, that the cited journal exists - Hamodia - The Newspaper of Toran Jewry, but all online sources refer back to Wikipedia. WorldCat, Google Books and Google News result is empty. I'm not sure, if that person ever existed. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Cyrillic search yielded no such surname in existence in Russia in any possible variant spellings.--Lute88 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable footnote in history. Yoninah (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plain non-notable.Biophys (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to snake. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Nyaumbe[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

BLP1E - contested redirect. Hipocrite (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I brought this article up at the BLP noticeboard to ask about it being a WP:BLP1E, it's unsurprising that I think it should be deleted. The article creator seems to think that the article is fine because there's a category for articles about animal attack victims, but it seems like all the articles in that cat are about notable people who have also been animal attack victims, not people who were attacked once and had articles written about that incident. Rnb (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ben Nyaumbe meets the criteria for inclusion for Notability Results 1 - 100 of about 75,200 for "Ben Nyaumbe". (0.70 seconds) Green Squares (talk) 23:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Note, user is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. But this is covered by WP:BLP1E, which says that even if an individual has enough coverage for the GNG, if they're only known for one event and are likely to remain a low profile person, they should not have their own article. Rnb (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (Selectively merge) To an appropriate article about snake attacks or animal attacks. I see there is an article on Snakebite by venomous snakes, but no article on attacks by constrictors on humans. Until such an article is created, this should be selectively merged to a new subsection on "Constrictor attacks on humans" in the article Snake in the section "Interactions with humans." Reuters and other news services thought the "man bites snake" incident was worth covering. It is unusual for a python to haul a grown man up a tree and attempt to eat him, especially while he calls the police on his cell phone. Edison (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyable article but I think Edison's idea is the right one -- merge appropriate details to Snake or Snakebite. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am the author of the article it is well cited and there is a specific +cat for it Category:Animal attack victims Green Squares (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Note, user is banned. Hipocrite (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment More material for the proposed section: An Ohio man was killed in 2006 by his pet 14 foot boa[1]. In 2002 a 10 foot python killed its owner in Denver [2]. A pet UK constrictor 8 feet long had the run of the house until it sought to eat the new baby [3] and authorities sought to ban them as pets. Here, pp 180-182 [4] are 19th century accounts of a boa's attempt to eat a zoo keeper. Here, pp 225-226 [5] is a 19th century account of a boa eating a human in the Phillipines. A modern book listing several killings of humans or attacks by anacondas and pythons is [6], pages 27-28. Seems enough material collectively for a subsection in the snake article, and is of interest because of the thousands of pythons now infesting Florida, with the population expected to increase exponentially[7]. Edison (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Support Edison's smerge recommendation - as a single article it has limited merit (beyond being darned humorous and an interesting read) - as part of a class of events, it is arguably significant. Williamborg (Bill) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the Mergers Relevent content already is merged into Python sebae, where I tried to redirect this. Hipocrite (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the comment on the Smerge I would rather see the proposed subsection on attacks by constrictors on humans in Snake, since there is similarity in the attacks by pythons, boas, and anacondas. It seems less encyclopedic to split it up by species. Edison (talk) 00:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely WP:BLP1E. I saw this on History Channel. Interesting, but not notable beyond the single event itself. Merge if you have to, but no way should it stay a a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As relevant info is already on another article, delete and redirect to Python sebae. DreamGuy (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As User:Edison sensibly indicates, there are better alternatives than deletion. BLP1E is not relevant because the topic here is the notable attack, not a biography of the person attacked. That's just a matter of article-naming, which we address by move rather than deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like you actually read User:Edison's sensible comments, as a "Keep" vote is completely inconsistent with what he recommends. Renaming this article would not cut it, as it would still be about a single event that is not notable for an article on its own. DreamGuy (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The only question we are debating here is whether to delete the article. I think not and so I summarise this as Keep. This does not preclude further editing of the article in the ordinary way - move, split, merger or whatever. Note also that your proposal of delete and redirect is oxymoronic as the two are contradictory. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect is a perfectly valid result. There is no GFDL (much less CC-by-SA) violation in a delete and redirect. The content was in the snake article before the creation of this BLP violation. Hipocrite (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively per Edison. As it fails one event then keep isn't an option. If the material was taken from or already in target, then simply delete. Verbal chat 14:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere appropriate. BLP1E does apply, but this is a relative lot of coverage, even though of the "news of the weird" type. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to constriction, no independent notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have more than enough coverage to justify it's existance as coverage of a notable event - possibly the name should change to reflect that? Artw (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For those arguing that the article should be renamed to indicate it's covering an event rather than a BLP so that it doesn't fall under WP:BLP1E, I would respond that doing so would just move the article from that jurisdiction to that of WP:NTEMP, which says that it takes more than a burst of news reports for an event to be notable enough for its own article (and personally feeling that it would fall under the "tabloid journalism" clause.) Rnb (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No-one above has mentioned Wikinews, which one would expect to be the natural home of stories like this. But according to our article, ""So indistinct has the line between past and present become that Wikipedia has inadvertently all but strangled one of its sister projects, the three-year-old Wikinews... [Wikinews] has sunk into a kind of torpor; lately it generates just 8 to 10 articles a day... On bigger stories there's just no point in competing with the ruthless purview of the encyclopedia.". So, it seems that, in practise, Wikipedia has swallowed Wikinews whole, just like a python, and Wikipedia routinely reports news stories on its main page. The claim that there is some clear division between encyclopedic content and notable current affairs seems untenable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clear-cut BLP1E/notnews. Eusebeus (talk) 19:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Church[edit]

A church of no verifiable notability. Searches through Google, Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar turn up nothing to confirm its importance, as per WP:ORG standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must have the wrong name. PLease don't waste time with an AFD. I've put it up for db-author as I can't find the churhc it refers to. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to University of Florida Taser incident. History retained if editors wish to incorporate it into other articles and/or research. Cirt (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Meyer[edit]

Non-notable person. He was involved in one incident at a school, and this page should redirect to University of Florida Taser incident. In fact, at a previous AfD, the result was merge, but for whatever reason a user recreated the page. I'm not sure if this is a speedy redirect case, or if it's been so long since the last AfD, that it should be discussed again. CTJF83Talk 17:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that we already have enough of the notable details on Meyer at University_of_Florida_Taser_incident#Student CTJF83Talk 18:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Notable and well sourced. Badagnani (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it mean nothing that a previous AfD had a redirect consensus? CTJF83Talk 17:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of those "one-incident" people, that really aren't notable by themselves (no matter how many sources confirming the one incident there are). However, the incident might very well be worth reporting, and an article on that might stand a better chance of surviving on Wikipedia. EDIT: Just realised that the incident does have its own page- I will support merging and redirecting. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to the tasering incident, and if necessary protect the re-direct so we don't have to keep coming back here any time someone in good faith thinks we need an article on him. Also, Merge any useful information to the article on the tasering incident. WP:BLP1E states that we should be covering the incident (which is notable) instead of the person (who's not notable outside being tasered while yelling "DON'T TASE ME BRO!"). Umbralcorax (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect the redirect. No notability outside of the one incident means a redirect to the article on that incident is the correct course. Davewild (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the person seems to be notable enough, of course in connection with the incident. I expect this debate to be closed by an administrator, unlike the previous debate.Biophys (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of Florida Taser incident. He has zero notability outside the tasering incident (apart from this connection, he's merely one of zillion university undergrads). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Undoubtedly notable, and sourcing is not a problem either. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 18:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the single incident for which this person is known. If this isn't textbook WP:BLP1E, I'm not sure what is. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Redirect to University of Florida Taser incident. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect No notability, should be a minor inclusion in article on UF tasering.Fuzbaby (talk) 21:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect/delete One event non notable BLP Triplestop (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect, textbook WP:BLP1E. A convincing keep counterargument would refute this by pointing to specific examples of Meyer's notability beyond the incident. A less compelling argument could be that the incident is significant enough to require separate articles for its participants. Disclosure: I attempted to redirect this article a few days ago. I am familiar with the University of Florida Taser incident article. This article is completely redundant with zero non-duplicated content to merge. Some biographical details were merged to the incident article with the first redirection in September 2007. Flatscan (talk) 04:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Protected Redirect to University of Florida Taser incident. Nothing beyond WP:BLP1E. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely a case of WP:BLP1E. Did nothing of note before or after the event. No matter how many sources you pile up, it all comes back to the single event. If it is re-directed, it needs to be protected. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. rmosler (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jamie^☆S93 17:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacksun[edit]

Non-notable ISP, article is heavy on COI, and reads like an advertisement Wuhwuzdat (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the incident described here: [8] (Where BlackSun is mentioned by name) does assert notability of the company. While the article might seem slightly POV, it is notable, in my opinion and the prose can easily be edited to neutrality. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That article gives a mention only, one mention is far below the standard for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article shows notability. The "recent news" section is not even about Blacksun. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article mentioning they are complaining about a bid process isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. feydey (talk) 10:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. deleted by PMDrive1061 J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 17:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SEC500[edit]

Par WP:NOTWEBHOST Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No real need to debate this. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fraternity and sorority mottos[edit]

WP:NOT: an arbitrary list. Unreferenced. Unnecessary: information easily found from "list of fraternities and sororo]ities. - Altenmann >t 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator states that this is "information easily found from 'list of fraternities and sororities'", which, if so, would be a good reason for a delete. Perhaps I'm looking at a different list than the nominator is, but when I look at List of fraternities and sororities (which redirects), I don't see anything there about mottoes. And in searching a motto at random, I don't find it. If you're saying that this duplicates something that be "easily found" somewhere else, tell us where and I'll join in saying delete. As for the rest of the nomination, I agree that it's unreferenced, but it easily could be referenced. Mandsford (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If information is absent in the fraternity page, then either the page sucks or the motto is dubious. Forgive my poor English and brain; I intended to say "information should be easily found in...". At the moment we cannot even spread these mottos into the fraternity articles, because the list is unreferenced. - Altenmann >t 16:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the various sororities or fraternities mentioned, almost all of which have their own pages. Mottoes in and of themselves are not notable; it is the organizations which are notable. (The post-merge redirect should logically be to List of social fraternities and sororities.) Cnilep (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, no can do. How you can merge unreferenced stuff? Most of the article was created by numerous anons; we cannot even find authors to ask for verification. - Altenmann >t 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT. This list is indiscriminate and new sororities/fraternaties can be endless. Listcruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the same sense that a list of Presidents of the United States can be endless, I suppose. Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list with material limited to that in articles on notable Wikipedia subjects is not indiscriminate, but discriminating, according to WP:N. Most of the fraternities &c here are notable with WP articles; others can be removed. Every bit of it should be easily verifiable, and probably is already cited in the articles on the organizations . DGG (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not an argument. I can think of myriads of lists about notable sublects: List of sons of American Presidents, List of middle names of Nobel Prize winners..... - Altenmann >t 16:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no references. Where is all this information coming from? A large quantity of the fraternities or sororities for which the mottoes are listed, are very likely not notable. There may be some of them which are, but they are probably already included in an article elsewhere, and with them, the mottoes correspondent to them. For those mottoes for which the fraternities or sororities are indeed worthy of an article, I change my 'vote' to a merge , but to the article itself, it remains a delete. --Slartibartfast1992 02:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate collection of information or unencyclopedic cross-categorization. Leave the mottos on the respective articles. Madcoverboy (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D. Dudley Bloom[edit]

The creator of this article, who appears to be related to the subject, has repeatedly swatted away A7 tags, hence the article's arrival here. Both Google and Google News searches for "D. Dudley Bloom" and "AMSCO" (the company where Mr. Bloom supposedly made his mark) turn up nothing to support the article's claims of innovations in toy marketing. Pastor Theo (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Vanispamcruftertisement PXK ^T /_C 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Triplestop (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched but couldn't find evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources - notability has not been established. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowlark Airport[edit]

Almost exclusively WP:OR/unsourced article on small, defunct airport. Only sourced information in the article currently is about the post-airport use of the site. {{find}} turns up only sparse information that does not rise to the level of "significant coverage". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe this article should be retained and I am willing to research the recently added fact tags. However, it will take longer than a week. This will require reliable sources not necessarily available on the Internet (i.e., books in the city and university library). I would appreciate being given the time to do the research before the article is deleted. Alanraywiki (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some sources: [9], 2000+ word LA times article on the airport and its closing, 640 word article on financial issues in the 1960s, etc. The LA Times in particular seems to have written about the travails of this airport quite a bit over the years, and I'm talking operational stuff, not just urban planning articles about use of the site after the airport closed. Hopefully Alanraywiki or someone else will improve the article with these and other sources, but just showing they exist is enough for me to vote to keep. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article verifiably demonstrates sufficient notability. It could do with some continued development, but that is no reason for deletion. I42 (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Though citations are needed, this is a reasonably well written article, even if it was only a minor airport. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was an 80 acre site which operated for over 40 years. It's not like someone just landed a helicopter in a field a couple of times. Nick mallory (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems reasonably notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has reliable sources. Airports, no matter how small, are generally have at least some sources, and therefore are notable. Sebwite (talk) 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to European Parliament election, 2014. Cirt (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom)[edit]

2014? No point to this being here yet, not a WP:CRYSTAL ball, nothing of any encyclopedic purpose to say at this time. DreamGuy (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:CRYSTAL there is no need to have an article about a future event before there is something to say about it. The 2009 election finished two weeks ago. In a couple of years, once candidates start announcing and there is something meaningful to say, then by all means, we should an article, but this is premature. The same goes for European Parliament election, 2014, which as of now presents only the results of the 2009 election. Cool3 (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of participating parties is pure speculation at this point, and article contains no other concrete information. Hqb (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2014 European Parliament elections are a certainty, and the race for office will be in advance of the actual voting date. If deleted, this article will need to be recreated in the near future. It is a well organized template for what is certain to be a much edited and very welcomed and informational article on the upcoming elections. I note that there is an article for the United States presidential election, 2012. No one is suggesting to delete that article, and the same logic should apply here. Beltline (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: This editor is currently under investigation as a possible sockpuppet of banned User:Azviz -- If it is important to the close result, please check the current status. DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that article has been suggested for deletion in the past... and has been deleted in the past for the exact same reasons. Thanks for bringing that up. DreamGuy (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me where it "has been suggested for deletion" or "has been deleted" in the past. I don't see it. Beltline (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was AFDed here. However, that was in 2006, before even the 2008 election had even properly got going, so that's not quite the same thing. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Beltine should look at this. The 2012 article has a fair amount of detail, and is about one specific position, and has one guaranteed candidate (Obama). This is juts a table, with a date. Delete and recreate in about four years time. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove the tables. It's virtually certain there will be a European Parliament election in 2014, and it's standard practice to have stubs that are expected to grow into full articles. However, the list of parties standing at the next election is speculation (and, in all probability, half the parties that failed to elect candidates won't stand again). Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Parliament election, 2014 since there is no real information here, but will be in the future. No need to do all that work with the tables over again in five years. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Writing about an even 5 years before it occurs...WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, the elections will most likely occur, but much on the landscape will change in the interim. Look no further than the last US Presidential election. People winning straw polls 2 years before the election weren't even on the ballot when Iowa voted. Delete it and re-write it in 3 years. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to European Parliament election, 2014, no sources, pure speculation at this point - Maybe the UK won't even be in the EU in five years. Additionally the article provides absolutely no information to the reader. Guest9999 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete first? I don't see why we need to hide the article history here. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless you believe that nobody is planning for it yet, and that nobody will be writing their speculations and predictions. The final state of the event occurs in 5 yrs, the preliminaries much sooner. DGG (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Parliament election, 2014, and then bring it back in, say, 2012 (going on the basis that the page for the recent elections was started in 2007). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Parliament election, 2014. That seems to be the most logical choice. It's like having an article for the U.S. Senate Election in a specific state. We have an article for the Senate Election in 2014, but not for the election in each state.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebowski painting[edit]

Mere mention on Wil Wheaton's blog does not make something notable. DreamGuy (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any references whatsoever that would establish notability for this. This is the first time, however, that I've seen someone try to cite twitter as a source. Rnb (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references, notability not established. freshacconci talktalk 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable fancruft. "this is the first time, however, that I've seen someone try to cite twitter as a source" --- I'm sure we'll be seeing more of this. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising for a commercial poster, references are to various blogs that have copied text from the online shop (viral campaign?). All the sources and references appear to fail WP:GNG. Enki H. (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an advert. Delete, can always be recreated should it achieve notability, or if new shit comes to light. pablo_hablo. 22:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Hughes[edit]

Previously prodded as "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links:
2009 June 19 – news, books, scholar
Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability" and deprodded without any real reason given other than to force an AFD, so here it is. DreamGuy (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not sure I see why it's up for deletion. It needs sources, but a quick Google search reveals that he's got plenty of exposure and is published through Simon & Schuster. It's a candidate for improvement, not deletion, in my view. J L G 3 9 2 6 18:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a ref to his S&S book, '85, a novel. I know that doesn't fulfill notability in terms of independent coverage in reliable sources, but it's something. Plus, I think this is a grey-area case where the person clearly has some claim to recognition, even if not covered by sources discoverable via Google News... J L G 3 9 2 6 19:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: ~~his Three Days As the Crow Flies has its own article and~~(not) the first 5 pages of Google searches include a page in "comiclopedia", a write-up of '85 on grahicnovelreporter, a stub biography as Simon & Schuster author, Marvel comics database, Video interview on Loutshelter Blog, review on '85 at bookreporters, short review of '85 on prohiphop - not my scene, but appears to satisfy WP:BIO. Enki H. (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Enki, the novel has its own article, which does not even mention his graphic adaptation. But probably makes it as illustator of the graphic version & other stuff. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UNSW Business Information Technology[edit]

Articles on a single degree at a university are practically unheard of and would require clear notability. Despite being given a year to improve, this article is still referenced entirely to primary sources and has no indication of outside notability at all. At best, it seems like it could merit a sentence in an article on the wider program article at UNSW. (Consider that The Australian School of Business, UNSW's business branch, doesn't even have subarticles for each of its schools, let alone degrees within those programs!)

I've redirected the article twice now and been reverted by User:Jaguanna (in good faith, of course). Jaguanna notes on the talk page:

Because Business Information Technology is not a well known degree, yet the industry requires graduates in this field at growing rates, they have requested we provide this page for visibility. Thank you for your concern.

But this is exactly the opposite of how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is for topics which have *already gained* visibility, which Wikipedia then reports on. It is not for every up-and-comer. As it stands, this article violates "Wikipedia is not a free webhost" is in the WP:What Wikipedia is not guidelines, as it's pretty much an extra homepage for the program. SnowFire (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete they have requested we provide this page for visibility we don't create articles because WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL, they must meet WP:N, this does not. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Libstar. The article also makes some completely false claims - I hold such a degree (from a different institution) and it has such poor employment prospects due to nobody actually knowing or understanding what it is (it's neither a Business degree nor an IT degree and is big on generalities, low on skills) that I have had to restart my career in a different field. Orderinchaos 20:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd normally go with re-direct to the schools article, but if they want to monkey with the redirect...I guess we could consider a protected re-direct. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would it be better if a general Business information Technology article is provided? I'm not trying to be a thorn in someones foot here.sometimes the world falls apart, then it's time for you to turn into glue. (talk) 10:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm Lautenbach[edit]

Per ANI request. Created by a banned user in violation of CSD criteria G5, and deleted as such in May 2009. However, precedent was set with a similar article created by this same user that such articles can be kept. I remain neutral; I merely believe this should be discussed rather than summarily deleted. Tan | 39 15:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN guy, reliable secondary sources provided mention him only in passing. I ignored mentions of this person in unreliable sources. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just take a look at Google books. I think that's a clear indication of notability; everything I see in the first several pages is relevant, and while some of it is trivial, much of it is not. By all indications, an important German economic figure. One of the books calls him "Germany's leading Keynesian", if that's not notability I don't know what is. Cool3 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. The idea here is to build an encyclopedia.--Leatherstocking (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Menshikov article does nothing to establish the notability of this subject. That's not a legitimate AfD argument. Will Beback talk 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am sure this has been created as another LaRouche coatrack but I cannot see that Lautenbach is anything but notable. Students of interwar European finance will know him and he warrants a full two page discussion in Kindleberger's World in Depression (can be viewed on Google books). Needs sources and better wording though. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors may wish to look at the moderately improved version of the article; I have added some more details and ref. I agree its hard to see his notability based on google as all the weird LaRouche junk comes up first. But to exclude him from an encyclopedia just because he is fetishised by LaRouche is not a valid decision rule (we would also then have to exclude Riemann!!). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google books shows plenty of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable, and would not have been questioned except for who created it. G5 is only justified to discourage such users, but it doesn't seem to work for the purpose. What I say, is that perhaps we should retire it, and that consensus has now changed to that effect. DGG (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; see relevant conversation on my talk page here. Tan | 39 04:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The policy would do more to discourage banned editors from returning if we don't recreate their articles without going through the normal procedures that were put in place just to handle issues like this. If folks really believe that restoring the banned editor's words without prior discussion will discourage him from making new socks puppets to push his fringe POV then I'd like to hear the reasoning. Dealing with users who have been banned due to their disruption or POV pushing is one of the major problems on Wikipedia and one which takes up the time of many admins, functionaries and regular editors. While it's not necessary for everyone to deal with them, circumventing the community-approved remedies is unhelpful. Will Beback talk 04:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable book sources show notability. Who wrote it originally does not matter as long as the current article is NPOV. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, both articles. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of development hell projects[edit]

This list is entirely subjective. It will always violate WP:NPOV. The list doesn't even specify inclusion criteria, but even if it did, it would be an WP:NPOV issue. • If an author writes a book on development hell projects, and that book becomes notable, that book can have an article. If multiple such books exist, we might have a list of books on the topic of development hell. But making that call ourselves will always be a POV judgment. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the name itself indicates its POV status. this is not a defined term, and covers too much territory. also, how long should something be in development before qualifying? announcement of something in development can be a purely promotional gesture, or it can have real money behind it, but face legit snags, or it can be caught up in business politics. the list would have to include all projects ever in development hell (how about the oxford english dictionary?). if its just current projects, it needs to be deleted. i would encourage people passionate about this subject to simply keep each projects regular article updated with sourced material. i dont see any way to rescue this article. (how about List of films in development hell?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of the more representative cases into Development hell, which recently passed an AfD; delete the rest. Hairhorn (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently OR. Not every project that was delayed is inherently in development hell. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added List of films in development hell which is basically the same thing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both and move the titles to something nicer. The films article is rather well sourced, and "development hell" is a trade term. The article about projects is a tougher sell, but the main problem that I see in lists that leads to all the POV objections is the use of the phrase "development hell" in the title of the article. Particularly with regard to films, production problems and cost overruns are notable enough that they get coverage by independent and verifiable sources. Is the implied comparison to fire and brimstone a bit too drastic? Then refer to the developmental problems as something that doesn't include the word "hell"... Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What would be the inclusion criteria? The reason I nominated these lists is that they just scream POV and original research. Say the new title is "Movies with development problems". Every movie has problems (ain't nothing easy in this world). "Movies with serious problems"? How do we define "serious"? You get the idea. Wikipedia must be (1) objective and (2) derived from other sources. While I'm sure there are sources that say "film X is in trouble", without an objective criteria that all sources follow, I don't see how we can use it. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 02:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as creator of the articles) both the articles were originally spun-off from Development hell, which was at the time was a bit of a mess. I've no strong opinion as to whether the articles should be kept or deleted, on coming back to it 18 months later, I'd tend slightly towards delete. Paulbrock (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. WP:NOT indiscrimate list that will never be complete, and will always rely on WP:POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically as original research, the sourcing basically describes describes the development of projects, few of them mention anything about development hell. Effectively the article is something like "List of projects that have been proposed or under are development and haven't progressed as far as would typically be expected", I don't see how that can be transformed into anything that is neutral and free of original research unless an external reliable source releases such a list. Guest9999 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The nomination wonders if there's a book on the topic. Here's one devoted to nothing else and there seem to be plenty more sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: The nomination does not wonder if there are books on the topic. The nomination states that if there are books, and the books are notable, the books deserve an article. Whether or not such books exist is irrelevant to the nomination. • The issue is that I (and others, obviously) do not think it is possible to treat the matter of "which projects are in development hell?" without running into problems with neutrality and/or original research. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrelevant what you and the nominator think of the difficulties of the topic. The test of WP:N is whether third party authors have written about it. If they have, then this demonstrates that the topic exists and that we have material to summarise. The existence of a complete book on the subject is prima facie evidence of this and so is very relevant. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think anyone questions the notability of the subject. its the inherent POV of this article. i would welcome an article on the book cited, with summary of each project mentioned in the book. and if multiple titles, then a whole article on development hell projects as referenced in those books. that would be static information, NPOV if summarized well. I would also welcome anybodys attempt to show how this current material could be made NPOV. im stumped. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no special POV problem with this topic. Numerous topics are difficult to define exactly. Consider Hell, for example, for which there are numerous POVs and few definite facts. This does not stop us writing about the topic - we just take good care over sourcing and the way we present the information. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the contents as they stand are reasonably NPOV. My main concern is that the criteria for deciding what to include in this article is inherently POV. unlike, say, a list of canceled film projects, or top grossers, or even films with gay actors (all of which could have points of contention, as would any list thats not mathematically defined by one parameter), the criteria for what is in dev hell is extremely variable. terence malick has taken years to get his films produced, but he seems to like that. for another film, a 2 month delay may be disastrous. its the vagueness of any inclusion criteria that makes this article hard to pin down. and i also agree that some articles are inherently contentious, but no one would argue that we shouldnt have an article on hell for this reason. i do think we can argue that this article shouldnt exist, at least in its current form. But ive said my piece, and i will try to let this process continue.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel Warden: It seems like you're arguing that the concept of "Development hell" is notable and should have an article, because there are books on the subject. I agree completely! That article exists, and it is not part of this discussion. • This discussion is about two lists of other things which are "in development hell". The issue is WP:NPOV/WP:NOR for inclusion in these lists, not notability. There's no objective standard that other authors follow. So we, at Wikipedia, would have to decide which authors are right and which are wrong. • I suppose we could create a list of projects which a reliable source has called in development hell, but that's not what these lists are. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV/OR-laden content. Eusebeus (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete both. The articles include no specific inclusion criteria, which are necessary to prevent them from being pure OR, nor are any available from reliable sources. We can and should have articles about amorphous concepts but they cannot be used to populate lists themselves. We need reliable sources for that and none are present in the article or have been adduced in this discussion. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indus (programming language)[edit]

Previously prodded by someone else with explanation "No evidence of notability" - prod removed by someone whose edits I am checking based upon other concerns, so I am listing here. Article is unsourced and basically an ad. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC) DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same reason as prod; I was the prodder. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried Google scholar and Google news archive but, while Scholar did find some articles on an Indus programming language by K. Borah, they had very few citations, indicating that the project has not achieved any academic notability. News also came up short. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Buckley Jewellery[edit]

Another user prodded with reason "insuficient assertion of notability" and was deprodded by a serial deprodder with no assertion of notability. I should not that the only references appear to be blogs and marketing sites which meanthat none of them are independent or reliable. This is just an attempt at a free ad. DreamGuy (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically an advert; entirely non-notable (there are many jewellers in CBD arcades around Australia, probably all of whom could make similar claims.) Orderinchaos 20:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maiden Rose[edit]

Non-notable manga series. Almost no coverage by reliable third party sources. The OVA adaptation also appears to be equally non-notable. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BK. Farix (Talk) 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in reliable-third party sources, no reviews, nothing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The manga has been licensed in English by DramaQueen, but they do not seem to have published it yet (even though they licensed it in 2007), and the OVA was released on 29 May, three weeks ago. So I'm not surprised that reviews of it are light on the ground. If it's been licensed in other languages, I haven't found it yet. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like DramaQueen hasn't even updated their website since September 07, so seems unlikely it ever will be published. Purportedly they were seeking investors in 08 for months that never came...suspect it is a dead or almost dead company, which rather sucks as their few releases were fairly decently done and they hit some of the more explicit stuff others wouldn't touch. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain it. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(CE) In addition to the OVA, there was also a drama CD adaptation. Has anyone evaluated Akibanana for reliability? My guess is it isn't, but they do rave about the series. Also, I note that while ANN doesn't have a series page, it does find promotional events related to the OVA notable enough to report on. Otherwise, it's mostly just fansquee and scans/subs. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding more arguments for delete. No ANN reference for the Manga, the OVA & the author, just the news you mentioned. The Drama CD didn't chart in Oricon album chart [10] so it doesn't count as a notable adaptation. I found no licensor in France & Germany. I will probably vote delete as verifiable contents is too limited to write what we call an article and even if Akibanana turns to be RS (which i hope so) we would still need one review to have a balanced article and satisfy WP:BK --KrebMarkt 18:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning toward a weak delete myself, unless more info comes to light. It's one of those frustrating series (all too common among yaoi and hentai) that has all sorts of hints of notability but nothing to show it conclusively pass WP:BK. From what I read about it, if DramaQueen had managed to publish it, I have every expectation it would have gotten good reviews -- but that didn't happen. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if there'd been coverage of fan outcry about the botched release, would it be notable? It's awfully hard to prove notability in a case where it hasn't won any awards in Japan and isn't released in English (so no English reviews). --Malkinann (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the fan outcry received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. If it hasn't won awards, been reviewed,, or even been covered at all, it isn't notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, haven't been able to find anything so far on fan outcry. Just curious, as DramaQueen have a habit of doing this to their titles. --Malkinann (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you can find reliable coverage of outcry, but so far I've only seen it mentioned in ... reviews, at which point you have reviews. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We won't see often another Kodomo no Jikan --KrebMarkt 22:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [11] Anime News Network wouldn't be talking about it, if it wasn't notable. The OVA is based on a notable series by a notable artists. Dream Focus 08:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAppears to be just passing coverage stating that the promotional video was available. Perhaps it might receive coverage in the future, however it doesn't appear to meet our inclusion guidelines at this time. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to formalize my comment above: weak delete -- numerous hints of notability, but nothing has been found to demonstrate it meets the letter of rigid law. No prejudice against recreation if more solid evidence of notability is uncovered. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete with no prejudice for recreation when real concrete RS coverages will be available instead of hints of notability. --KrebMarkt 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Godbey[edit]

Prodded for deletion by User:Thomas.macmillan as simply "non-notable writer" and deprodded (by a serial deprodder). The alleged book she supposedly had published does not even have an ISBN code (only an Amazon ASIN), so is not considered to be even as notable as a self-published book (which is to say less than not notable at all). No indication of any notability as an individual. Fails WP:AUTHOR quite dramatically. Delete DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Speedy Close. The nominator throws a lot of nasty invective around. But invective is no substitute for research. Just searching Wikipedia reveals that Godbey has won a notable poetry award, and other sites [12] give reasonably strong indivations of notability. By the way, the nominator's comment about a "self-published book" is also nonsense; its publisher, Slipstream, is the book-publishing arm of an apparently notable magazine. The nomination itself amounts to a BLP violation; the nominator would improve the Wikipedia environment by searching harder for evidence of notability rather than obsessing on "serial deprodders." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are amazingly hostile here. I disagree with you, but I'm not going to through the personal attacks at you that you somehow feel you can get away with. It's not a "book-publishing arm" if the item produced doesn't even have an ISBN. "Pamphlet-publishing arm" maybe. I don't find these things to be indications of notability, and the idea that what I said is a BLP violation is just odd. You don't need to attack other people to try to make your point, and, in fact, it doesn't look like you have much of a point other than making the attack. DreamGuy (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC):::And, incidentally, the serial deprodder you say I shouldn't worry about turned out to be (as predicted) a sock of a banned user whose offenses were disrupting the deletion processes on this site through socks. If the serial deprodder hadn't deleted this it would already be deleted as it should have been by now. 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to Slipstream, they publish a couple of issues a year, mainly reader submitted entries. Technically that is "published", but the payment is a copy of the issue your poem appears in. You'd make a better case of being a notable author by having a humorous anecdote from work "published" in Reader's Digest...and get paid more too. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that being published by Slipstream demonstrated notability, just that it was not "self-publishing." Now why do you disregard the notable poetry award, given by an academic institution under the auspices of a Pulitzer Prize-winning poet and one-time Poet Laureate Consultant to the Library of Congress, among many other honors (the LoC position, often informally referred to as the US Poet Laureate) was shared with W.S. Merwin, indicating the stature of the position). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Needs coverage from independent/third-party sources per WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:N. Algébrico (talk) 11:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation so the opinions based on lack of sourcing are obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a single source about a trivial poetry award from a tiny college, when the poetry award itself isn't even notable enough for a Wikipedia article does not mean "opinions on lack of sourcing are obsolete". You should be careful not to intentionally or unintentionally deceive anyone with such comments. DreamGuy (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly unnotable per WP:AUTHOR. Eusebeus (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep . Disruptive nomination by SPA irate over AfD nomination of another article that nominator's username appears to have connection with. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Rogers Roasters[edit]

Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMck89 (talk • contribs)

Keep. It had been a notable chain in the past. Even if it is not now notable, the Sienfeld reference suggests it is still part of popular culture. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completing incomplete nomination. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. Nomination is obviously in bad faith, as the "nominator" claims to have "moved" an AfD nomination from an article he/she is obviously assoicated with to this one, but I don't feel that I should remove it, as I had been editing this article for some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, unpublished or selfpublished work, no references. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CrElyan[edit]

Hoax. Google search returns no relevant hits or reliable sources. Fails WP:V. Farix (Talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Farix (Talk) 13:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFT. Also not manga. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um. It started serialization less than two weeks ago in a "now-defunct shōnen"? Leaving aside whether inside a boy is really meant or that's an adjective with a missing noun, the dates don't add up. It has every hallmark, however, of not being a hoax but rather a self-published work. I'm finding zip, nada, and zilch on searches for it, by a variety of search terms, so even if it is real, it's so non-notable it doesn't belong here. Delete for failing WP:BOOK and WP:V. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, either a hoax or doujinshi (which certainly wouldn't be notable), created by a single purpose account (so far at least). Possibly WP:COI if it is a doujinshi - the talk page has been tagged as if it is a possible COI. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax or Doujin, probably the former. Yea something like "now-defunct shōnen" is extremely suspicious. More funnier is the article mentioning that the series started as a light novel serialization on June 5, 2009 and at the same time its manga adaptation serialization started the very same day. I can't believe that an original work & its adaptation started serialization the same day. --KrebMarkt 16:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click4Carbon[edit]

This article was Prodded as being spammy and having insufficient sources for notability, as well as having strong conflict of interest, being an article known to have been written for pay. I deprodded it, because at least the Guardian source is reliable--the Reteurs sources is Reuters Business Wire, which tends to reproduce what it gets sent. So I think it better to get a community opinion on it here. DGG (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search engine piggybacking on Google, there's no indication that this article meets either the website or organization notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching on google news and Lexis turns up a fair amount of coverage, although I think that the correct title would be Click 4 Carbon, which gets a lot more hits. Coverage includes. The coverage is substantial enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:WEB and the GNG. Coverage includes:
- A piece from Fair Home, I'm not familiar with this publication, but it appears to meet WP:RS as a signed piece by a staff writer.
- An article from Triplepundit, once again not a familiar publication, but one that passes the reliable sources guidelines, and devotes 3 paragraphs in a larger article to Click4Carbon.
- Another story from an environmental news source.
- For those who prefer good old-fashioned print sources, please see the story "Pioneering Midlands Shows the Way" in the [[Birmingham Evening Mail], November 18, 2008, p. 57. It's a short piece but discusses Click4Carbon in some depth.
- Although they do not necessarily count as significant attention, I also find small mentions in a number of mainstream media outlets including the Houston Chronicle and the Leicester Mercury.
While most of the attention to this seems to have come from sources that focus on environmentalism and green energy, that is hardly surprising (after all math is mostly written about in math journals) and I think there's been enough coverage with some in the mainstream media to clearly show notability. Cool3 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More than one reliable source is required. Advert/COI, etc. I was prodder. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Strikeout reading Cool3's above comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the implication of this statement that the sources above should not be considered reliable? Cool3 (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I hadn't read your comment. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to a conflict of interest, this article requires a complete rewrite to comply with guidelines, specifically WP:NPOV. Aditya ^α _ß 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. We do not delete the article in order to rewrite it. Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources haven't convinced me of it's notability. They're partly reproduced PR material at the time the site went live, the Guardian piece is a very simple Q&A on it's blog (and is more about the couple than the site) and if the Triplepundit source means they're notable then so is the Greenbook facebook application in the same article. In other words, I find them to be very weak sources for showing notability. To me they add up to "the concept was interesting and/or topical so their PR releases scored a few hits" - that's not the same as notability though. Ha! (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn with no deletes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grace (plotting tool)[edit]

No assertion of notability. I know that lots of academics (myself included) use this software, but I can't find a good way of proving that it is notable. There are plenty of research papers which mention it in passing (e.g. "we used xmgrace to generate a plot") but I can't find any that give it significant coverage. There are plenty of user-contributed sources and the original user manual, but I don't know any textbooks, reviews in magazines, awards etc... Papa November (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (per withdrawn nomination) Grace is a common word; many sources can be found for xmgrace/xmgr (the name of the binary & original incarnations):
- "XMGRACE101 - Introduction to xmgrace". Learning Measure. Retrieved 2009-06-19.
- Sarnow, Karl (March 2002). "Werter Grafen". Linux Magazin. Archived from the original on 2006-10-03.
- Vaught, Andy (2006-08-01). "Graphing with Gnuplot and Xmgr". Linux Journal. Retrieved 2009-06-19.
- Moorhouse, Michael; Paul Barry (2004). "Plotting Graphs". Bioinformatics, biocomputing and Perl. John Wiley and Sons. pp. 431–439. ISBN 9780470853313.
Keep. I've a rule of thumb: if you've heard of it before you knew there was a Wikipedia article, it probably is notable enough to pass. Google Books returns 21 hits on the more specific former name (xmgrace); Google Scholar more than 300. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the article still needs to assert notability. I've edited the lead to include the Linux Journal article (thanks Karnesky!). As far as I can tell, the google scholar results are all the fairly trivial "we used xmgrace to generate a plot" quotes as described above. A couple of the books give significant coverage, however. Thanks for helping to find sources. I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. Papa November (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Gamma Omega (disambiguation)[edit]

Delete Prod was removed, but no reason was given. There is only one valid entry, that at the primary page Alpha Gamma Omega. Making this page a redirect to the primary wouldn't help and may cause confusion. As for the other entries, I deleted one which didn't meet MOS:DABRL so there is only a see also to a similar name; if they genuinely could be confused, then a hatnote at Alpha Gamma Omega would suffice to disambiguate. Boleyn2 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reason this seems to exist is that someone thought that "Alpha Gamma Omega" would somehow be confused with "Gamma Alpha Omega". I'm sorry, but that's just dumb. Mandsford (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Either way Gamma Alpha Omega should be removed per WP:DISAMBIG and that leaves only two items. I don't have a problem with two-item disambig pages but they are unnecessary because of notes as the nominator suggests. Drawn Some (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford, unnecessary dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no ambiguous articles. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need to disambiguate the two blue links. If the red-linked article is written, hatnotes will suffice. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect; there is nothing notable about the separate seasons and while the search terms seem unlikely, they're not so implausible to be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Independent Professional Baseball 2009[edit]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [non-notable season pages]:

Not notable enough for separate season pages. I originally redirected it to American Association of Independent Professional Baseball but the creator reverted it, so I thought I'd see what the consensus is CTJF83Talk 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to American Association of Independent Professional Baseball per nom --mhking (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seasons are not notable.. No reason for redirect pages to exist. Spanneraol (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Generally, individual seasons of sports leagues are considered notable enough for their own articles. (e.g., 2008 Premier Basketball League season, B.League 2008, Lao League 2008, etc.). There is a higher bar set for individual seasons of individual teams -- the 2008 Atlanta Braves season would merit its own page, the 2008 Rutland City Braves would not -- but we have a high tolerance for sports leagues. The topic selected by the 9-year old author is perfectly valid, and what these articles require is some instruction on how to compose informational tables. Mandsford (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge Seemingly no need to delete, redirect and merge.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Minor league. Merge. Bearian (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ged UK 19:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SpannerAOL. Stifle (talk) 11:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Sources lacking...don't meet WP:N. BRMo (talk) 22:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to parent league article. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to American Association of Independent Professional Baseball. Kingturtle (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete CSD G3 as blatant hoax. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Bourbon-Seville[edit]

HOAX
The article indicates that this supposed cadet branch of the House of Bourbon derives from a title of Prince of Seville granted in 1748, but it does not appear the first person who carries this title. Nevertheless, in Spain, the title of Prince is destined and reserved only to the successor of the king, and the Prince (only one) brings together the princely titles of Asturias, Viana and Gerona, but not of Seville. But in 1748, the king Ferdinand VI of Spain did not have any children, his brother Charles was king of Naples and Sicily, his brother Philip was Duke of Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, founding the cadet branch of Borbon-Parma, and his brother Luis was archbishop of Toledo. Without any type of genealogy, the article indicates that the current head of this supposed house is Alfonso de Bourbon married with Marie Victoria von Habsburg, but no one knowns the kinship with other members of the House of Habsburg (would not be Hapsburg-Lorraine?). On the contrary, the real facts show us that the title of duchy of Seville (not of prince), begins when the king Ferdinand VII of Spain granted it to his nephew Enrique de Borbón y Borbón-Dos Sicilias in 1823, and the current duke of Seville is named Francisco de Paula Enrique of Borbón (b. Madrid 16 Nov 1943).
Curiously this such Alfonso de Bourbon's son, named Charles, has his biography in another page (Salvek) where there indicates that the title of archduke is a Philipine title, more exactly of Salvek, when the title of archduke is only reserved to Austria; also it indicates that he possesses this Philipine land named Salvec, when it seems that the owner is Charles Henry Navarro de Silva, a person who was eliminated of wikipedia [13] in the past. Trasamundo (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article Salvek seems fishy as well, and part of the same walled garden of fantasy. A Google search for "Archduke+of+Salvek" Archduke of Salvek retrieves only Wikipedia and mirrors; you'd expect more of an archduke IMO. The claim is asserted that Salvek is a remaining Spanish fiefdom in the Republic of the Philippines, which strikes me as inherently implausible. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solvec - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 15:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BJ^Talk 04:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Nader[edit]

Vanity article by non notable person who is trying to be considered as "astronaut". Hektor (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vanity article of a non-notable subject with most references coming from the author's own website and writings. Rillian (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Needs better sources, but the guy seems notable if the text is true. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article actually qualifies the WP:1E exception criteria - If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate.. In this case, he is the first astronaut from Ecuador and qualifies per the John Hinckley, Jr. standard.Updated below -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you clarify in which way he is an astronaut ? I don't see any reason why he would qualify as such. As said previously, I think this article is exactly the same story as the now deleted International Space Agency article - self proclamed astronaut who has no other proof of his status than his own words and the articles based on them. This guy is just another Rick Hobson. Hektor (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this on Factiva, and there's coverage like on El Universo, most of it in Spanish. I don't deny that it sounds really made-up, especially the space agency that he founded, but it appears that he is the first person from Ecuador to have done it, even if it wasn't a research trip, but a commercial trip. There's also a trivial mention on Children's BBC of his 'first astronaut from Ecuador' status, and an article in BBC World. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He has flown in zero-g on board an airplane. So did I during an ESA sponsored flight for students. Should I get my entry in wikipedia ? Hektor (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok, I read through a lot of links, he's referred to as astronaut, and part of the Soyuz (Factiva article preview), but on checking the Soyuz crew from TMA-8 to TMA-15, he isn't listed. I don't know what to make of this, it's just too absurd! -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unverified claims to notability. If he were significant, there would be more sources discussing him. لenna vecia 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A Latin American astronaut is a notable person. The fact that he does not fly is not a criteria for no-notability. Non Scientific editors should not be allowed to comment here. Otherwise they woud know that, for example, chicken are birds but do not fly. Would you say that a chicken is not a bird because there are no independant sources saying that they fly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.227.170.13 (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He flies ! On eguadorian jets, he even mesures microgravity and UV index. This is not notable enough? He has created a Space Agency, by himself. Do you know many people who own a space agency? Not notable enough? What elese do you need?

Maybe some sense og humour.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astragramma (talk • contribs) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC) — Astragramma (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 11:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit there's something weird and vaguely half assed about the whole thing, but notable is notable. - Richfife (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Switching to Neutral. The more I poke around, the more my bullshit meter moves to the right. - Richfife (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanity article, please see lengthy discussion Talk:Ronnie_Nader, e.g. detailed criticism by me. Claims to be a scientist (listed as "Ecuadorian Scientist") without providing proper references, etc. --Hilbert137 (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. لenna vecia 15:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. I look at this every week and think, "We really shouldn't be legitimizing this man's fantasy world" but never make a statement because his attempts to create an air of legitimacy about this have been fairly successful. Who knows, one day Ecuador may have astronauts but right now I don't think he qualifies as notable by being a professional astronaut. If he were a professional astronaut the evidence wouldn't be so iffy. I know that's circular reasoning but generally it isn't necessary to argue about whether or not someone is an astronaut. In this case the need for argument is itself a factor in the argument. Drawn Some (talk) 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first Ecuadorian astronaut is certainly notable. 173.96.182.183 (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC) — 173.96.182.183 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you prove that he's done more than dress up, start a website and strut around? In my mind, the current question is "It's bullshit, but does it rise to the level of notable bullshit?" - Richfife (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Nader is set to fly as mission specialist for the first three manned space missions of the Ecuadorian Civilian Space Program." Come on, this is insane. Nick mallory (talk) 15:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are some sources but most are in Spanish. This one seems substantial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's listed on Ecuadorian Civilian Space Agency and unless that cite is proven false, I think the first Ecuadorian astronaut is notable. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ecuadorian Civilian Space Agency has a very important sounding name, but... does it exist outside of Nader? I see no evidence that it's more than a one man organization. Perhaps making Nader redirect there? Or vice versa? - Richfife (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to World Standards Day. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Standards day[edit]

World_Standards_day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

This article is a duplication of the real article at World Standards Day (note capital D) Pemboid (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a crystal[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Serves no purpose. magnius (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Information like this belongs at wikiHow or Wikibooks. TheLeft orium 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the current state, article is a how-to-guide, so it should be deleted. A good way to save it is to shift the subject from the tecnique to the (classroom) experiment, like in Lemon battery. So, delete for now. Tizio 12:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation of a similar article that is encyclopedic rather than instructional. Gigs (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this how-to guide. Cliff smith ^talk 01:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO. There's pretty much nothing else to say about it. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikibooks. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirected to L'Hôtel du libre échange. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Paradiso[edit]

I have created a larger, more extensive article on the original version of the play, L'Hôtel du libre échange. I have merged the Hotel Paradiso article with the new article, and therefore feel there is no longer a need to keep the old one. If the decision is made to keep the old article nonetheless, the article needs SERIOUS revision. Nimloth250 (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, isn't it rather obvious that this should be redirected to L'Hôtel du libre échange instead of deleted?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, but the way I see it, if the content of the old article already exists in the other article, there's not much need for the old one. Nimloth250 (talk) 10:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]
No, you'd simply turn it into a redirect, overwriting the content (but not the history). I'll demonstrate.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on it now, you'll see the content's gone and you go straight to your new article. (It isn't necessary to go through AfD to redirect something.)
If this satisfies you, please say so and we can close this AfD.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. : ) I should spend more time on the "new contributor's help page", I suppose. Nimloth250 (talk) 11:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Nimloth250[reply]

I request that someone else closes this, since I should not (having participated in the discussion).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loris Formuso[edit]

A player not yet made his professional debut Matthew_hk t c 10:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much in the way of Google News hits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jogurney (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 22:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable footballer. --Angelo (talk) 09:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cs-wolves (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Air Gear. Cirt (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Gear Terms[edit]

Non-notable "terms" from a manga/anime. Written in universe. No sources other then a generic link to a fan forum. Totally incomprehensible to someone who is not already a fan and familiar with these terms. Fails WP:PLOT, and WP:WAF. Ridernyc (talk) 09:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fancruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a recreation of List of Air Gear terms which was merged to Air Gear on 9 October 2008. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and cleanup links from other articles so that this won't get recreated again. --Farix (Talk) 14:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & redirect not notable & in no way deserving to have its own article. More related articles doesn't mean better coverage of a subject in the case of Air gear it's ending with excessive plots, excessive redundant informations, more original research and all what's people like to call fancruft. --KrebMarkt 15:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Aside from being non-notable, it's far too in-universe. More or less excessive fancruft. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge This is a request to reverse a split, not to delete. This sort of material is usually better in the main article. DGG (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remerge and delink (if there is anything worth merging) to prevent another recreation. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot tidbits and fictional details arranged into a glossary or sorts. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A9/G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Io, la gente e il mondo (EP)[edit]

No sources are given in the article and there are no Google hits for the title of this purported album outside of Wikipedia. I see no evidence that this is not a prank, or a piece of self promotion. (The album’s artist points to the user page of the editor who created the article). The article on the artist in the Italian Wikipedia has been deleted. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia was deleted as self-promotional on 11 June; see es:Io, la gente e il mondo. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the article on the artist, Lorenzo Cappiello, was deleted last December as self-promotional. Its counterpart on the Italian Wikipedia, (it:Lorenzo Cappiello), has been deleted five times (to date), and that on the Spanish Wikipedia (es:Lorenzo Cappiello) twice. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is presumably a recreation of Io, la gente e il mondo, which was deleted on 30 May. Ian Spackman (talk) 09:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:Notability. I couldn't find any secondary reliable sources on Google, Google News, Google Scholar, or Newsbank to verify notability. The album hasn't charted on any national music chart and is therefore not notable. TheLeft orium 12:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax; see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lorenzo Cappiello. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Designer baby[edit]

This topic is already covered by Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and Human genetic engineering, which are much more developed. Also, this article could be seen as a POV fork. Bob A (talk) 06:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Redirect to Preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The term is simply a WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The term gets 428,000 Google hits. According to Designer Babies: Ethical Considerations (ActionBioscience): “In 2004 the term “designer baby” made the transition from sci-fi movies and weblogs into the Oxford English Dictionary, where it is defined as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.” This coinage was prompted by recent advances in genetics that may make such babies possible.” Therefore, it is not a neologism. The term is notable in its own right because it refers to many controversial issues that are not discussed in the other articles so it deserves it's own article where these issues can be explored. However, I agree the current version of the article needs to be expanded and improved. That being said, if we vote to merge, I would favor reprogenetics (using the test tube baby and in vitro fertilisation as the example of how the merge should be done). --Loremaster (talk) 11:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Reprogenetics. At present the lead of Designer baby says it's a colloquial term "... usually used pejoratively to signal opposition to such use of reprogenetics", which is an older article covering very much the same subject but with somewhat more balance. I'm not entirely decided which should be merged into which, but the term 'reprogenetics' seems less colloquial and at least a bit more neutral. Qwfp (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a term that comes up often and needs its own article. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is neither logical nor helpful to have information on the same topic at two different locations. That is why we have redirects. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am certainly not a biologist, but it seems that "designer baby" is a more specific topic than "human genetic engineering". One "holds the promise of curing genetic diseases", the other the promise of walking into a classroom full of clones of Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirects are not created by deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with reprogenetics, as that seems to be the scientific term. We should be sure not to lose too much in the merge, since it seems to contain some good sourced information, though it needs a major POV check. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, to reprogenetics or to the more general article on human genetic engineering, since the germline section in that article is a little thin. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term by itself as a specific popular meaning and context, somewhat different and more specific than "human genetic ~~information~~engineeering": which can mean a great many things There's quite a literature using this term specifically DGG (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled, nobody has suggested a merge with human genetic information, which isn't an article anyway. Did you mean to discuss a merge with that title? Tim Vickers (talk) 15:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make many any sense since that would be a move rather than a merge. Furthermore, "human genetic information" is too vague a subject while "human trait selection" would be much more specific and relevant but we decided against it on the Talk:Designer baby page. --Loremaster (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant human genetic engineering, and I agree with you that it is much better not to do that. DGG (talk)

Actually, there was no consensus. Bob A (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with reprogenetics, as Designer baby is simply a colloquial way of saying reprogenetics. By merging reprogenetics with designer baby, it'd be a much more neutral topic rather than an having a biased article with regards to 'designer babies'. It's as if the term 'designer baby' is a pejorative. Bloodmerchant (talk) 11:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Reprogenetics" is jargon, "designer baby" is the common English term. At present the content is different. Whether they should be combined is unclear, but could bediscussed on the talk pages. DGG (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All of the suggested merge targets are to more general information. This concept is related to those subjects, but not equivilent to any of them. While it could technically be covered in one of those article, the idea of getting a "perfect baby" through genetic engineering is notable in its own right and deserves its own article. Any POV issues can be solved through editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "designer baby" means "perfect baby". Bob A (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Huge notability and so there is no case for deletion. The rest is a matter of ordinary content editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Flowerparty^☀ 00:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common pub names in Australia[edit]

it is difficult to reference such a topic in an encyclopaedia, how does one define "common"...it leaves it open to original research to what qualifies. LibStar (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first entry, Commercial Hotel, links to disambiguation page of ten "Commercial Hotels", all of which are in the United States, none in Australia, furthermore all but one are red links. The next blue link is to another disambiguation page, with three entries, one in Australia and two in the U.S. So the list is not even what it purports to be. Clearly this is unreferenced original research on a non-notable topic. Start from the basics: is the subject of the article notable? Is the information verifiable? Or is it, as the nominator suggests, original research? (No, no, yes.) Drawn Some (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is hard to justify keeping this list in its current state, but the topic of naming conventions for Australian pubs is clearly notable and encyclopedic. If sources can be found a very decent article could be written. Heaven knows it could be well illustrated! -- Mattinbgn\^talk 08:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most common words in English seems to get by OK without a formal definition of "common". -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article needs reliable sources to support the notability of the topic as well as to verify the content. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a justification for this article's existence. (But I encourage you to nominate the other article for deletion if it is not notable and verifiable.) Drawn Some (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall asking for this article to be kept ... Mattinbgn\^talk 12:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep We do not require exact definitions for common words like common. Please use some common sense. As for notability, please see the abundant sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the reference you give doesn't actually objectively determine which are the most common names. this is unlike something like "common baby names" which can be obtained reliably from a birth registry. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know of many pubs in Australia with websites, but we don't need a list as subjective and non-encyclopaedic as this. Perhaps more suitable to an article like Pubs in Australian culture if someone can be bothered to write it. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slender man[edit]

This cannot meet the criteria for inclusion. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 05:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Web search brings up a few links, but nothing that could ever establish the notability needed for the article to stay. Fre h ley 05:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could be persuaded to change my vote if someone massively re-writes this and sources it. As it stands, it's incoherent. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as cannot identify what the subject is talking about. Would almost say it qualifies for speedy under A1, but it's probably too long for that. Quantpole (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Besides the above, the tone screams copyvio.Rhinoracer (talk) 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It smacks of copyvio, partly due to the quotation marks surrounding the text, as well as its sounding like the middle of some preexisting text. Google search for part of it showed matches at 4chan [14], [15] but the text no longer appears to be at 4chan, although it might be in some sort of zipped archive. Typos in the Wiki article impair easy search for earlier appearances on the web. Fails WP:verifiability and notability. Edison (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A far more coherent article, which clearly identifies the intended subject here, was speedily deleted at Slender Man. I would undelete it (and place it under the umbrella of this discussion) for Niteshift36, Quantpole, and anyone else who has been unable to fathom what the subject is here, were it not for the fact that my own searches for sources have led me to the conclusion that these two articles are an elaborate hoax. I'm finding it difficult to bring myself to undelete a hoax that I think should be deleted. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept Slender Man exists, and what's the harm of keeping it? I wrote a simple summary on the subject, although I'm a beginner at writing. --Fat64 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that, of course, it doesn't exist at all. The fact that your best source so far is some silliness in a discussion forum should be setting off alarm bells, here. Uncle G (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. Thryduulf (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neofeudalism controversy in United States politics[edit]

I see no evidence of any substantial "controversy" on this topic. There are only two sources cited here, one from Ludwig von Mises Institute and the other from FrontPage Magazine. I will leave it up to the rest of you to decide whether these are "reliable" sources, but regardless, this article smacks of original research and opinion which has no place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the article is duplicative of much of what is already said in the neofeudalism article. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is just a POV fork. The only content that differs from the main article is the "Applications" section, which has no sources - pure OR. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Explodicle that this is a POV fork. It is telling that the section of Neofeudalism that refers to this article as the main article on the subtopic is actually larger than the article it refers to. Drawn Some (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Wikipedias. Flowerparty^☀ 00:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amharic Wikipedia[edit]

Non-notable Wiki language site, article has only fewer than 1,000 articles rather than the other minor language Wiki sites. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Wikipedias as has been done for certain other Wikipedias in various languages. No independent sources have been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, like all the other small Wikipedia versions without evidence of notability. Fram (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This article about a wikimedia project has repeatedly been the target of deletionists for whom it is challenging to assume good faith that they ar not purposefully trying to start bad inter-project feelings. See this conversation in reaction to last month's attempt: [User_talk:Fram#Your_redirection_of_articles_on_Wikimedia_projects]: "...The wikimedia foundation established wikipedias in the official languages and major languages of every nation around the globe and has always sought to foster good relations and promote their growth. While some of these may not have grown as fast as English wikipedia, we also seek to counter systemic bias in anticipation of technilogical advances in the third world..." The response was an appeal to WP:BOLD, and implied that as far as the deletionists are concerned, the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles. I know of numerous qualified editors from the third world who have lately gone on to other projects, precisely because they view English wikipedia as having lately acquired a reputation as a backwards cesspool of racist propaganda. This attempt, if continued, will also surely be discussed at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/afrophonewikis/ as expressly contrary to all our goals. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 11:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC) In addition, this wikipedia project has well over 3,000 articles, in contradiction of the apparent assertion above that there are fewer than 1000. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop lying? I'm not a deletionist and don't speak for them, so there is no "as far as the deletionists are concerned" implied. My full response was "My opinion is not more glorious than that of other people, e.g. those deciding "on everyone eles's behalf" that topic X or Y should have a separate article. We have guidelines and policies, e.g. WP:N and WP:WEB, indicating when topics should have separate articles and when not. We also have Wikipedia:Be bold as one of our guiding principles. We don't create or keep articles in anticipation, we have articles after something has become notable." Could you please provide a diff where I state or even imply that "the third world is NOT technologically advanced, and until it is, we have no room for these articles." This was not my argument at all, and I would prefer if you wouldn't make such incorrect statements on my behalf. What other editors do, what other websites discuss, and so on, has no relation to this article and this AfD. To see "racist propaganda" in this AfD or in the redirection of this article is simply ridiculous. Fram (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to have escaped your attention is that the Amharic Wikipedia is actually an extremely notable subject, to anyone who is interested in the Amharic language, as well as to Wikimedia. This clearly does not include you; one may assume that you have little or no interest in that language, and hence you rather snobbishly assume that since the project isn't "notable" to YOU, hence it should not be "notable" for ANYONE else, either. What you need to do, is try looking past your own nose a little bit and realize that the globe does not revolve around you, and your personal opinions. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 10:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Nand WP:NPA. Fram (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's comment in the last AfD.. "I think that the other language WPedias are notable, and that enWP is the place for an informative English-language discussion of each of them. the prejudice I see is against articles on WP related subjects--this is bend in the wrong direction to appear objective. Objectivity is in what we say about them. If we've thought differently in the past, here's the chance to get it right." Jenuk1985 | Talk 16:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, that;s what i said and that;s what I think. Bending over backwards to avoid over-covering our own affairs can lead to some pretty strange decisions. This is probably the most important amharic internet project, DGG (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence for that? Fram (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact that it's the #1 Google hit for the Amharic word for "the" (የ)? babbage (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number one hit for De (Dutch for the) is the homepage of De Lijn, the Flemish bus transport company...[16] I don't think this is evidence that De Lijn is the most important Dutch internet project though. If you trust Google.com more than google.be, searching in Dutch gives Douwe Egberts as the first result.[17] You can't really use words like "the" "it", ... on a search engine and then use the results as evidence of anything, and certainly not to claim to anything is therefor the most important internet poroject in a language. Such claims should be made clearly by independent sources, not guessed from other results. Fram (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why you choose to keep the article? It considers that still fails WP:N. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it's notable enough to UNICEF and the African Union according to the newsletter of a South African technology research organisation. --Baba Tabita (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This whole discussion is a rehash of the topic of whether to keep certain Wikipedias. The Amharic Wikipedia has survived those discussions and gone on to slowly but consistently grow; happily, it's not going anywhere. The current page could be vastly improved, but for English speakers it's a very useful introduction to Amharic Wikipedia. I think it would be great, in fact, if the Amharic Wikipedia had a link on its front page to this article (and others in other languages). It's hard to understand how Wikipedia can consider itself not to be notable, and the Amharic Wikipedia is just a much a worthy project of the foundation as any other. Please, keep it, allow those who are interested to help improve it. babbage (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with whether Wikipedias for smaller languages may exist or not. Deleting or redirecting an article on Wikipedia does not imply that someone wants to delete the subject of the article. If Wikipedia thinks it would be useful to have pages introducing the different Wikipedia versions in English, then these pages should be hosted on either the meta website, or in the Wikipedia namespace. Using the encyclopedia namespace to host a version of "about us" pages is a clear misuse and navel-gazing of the worst kind. Fram (talk) 07:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts, Fram. Are you planning to propose the deletion of all the other articles in Category:Wikipedias by language? babbage (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, obviously not, only those that fail WP:WEB. E.g. the German Wikipedia version is notable on its own, and so it can have a page like every other notable website. Fram (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then the issue as you present it is not whether this type of article is permissible in principle—although you previously referred to such articles as "navel-gazing of the worst kind"—it's whether or not the Wikipedia in question is notable. This is precisely the issue that deletion/incubation discussions revolve around. If you're willing to keep the German Wikipedia, you should be willing to keep Amharic Wikipedia. babbage (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to keep the Amharic Wikipedia, if you (plural) can provide evidence of its notability. All the sources provided so far are either mentioning it in passing only, or are not independent. And I did not refer to such articles as "navel-gazing of the worst kind", I referred to the idea of using such articles as "a version of "about us" pages" as such. If the intent is to have an "about us" page, it should not be in the main namespace. Fram (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirect unless independent sources confirm notability of the 'pedia. It is also 95% unreferenced/original research. Also the claim that it has 3,000 articles and growing is kinda misleading: it has only 895 articles over 200 characters. I myself alone wrote more text in en:w than the whole am:w. (P.S. it is not bragging, it is just a hint that this wikipedia is basically a hobby of 9 persons) - Altenmann >t 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Sheriff John Brown always hated me - for what, I'll never know. Every time I plant a seed, he say "Kill it before it grow!". I have discovered that these Bob Marley lyrics accurately describe a very real attitude out there. It actually allows people to seriously take the stance "I don't see how there is anything notable about African languages surviving, hence nobody at all would probably be interested in articles about their wikipedia projects, and if by chance they are interested, their views shouldn't even count in the matter" - and then still be able to baldfacedly deny that they are bigoted snobs or that the underlying motives for this BS are purely political. B'er Rabbit (^{Briar Patch}) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Based on the existing content of the page, there are no reliable sources which have discussed the subject for it to be demonstrably notable as per WP:WEB, as there are no external sources listed. I would have no objections whatsoever to keeping the page were there clear evidence of notability, but there is no such evidence demonstrated on the page. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Fails WP:WEB. Click23 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious organizations[edit]

Small, very incomplete article. List of religions seems to have this information already and so much more...If not delete them merge with List of religions ...but what do you think? ~B F^izz _(talk) 04:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although this article managed to survive for five years, it is not worth maintaining. The article is just an alphabetical list of a very small number of organizations, some of which are religious denominations but others of which are organizations within particular religions. No descriptions are provided; this is just a bare list. I can't envision the existing article serving as the basis for a better article; if someone wanted to write a better article they would be better off starting from scratch than using this list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90's reasoning that if someone wanted to create a useful list like this one they would be better off starting from scratch. It is the poster child for a list of indiscriminate information which is what Wikipedia is not supposed to be. I did chuckle at some of the strange bedfellows and especially odd neighbors because of the alphabetical order. Any list of this sort would need to be arranged by some other method to be useful. Drawn Some (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting one. Personally, I think it's too big a topic to tackle in one article. It needs to cascade from the generic to the specific.
A decent structure would have a parent list as a sortable Wikitable, with entries like "Protestant Christian", "Catholic Christian", "Orthodox Christian", etc., and a timeline. Then there would be child lists, e.g. List of Catholic Christian denominations, which could be further subdivided into an intelligible tree structure. Again, a timeline would be essential background.
This isn't a useful starting point for such a structure, so delete.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator pretty much hit it. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with List of religions. Same bases and no sense duplicating an article. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously an incomplete list, however it is quite different than list of religions, this is (or should be) a list of organizations affiliated with religious (e.g. Knights of Columbus is not a religion). dml (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Religions" and "Religious organizations" have only a partial overlap. This needs a more precise definition, though the intention is fairly clear: other groups than actual formal organized conventional religions but with religious affiliations and aspirations. Obviously could be much expanded. We ay have to break it down eventually, but that's expand it first and see what we need to do.DGG (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems utterly redundant with Category:Religion organizations which serves the exact same purpose. -Halo (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists are not superseded by categories - see WP:CLS. Imperfect articles are improved not deleted - see editing policy. Improvement seems easy as nobody expects ... Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, but lead should explicitly differentiate this list from List of religions and lists should minimize overlap.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per AuthorityTam. Click23 (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Ged UK 19:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutions per Minute (Jason Trachtenburg album)[edit]

Non-notable album. The artist doesn't even have his own article, and neither does the record label. Furthermore, the album isn't significantly covered by reliable sources. It fails WP:NALBUMS. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GB3DR[edit]

Originally prodded and contested without improvement, this article provides no evidence of notability. It is simply an amateur radio repeater like any of the other hundreds or thousands worldwide. This is better covered (and is covered) on dedicated amateur radio websites. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question:, I have not looked at the article but can someone explain to me how a licensed amateur repeater is different in notability from a licensed FM broadcast station of only local interest? There are plenty of means to cover local radio stations too, besides using wiki as a catalog or directory or ad. If wiki wants to cover radio stations, how about just a single web pages that directs a query to an FCC database and sends results to google, automating an otherwise 2-step process for a user looking for information on radio stations without background clutter from goog?

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur radio repeaters is only used by licensed amateur radio users, and is also built/deployed by private users. If you don't know, a radio repeater simply rebroadcasts what comes into it...in this case, voice traffic (basically a way to increase the range of a user's broadcast). There isn't really a lot to compare between a repeater and an FM broadcast station...the repeater is just a small device attached to an antenna. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 11:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if a commercial broadcast station only retransmits nationally syndicated programs and ads and caters to a specific demographic, then it is not notable? Certainly the repeater is a bit much, maybe even a joke or hoax I haven't bothered to give it any thought, but licensed radio amateurs still provide disaster assistance and various other community services. Essentially all commercial stations target some specific audience and often that target makes it notable- confining your programs to a specific, specialized if you will group, can add notability not detract from it. So most commercial stations advertise, presumably getting their names into more secondary sources but the wiki guidelines normally don't consider that. What about cell towers, those can be quite works of art themselves? I'm not arguing for this, just trying to understand why radio stations are presumed notable by virtue of their license. I'm not even all that against it, directories can be important if no alt's exist.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as notability is not demonstrated nor proven with references. Does not meet the conditions of WP:BROADCAST and is, indeed, more like a broadcast translator which consensus and precedent say are not independently notable. The larger questions would best be discussed at WT:WPRS, in my opinion, where they will draw more specific comment. - Dravecky (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see how this transmitter is any different than a relay which has well established consensus as being non-notable.--RadioFan (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is pointless, if an amateur wants information on a local repeater, information can be found (and would be found) on specialised sites, not Wikipedia. Also as the above paragraphs mention, this article is not notable. Unless this repeater has been covered in the news, or is of some real importance to the general public this article seems to be one that someone wants on Wikipedia, not one that people need and would look up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mih0891 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment CQ CQ CQ , Local commercial broadcast stations have plenty of alt information sources and don't need to be listed in an encyclopedia. Another local variant of 2 people telling jokes while people drive to work is notable and important why exactly?

I guess if you want the ARRL to be the list maintainer in this case, why not let the NAB maintain lists of AM/FM stations? Again, certainly the repeater is a bit much, but what about ham shacks? In this case, your neighbor with the rotating 11 meter 1/2 wave on a 50 ft tower in his backyard and 1kilowatt not-so-linear-amp on his CB rig would be more notable, especially if he makes national news for prompting US government to make federal zoning laws LOL, than the guy with a long-wire antenna and 5 watt 80 meter QRP rig who talks to foreigners with morse code in the middle of the night.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Huh .. (?). Does that mean delete? Power.corrupts (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment : I guess I would just say explicitly that I don't see a point to this article as it does not assert notability but I am trying to relate this to other wiki policies. It is even possible someone saw my prior comments comparing the amateur radio operator to commercial broadcast stations and put this up as a talking point, I don't see your typical hoaxers using this for a topic and I don't think many amateurs would see this as notable or worth documenting in wiki.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kellie Skater[edit]

Clearly not notable. Has done nothing in SHIMMER and the rest is utterly non notable. Badly fails WP:N. Fifth of five nominations that may violate WP:COI !! Justa Punk !! 02:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More Shimmer WP:COI violation work. What has this girl done there? Fails WP:N very badly. Mal Case (talk) 06:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm starting to think all five of these are vanity articles to promote SHIMMER. Is that allowed? Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think Mad Dog might have a point. TaintedZebra (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All five of these noms are not just WP:COI candidates, they violate WP:VAIN as well. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenille Tayla[edit]

Clearly not notable. Has done nothing in SHIMMER and the rest is utterly non notable. Badly fails WP:N. Fourth of five nominations that may violate WP:COI !! Justa Punk !! 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WAY too early for this. Done nothing in Shimmer, and the Australian stuff is not notable because the feds aren't. Mal Case (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too early to tell. Can be recreated later. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 03:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suspect under WP:VAIN. TaintedZebra (talk) 10:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All five of these noms are not just WP:COI candidates, they violate WP:VAIN as well. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie McKay[edit]

Clearly not notable. Has done nothing in SHIMMER and the rest is utterly non notable. Badly fails WP:N. Third of five nominations that may violate WP:COI !! Justa Punk !! 02:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly IS notable. Grow up and get a life. Fool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JMck89 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:COI. Not notable. Above "Keep" vote is suspect as well - see the user name - JMck89. Mal Case (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too early to tell. Can be recreated later. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one 3rd party source on her and that's Online World of Wrestling, which is not enough to prove Notability. The remaining sources confirms that she exists and that she wrestles, which is not enough to warrant a wikipedia page, you need proper Verifiability as well. MPJ-DK (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MPJ-DK's comment. TaintedZebra (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All five of these noms are not just WP:COI candidates, they violate WP:VAIN as well. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Ladies (professional wrestling)[edit]

Clearly not notable. Has done nothing in SHIMMER and the rest is utterly non notable. Badly fails WP:N. Second of five nominations that may violate WP:COI !! Justa Punk !! 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though teaming in a few different promotions, I don't see notability.--WillC 05:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individually not notable, so as a team they couldn't be either. Mal Case (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See what I said for the individual people. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. TaintedZebra (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All five of these noms are not just WP:COI candidates, they violate WP:VAIN as well. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Eagles[edit]

Contested prod by User:SHIMMER which by itself smacks of a WP:COI violation. Not notable. Single or two appearances at established feds only and primarily involved in a non notable promotion !! Justa Punk !! 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 04:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable enough to me for an individual article.--WillC 05:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Majority of work is from promotions that aren't notable so why is she? WP:COI note valid per nom. Shimmer should stop promoing on Wikipedia. Mal Case (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article if the prod removal says anything. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 03:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one 3rd party source on her and that's Online World of Wrestling, which is not enough to prove Notability. The remaining sources confirms that she exists and that she wrestles, which is not enough to warrant a wikipedia page, you need proper Verifiability as well.MPJ-DK (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Orderinchaos 20:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MPJ-DK's comment TaintedZebra (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All five of these noms are not just WP:COI candidates, they violate WP:VAIN as well. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:CIVIL, guys. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Vansak[edit]

non-notable musician Izzy007 Talk 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slow-mo delete Let this sit for another two years to rot. It doesn't even try to assert notability and half of it was copyvio, but clearly we're in no big freaking hurry, so God forbid we should speedy anything, ever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, not a case for speedy though. I have removed the copyvios from the text, as a result, it actually has a reference! I have a feeling someone could establish notability, its just not me. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He got awards from some non-notable music rag, ONE appearance on Letterman, got into rotation on a red link radio station that isn't notable, and the only "source" is a press release. And you call that notability??!? Wow. And the whole time I was under the impression that notability meant significant coverage in third party sources, but apparently a puffed-up PR is all we need. Why not promote it to freaking FA at this rate. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well if you'd stop nagging me in here and on IRC then I may be able to dig up some sources to shut you up! Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, no need to get in an arguement over it. Izzy007 Talk 02:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find a single source anywhere. Can you find any and prove that he's notable? 'Cause I found a big ol bupkis on Google News, and nothing but lyrics and mp3 sites on vanilla Google. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've given up, I was going to improve the article, but a users immaturity is completely put me off, speedy it if you wish, I don't care anymore. Jenuk1985 | Talk 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer, dude, you've kinda been a jerk here. There was no need to totally go off on a user because of his opinion. I never said that I could prove that he was notable, it was just a comment to get you to chill out. Izzy007 Talk 02:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why decline the speedy again? Oh yeah, because we'd rather take the slowest route possible. Yes, I'm being a jerk, because someone doesn't believe in speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm through. Izzy007 Talk 03:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously though. What was so wrong about this being tagged for speedy deletion?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer, start acting WP:CIVIL or I will block you. Consider this your first and last warning. I don't know what's got you so riled, but you're taking it out on other editors and that's not acceptable. — Gwalla | Talk 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question and comment Is vynil supposed to be spelled that way because it's a record? Also that reference is a press release, not independent, can't be used to establish notability per our standards. We need to maintain our standards, they seem to be slipping constantly. The encyclopedia is only as good as its sources. Drawn Some (talk) 03:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deepak Pandey[edit]

Case of WP:BLP1E, police officer suspended for being involved in a sex racket and simultaneously going through a messy divorce. News coverage is available, but only for this incident. Delete as it is a single incident and not biographical notability. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest delete. Per WP:BLP1E. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E and clearly not notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Besides, the bio contains only negative information. Salih (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Flight 61[edit]

Non-notable event; article was previously prodded as such, but the prod was removed. In the event that such an article should be written, eventually, I think it would be better under the name of the pilot, anyhow. User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Johnbibby (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this event will likely be remembered and it's certainly met the requirement of significant coverage. Commercial pilots rarely die in flight and this is the first incident with a commercial pilot over age 60 since congress raised the mandatory retirement age in 2007.--RadioFan (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an example of safeguards for preventing accidents after a pilot dies working perfectly. Also, I'm not sure at this point if writing an article about the pilot will be a good idea. It might be better to be a part of this article instead. --Revth (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident is probably important enough. It's certainly covered by reliable sources. An article on the poor pilot would not be a good idea since he is only known for this incident, sadly. Better to redirect his name to this article. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident explains about a recent aviation accident. It has information that is periodically updated with more information the authorities is providing time to time. One example is the article Air France Flight 447 which was beign updated from time to time. Also, this explains about an incident that may have been fatal if no action was taken. Jerrysmp (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crossing the street on a walk signal meets the requirement of "an incident that may have been fatal if no action was taken" (i.e., that drivers stop), so every time someone crosses the street, let's make an article on their near-death experience! Suffice to say, I seriously doubt that the passengers were in danger - none of the news stories so far has indicated such so show me the sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not trying to point out to "make an article on their near death experience" on any kind of attention-needed event. (especially about a pedestrian crossing a street. I find that really weird), Nor did I completely say that the passengers were in danger of any kind. I just did not point out what I was saying. I meant to simply say that I find this article notable, that's all! Jerrysmp (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked at the Notability Guidelines and don't see how this article violates them. (Please explain to me if I've got that wrong.) Keep current title as that's how people are going to think of the incident. Nick Levine (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge After reading other people's comments, I'd be satisfied if Continental Flight 61 redirected to a short paragraph elsewhere. Nick Levine (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP is not a collection of news reports. Yes, this has had a lot of coverage, but is a minor incident in the context of notable flights; it wasn't an accident, but simply a death on board (albeit quite a significant one). Also, it's very much not the first time it's happened. It merits an entry on Continental Airlines's article (which I see it already has), but this article doesn't have enough substance to stand on its own. one brave monkey 08:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not important...but can be merged at Continental Airlines#Incidents and accidents -- TouLouse (talk) 10:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable news today, not the first aircrew (or passenger) to die on an aircraft unrelated to the actual flight in the hundred year history of aviation. MilborneOne (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Some of the above positions relate to advocacy and the public interest. I have a hard time avoiding this myself and often just mention my bias to have it recognized as a bias, not an argument. If you start arguing public good, maybe you will get your controversial pages legally banned etc. Moralizing and concerns about effect on social and legal results should be avoided but I know it is tough. I guess I would lean towards Merge with related topics if this incident is used in reliable sources as an argument related to these other articles ) like aviation regulations ). I guess I would argue against bio a dying in flight probably does not make entire life notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: This flight may become noteworthy because two years ago the FAA raised the mandatory retirement age for pilots from 60 to 65. This flight may cause the FAA to rethink this change (because the pilot was 61). If they do indeed rethink that, then this flight would be newsworthy. Otherwise, it would not. So if in the next 4-6 months the FAA takes no action, bring up this debate again. Dems on the move (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more reasons why I'd like to defer this for a few more months:

This may raise a controversy as to whether the passangers should have been informed of what happened
This may flight may change the physical exams pilots have to undergo, as this pilot was in supposedly in good health (i.e. he passed his physicals in the last 6 months)

Dems on the move (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

defer for two weeks I think it's too soon to say whether this will be notable in the long term or not, and I can foresee it going either way. After a period of time, e.g. two weeks, to let the immediate news reports settle down we will start to see whether coverage has continued or not. If I were the supreme god of Wikipedia, I'd put this discussion on ice right now and restart it with a procedural renomination two weeks from now. Fortunately, for many reasons, not least of which is my sanity, I am not any sort of god or other supreme being. Thryduulf (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Given that this is already well out of the news with no indication of anything lasting coming from it I think it is safe to say that it is not a notable event. Thryduulf (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A small little death. Everyone lives, happy day. In a few days everyone will have forgotten about it. Cargoking talk 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial news coverage and aviation incidents are often remembered well after the fact. 173.96.182.183 (talk) 17:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a minor news item. Thousands of people die of heart attacks every day. This is why planes have two pilots. The aircraft wasn't diverted, the passengers were unaware. Flight was not even delayed because of it. I am sorry for his family but it doesn't need an article on Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We seem to get an article on every minor aviation incident. Many of these need to be deleted. Many others need to be summarised and merged elsewhere. I get fed up with these minor incidents appearing in AFD lists. WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People die on the job all the time. A pilot dying during a flight is not notable. It is a WP:BLP1E event which fails WP:NOTNEWS. Cooks die in restaurants during the dinner shift. Ditch diggers die in mid dig. Truck drivers die between Iowa City and Chicago. Authors die while typing chapter 3. Professors die while lecturing on Aristotle. Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. There is no inherent notability of news stories which involve aviation. Edison (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a month then see if it's notable or not... personally, I don't think so, since the flight was carrying two cockpit crews, so had four pilots. 70.29.212.226 (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor incident, one-off news item with no further significance. A mention at the Continental Airlines page is sufficient (but not necessary). Julius Sahara (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTNEWS. This event is a novelty, not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, somebody died and it's all over the news. It must go down as the least deadly day in human history if this was big. Everybody lands safely. Nope, I can't think why this would be notable. At least they avoided the river this time. --can dle •wicke 22:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to the article's sources this is not a very ununual event - nn, just news. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service, and this is old news. Ex nihil (talk) 05:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Flights that suffer an incident that could have put the plane at significant risk of danger but either totally or mostly avert the danger are notable. See US Airways Flight 1549 and Aloha Airlines Flight 243. If this article goes down, Aloha Airlines Flight 243 should be deleted under the same reasoning because only one person died in that incident. However, a flight where a passenger dies is usually not notable because it will not affect the safety of the flight unless the cause of death was contagious. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not sure Flight 1549 (landing on water) and Flight 243 (big hole in aircraft) have anything to do with this flight or the reasons for deletion or otherwise. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Agreed. This plane wasn't in any substantial danger for any length of time. The backup crew was available and finished the flight quite normally. Both of the incidents mentioned were the sort of thing that could, given the circumstances, have ended badly. This wasn't likely to. Now...had none of the pilots been available, and had someone else landed the plane, then maybe we'd be talking notability. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is by no means comparable as an incident/accident to the others listed as "airlines incidents and accidents". The aircraft has been nowhere near danger. A summary of the event could be merged into "Continental Airlines".Jerbees (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete was a news story but no evidence the flight is encyclopedically notable. If the sitution regarding the pilot further changes pilot regs, they can be covered and this article discussed there. StarM 01:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not WP:NEWS. Why defer the decision as suggest above since this event is already out of the news in most areas. If anyone wants to keep this since it presented a risk, then provide the facts that there was a risk. Is there a reason why the co-pilot could not have landed the plane by himself? If the passengers were not aware of the problem, what risk was present? Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was created under a string of recentism when this was on the news. Now that this story has had it's 15 minutes, no one is reporting on this anymore. This is different from AF447 when it was on the news for weeks, so don't try equating these two articles. This is WP:NOT#NEWS pure and simple. Tavix | Talk 19:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Misconduct. No prejudice against stubifying. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial misconduct[edit]

This page purports to be a disambiguation page but none of the terms are ambiguous or even similar. See WP:DISAMBIG. Drawn Some (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so someone is going to type in financial misconduct whilst looking for information on Nigerian scam? why wouldn't someone just type nigerian scam first? LibStar (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no useful purpose. Potential magnet for libel/BLP violations. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, redirect to Fraud or Embezzlement. It could be kept, though, with the Nigerian scam (and maybe Ponzi scheme) removed. The very fact that someone felt compelled to create it suggests that it's a potential search term, and having a redirect doesn't hurt (WP:Don't worry about performance). The whole point of dab or redirect pages is so that when people type in a search term like this they can find the article that's most related to what they're looking for, and that's what this can do; the search results without having this page here are useless, so this page is an improvement. The fact that the terms linked in the dab page are not all similar doesn't mean it should be deleted; "financial misconduct" is a pretty ridiculously broad term, so it makes sense that a lot of unrelated things would fit under it, and who knows which of them the person is searching for. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not the purpose of a disambiguation page. The purpose is stated at the bottom of the disambiguation page itself: It is to differentiate between articles associated with the same title. The article do not have similar titles. Drawn Some (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crux is "associated with". The articles may not all have the same title, but they might be associated with it, in that someone searching for X might type in Y (or, vice versa, that someone who types in Y might be looking for X). Arguing over whether or not their titles happen to look similar is, I think, splitting hairs, and if you feel that is what {{disambiguation}} means then maybe we should start a discussion at the template's talk page about how the template could be reworded. Ultimately, disambiguation pages are navigational tools and should help users navigate, and that's how I've chosen to define "associated with". rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if you review WP:DISAMBIG you will see what the guideline says. I didn't invent disambiguation pages nor did I contribute to the guideline and it seems straightforward enough that I don't believe your interpretation would be within its spirit much less actual wording. If this sort of disambiguation page were to be considered acceptable then we can take the whole dictionary and make a disambiguation page for each entry using information from a thesaurus and then go from there by playing word association and anything that pops into mind regarding a particular word or phrase should be included in a disambiguation page under that title. Drawn Some (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a superfluous, indiscriminate list. JIP | Talk 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect per Rjanag. I'm quite surprised at Drawn Some, who (I would have thought) is by now experienced enough to know that plausible search terms shouldn't be redlinks. If someone might search for it, then things to consider are redirects, disambiguation pages, soft redirects to Wiktionary, etc.
The basic idea is that a plausible search term should lead to something that'll help the end-user find the information they want.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite surprised at you, S Marshall, not being familiar with WP:DISAMBIG or else deliberately choosing to ignore guidelines in a deletion discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon, Drawn Some, I suspect you're being deliberately disingenuous here. It's a very peculiar reading of WP:DISAMBIG that doesn't let us disambiguate "financial misconduct" into "fraud" or "embezzlement" and, if that reading is somehow correct then, I submit, WP:COMMON should prevail here.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of the first two sentences of the guideline do you not understand? I will assume good faith that you are being serious but I'm not going to continue this silly back-and-forth. Drawn Some (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand those first two sentences very clearly, and with all due respect, I'm wondering if you do.

"Financial misconduct" is ambiguous. It could mean several things. Someone might well search for it. Therefore it needs disambiguating, QED.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different articles which could, in principle, have the same title." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drawn Some (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We don't delete topics because they're "superfluous", "pointless", or a magnet for BLP vios. We delete articles that cover topics which aren't notable. Financial misconduct definitely meets our notability guidelines. If it's poorly written (and I agree that it is), rewrite it. To be practical, we could just temporarily redirect to Fraud until someone has the time to cover it properly. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an article, it's a disambiguation page. A disambiguation page "lists articles associated with the same title", like it says at the bottom of Financial misconduct. The articles listed have very dissimilar titles. See the guideline WP:DISAMBIG. Drawn Some (talk) 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then make it an article. This is a notable topic. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since an important aspect of this debate is whether it's reasonable to disambiguate "Financial misconduct" into "Embezzlement", "Fraud" etc., I've dropped a note here for a view from editors interested in disambiguation. This is not intended as canvassing, and I hope I've phrased my remark neutrally.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on "financial misconduct" turns up 18 instances on Wikipedia other than the page under AfD. It does not appear to need a disambiguation page (none of the other articles are themselves ambiguous with "financial misconduct"), so a stub article on what these other articles mean by "financial misconduct", a list article noting what kinds of financial misconduct there are, or a redirect until one of the articles gets written would seem to be better than deletion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't WP:DISAMBIG anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a disambiguation page that doesn't disambiguate any plausible search terms. Tavix | Talk 20:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Misconduct which seems a better start on the more general topic. A section on financial impropriety would fit nicely there and can be broken back out as and when the article grows too large. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vishal Solanki[edit]

Delete sourced to imdb and this guy's website, this is more resume than biography. Not everyone who works on movies is notable and barely any notability is claimed and none shown through reliable 3rd party sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable cinematographer. No reliable sources could be found; the sources available are either blogs or wiki-mirrors. Salih (talk) 16:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, couldn't find any WP:RS refs. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunset Coast CLC[edit]

another almost spammy article that fails WP:ORG . no coverage in google news [18], and mainly directory links and no real third party coverage in google search. LibStar (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn, or rd to Churches affiliated with Australian Christian Churches. JJL (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ORG, no significant reliable independent sources, "chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article ". WWGB (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable but large and I am sure welcoming and friendly church. A large congregation does not in itself make a church notable in the wiki sense. Springnuts (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:N/WP:ORG. I know of this church (live not far from it) and it's not even notable or significant within its community (cf. Victory Life Centre and Riverview Church). Orderinchaos 10:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joondalup, Western Australia. This is usually the best solution of local facilities, possibly as the start of a section on churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shut Me Up[edit]

Only charted on singles sales charts, never entered the official Hot 100 or Hot Dance Club charts. Only assertation of notability is that Jhonen Vasquez directed the video (which has me very, very curious as to what the video looks like even though 99.9% of punk rock makes my ears bleed). No third party sources, fails WP:MUSIC criteria for individual songs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is one case where the article title is probably more imperative than descriptive. Delete per nom.Tyrenon (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Not sure why sales charts are irrelevant. Rlendog (talk) 13:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to You'll Rebel to Anything, the album the song is off of. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 00:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The song is well-known and the single is notable. It received airplay internationally and still does, I hear it in bars and clubs pretty regularly in the UK. There are far, far less notable songs with articles, and I therefore believe this is a case of a song that didn't chart being notable (and there's plenty like that - Doesn't every single Beatles song have an article, after all?). I also must question the original nomination as, if "99% of punk rock makes your ears bleed" then you really don't know much about the topic in question. Not to mention this isn't a punk rock song in the first place, but that's a moot point here. Esteffect (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was transwiki to Wiktionary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botsina[edit]

While I have been informed that there are sources on this topic, GNews and Google in general come up dry (of the first 30-40 sources, I get nothing apparently relevant except redirects to "botsina.com"; most hits are plays on "bots in a [something]"). I was referred to four sources by another user and told there were lots of them, but of those I was referred to, one didn't include the word, the second was behind a password (and therefore non-verifiable), and the other two included mentions only in passing as far as I can tell. Of the sources offered on GScholar, only one or two were related to the article topic. Most had to do with an "Alexandria Botsina", a Russian scientist or professor who published a few papers, and another one with a simular last name. Thus at most one or two sources exist as far as I can tell, and these are brief mentions, not in-depth discussions from my reading. I would submit that while the concept might have broad discussion, the term at the very least doesn't seem to. Tyrenon (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that it's not an English word, and likely would not generally be discussed in English language papers, or even be written in Latin characters. I suspect you need a Yiddish library to check through to establish anything with regard to notability. That said, the page is correct in what it says. The word 'botsina' is not far off a title or honorific, and whilst it's relatively hard to find references which explain the term, it's easy to find ones which use it.

Try: [ botsina -"botsina.com" -"botsina.org" -"A.Y." ] as the search terms and you find more relevant results.

Link - that one might be needed in the article.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2004/1037111.htm

Should be a keeper in my book, but needs working on. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the subject to help on that front. 92.234.8.173 (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Josh[reply]

Weak Keep. Disclosure: I removed the ProD tag. There appears to be lots of sources, both at Google scholar and books on the Kaballah. The problem with this, as with many areas of esoteric knowledge, is that it relies on oral tradition that was not written down until recently, so few reliable, NPOV sources exist. I'm also far from an expert on the topic. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree to keep if I could find more than passing references. That is a problem with this tradition, I'll agree.Tyrenon (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I'd support sending this to the Wiktionary. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be possible to redirect the article there?Tyrenon (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki' Move article to Wiktionary. Mention, with references, on Shimon Bar Yochai. Click23 (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Flowerparty^☀ 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Schwartz (The Energy Project)[edit]

Fails WP:CSD in that it make a claim of significance, but it looks and feels like pure self-promotion. The only non-administrative edits so far have been by two users whose only edits are to this article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I looked at this article for speedy deletion a while back, but it seems to assert the man's notability at least as a semi-prominent author, and as far as my searches could tell, the claims in the article are true. While it is written in a promotional fashion, it is not overly so. Could use a WP:NPOV check and tighter referencing, but it appears to meet WP:N. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 04:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 00:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources are put in to support claims to notability. لenna vecia 15:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's actually quite a bunch of sources from Google News Archives Search. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with RunningOnBrains, notability still needs to be established with references. Click23 (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C R Krishnan[edit]

Finishing incomplete nom for Blanchardb. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contested prod. Non-notable actor and film-maker. The IMDB entry referred to in the article is only a stub. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article (created by the same editor) was speedy deleted earlier. Salih (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable source coverage of either him or the book. BN says the book was reviewed in a Sussex newspaper, but I couldn't find an online copy of that. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Stars[edit]

No sources, notability not established. Might even qualify for CSD-A7... Until It Sleeps 19:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge up to Russ Berrie. There's plenty of stuff in News Google that says to me this was (is?) a noteworthy program for Russ Berrie, just locked behind paysites. --Izno (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after getting the relists of doom. No sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but find notability as a merge would make no sense in a biography. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Middleman. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middleverse[edit]

Non-notable fictional universe that "has only appeared in a single comic series." All G-hits point to the X-Men episode or the "middle verse" of the Bible. ~EdGl ★ 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonnotable as the subject hasn't recieved enough coverage in reliable, third party sources to write a neutral, verifiable article. Them From Space 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs in article for The Middle Man, which as it gets bigger could potentially have separate articles for the episodes of the comic book. This article is just inappropriate and unfortunately little more than a definition of a bit of jargon. (Having said that there is a wikipedia article for the jargon Buffyverse but I'd question the wisdom of that too.) -- Horkana (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No out-of-universe coverage, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Middleman; commonly used term in discussion of this series. JJL (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPW New Zealand Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPW Armageddon Championship, I am nominating the other two championship lists from this promotion, this one and IPW South Pacific Championship. Nikki♥311 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable.--WillC 01:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete but with references this may become a worthy article...--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The promotion isn't notable so this title can't be. Mal Case (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Both have to go per the one already gone. Just not notable. Rick Doodle (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected per below. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Celebrity Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm a Celebrity Records

Fictitious company. Spencer Pratt released a video on YouTube credited to this company to promote his appearance on I'm a Celebrity... Get Me Out of Here, but no other reference to the company can be found. At best, this article should be merged to the Spencer Pratt article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Fails WP:CORP Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Spencer Pratt. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Spencer Pratt. --71.15.86.119 (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall micro stack[edit]

Non-notable product w/ no assertion of it by de-prodder or subsequent editor. Probably a speedy candidate, but I didn't think to nom it for that before the prod. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a speedy candidate since no category in WP:CSD for products and I don't think it currently reads like an advert. But it is not notable enough for its own article. No reliable sources discussing this product. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very popular amplifier. Google search tearns up 30,000+ hits. Article needs to be re-written. Izzy007 Talk 02:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to Marshall Amplification. (Marshall Stack is already a redirect there.) Dawn Bard (talk) 19:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Chree[edit]

Contested speedy of wholly unreferenced BLP. Doesn't appear to meet any of our inclusion standards. Google doesn't help. لenna vecia 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Well he is in fact a reporter for STV News and he was one of the first on the scene at the Glasgow attack [19], so the article is at least true and verifiable. That said, I can't much more on him and he hasn't been the subject of enough coverage to satisfy the WP:BIO; however, someone may be able to turn up more biographical information on him, in which case I would lean towards keep. Cool3 (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference links have now been added. The biographical information on this profile is correct and is along the same lines of the profiles of all other reporters linked from the STV news page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.121.115 (talk) 21:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further independent references have now been added to substantiate the article, which should not be deleted. It is now possibly one of best referenced articles in the [STV newsreaders and journalists] category. All of the people contained within that are notable and worthy of inclusion on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.121.115 (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now referenced and seems entirely notable. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is fully referenced and the subject is notable generally in Scotland and more widely in his field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.203.184 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing 3.0[edit]

non-notable neologism. Only cites are to a smattering of non-notable blogs, I find no evidence that this term has much reliable sources about it, as such, it is probably not up to the minimum inclusion criteria. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Runs afoul of WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems like a better addition to Wikitionary. Who knows, but it doesn't belong here.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. May have been coined in this awful WSJ article, but beyond that it appears to be nothing more than marketing BS. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 04:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is self-promotion
Delete. This is also glib but meaningless gibberish, so confused that nobody could reasonably be expected to make sense of it: Marketing 3.0 is a term which describes a perceived third generation of integrated marketing communications solutions which individuals and communities discover that existing and newly-identified needs and wants may be satisfied by the products and services of others. It has led to the development and evolution of web-based applications such as social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, and blogs. As the web moves from 2.0 to 3.0, marketing as well needs to evolve to embrace new technologies, attitudes and behaviors that are shaping our social digital lifestyle. Marketing must follow the way we interact, inform ourselves, the way we buy and consume products and services. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emobistudio[edit]

Contested PROD. No indication of notability. Added references are all press releases or advertising article's that do not qualify as Reliable sources.A quick search found no article's that would qualify as a reliable source. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete A version almost identical to this one was previously speedy deleted as G11 advert... Twice if I am not mistaken. This has not addressed that problem, nor does it seem that the company meets the basic inclusion criteria as spelled out at WP:N and WP:CORP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete no 3rd party sources to establish notability; created by single-article user; probable spam. Dialectric (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - clearly ad Paleking (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden Gang[edit]

Notability. Where is it. Kempist (talk) 11:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Very weak keep The fact that it was published by the youngest author for a (seemingly) notable publishing company is certainly an assertation of notability. Given that the books are 30some years old, you'd be hard pressed to find any reliable sources online. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe I may still have some of those books around the place and I agree that the author being so young and working for ladybird is notable. And yes Ladybird books is very notable and people collect their childrens books. The Garden Gang are collectors items and sold on eBay. Dmcq (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the article survives it will need inline citations. I have just tagged the article for lack of inline citations. Looking at the previous comments I too say very weak keep.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ladybird books were extremely well known in Britain for decades, TPH, there's no 'seemingly' notable about it. Nick mallory (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boarding up[edit]

Original research. One source does not mention anything in the entry, the other very little. WP:NOTGUIDE. Contested PROD with no reason given. Wperdue (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article already had a good source - a document of the United States Fire Administration which seems adequate to establish notability but I have added another and there are many thousands more sources to be sifted. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When did a single document start to instantly equal notability? It should be deleted under WP:NOTHOWTO. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTHOWTO is not a reason to delete - it is a style guideline. Any concerns of that sort may easily be addressed by ordinary editing and so deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if it is policy or a style guide? It sums up the reasoning nicely and saves me the time over a long, drawn out explaination. And no, every article can't be saved by editing and, more importantly, every article shouldn't be saved. I know you want to save every article on here, but that doesn't mean everyone will agree that it needs to be saved, even through editing. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Since when is WP:What Wikipedia is not a list of style guidelines? Does this include WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTDICTIONARY since they are all on the same page? Wperdue (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
    - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not governs content as much as it governs subject. It is not limited to subject alone. Indeed, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox are two policies that address content more than they address subject. (If one doesn't understand that, then one does not, especially so in the case of the former, understand the policy.) Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not says that content is informational, not instructional. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for implying that I cannot understand policy. Regardless, I'll continue to assume good-faith. Let us address what I feel is the main problem with this entry: original research. The content past the first three sentences is not, in any way, backed up by sources or anything more than a personal essay on potential reasons why someone would want to board up a property. For instance: "While it is not a common occurrence, vehicles that lose control can sometimes crash into the side of a home". I do not wish to pick apart this entry sentence by sentence but would be happy to provide my reasoning behind nominating this entry. It would be acceptable to me to keep the first three sentences, remove the rest, and make it a stub. Wperdue (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
        Simply answering the questions that you asked is not implying anything. It is asking those questions that has implications.
        And if you want the original research edited out of the article with the ordinary editing tool, that you yourself possess, you should do exactly that. It takes two edits fewer than an AFD nomination. ☺ Only nominate things for deletion if use of the deletion tool is actually what you want. See also User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Done and done. 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)wperdue
Keep Quite obviously a notable practice. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- nothing more than a dictionary definition. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dic def that if expanded will be a how-to. If for some reason it is kept it should be moved to Board up. I was going to suggest redirect to Hurricane preparedness except for the part about keeping out arsonists or whatever. Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although this might not seem notable, it is in its own right. For example, it's a popular way to keep homes from being damaged during foreclosure. It also helps to preserve a building from the environment. I think that the article could be renamed, but it should be kept. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a dictionary definition, and there is already a sufficient one at wikt:board up. A guide to how-to board up a property (which some above seem to advocate this becoming) is equally not encyclopaedic, but a topic for Wikibooks' how-tos bookshelf. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly not a dictionary definition, in that it describes a process rather than define a phrase, and is not a how-to guide as it describes this process rather than give instructions on how to do it. No valid reason has been presented for deletion. A move to Board up would violate naming conventions - article titles should be noun phrases, not verb phrases. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discusses a process, not a word, so not a dicdef. Discusses in general terms, not the specific ones of a practical manual. A practical manual would be much more detailed than this: just what brands of plastic, how to attach it, how to use the plywood, etc etc. than this. This can safely use some expansion, and there should be a good deal of literature. Suitably encyclopedic, just needs some additional sources. DGG (talk) 08:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BottleRocket Script[edit]

Unsourced. Google returning only 8 hits. Could not establish notability myself. New project without coverage in media or internet perhaps? Not eligible for article yet. Referours (talk) 13:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:N and WP:V.^[20][21] — Rankiri (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This software is non-notable; no 3rd party refs. Dialectric (talk) 02:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Runs afoul of WP:RS. Pastor Theo (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Wright (author)[edit]

No references to support notability, nor even a claim thereof. Possible autobiography. Doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE. Subject has one published book, also of no clear significance. Disclosure: mine is the anonymous IP account that nominated this for speedy deletion. I think it still merits speedy. JNW (talk) 04:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails all notability criteria for WP:CREATIVE and WP:BIO. Only reference in the article is for an on-line resume which itself reveals no assertion of notability. A search for significant coverage [22] [23][24] finds nothing outside of Wikipedia mirrors. — CactusWriter | ^needles 06:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per CactusWriter.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - His one book is possibly a WP:HOAX and certainly non-notable per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scions of Eden. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is neither independent notability nor reliable third-party resources Rirunmot (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per everyone. Edward321 (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dane guiden[edit]

Article about a former member of boy band D-Side for whom no independent notability is shown and no reliable third-party resources are provided. Author contested redirection to band article so nominating for deletion instead. I42 (talk) 20:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, possible WP:COATRACK issue: the largest section within the article is about a production team - of which the author appears to be a part. I42 (talk) 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 04:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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