Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 8

< 7 December	9 December >

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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dj prime

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

Autobiographical article about a DJ that doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. PROD contested by article creator. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. On a side note, I had to fix the article due to the absolutely horrid state it was in, and reduced it to a stub. The article had random capitalizations and was very, very far from being wikified. If you would like to see the old version, here you go: [1]. Angryapathy (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject has no sources to prove notability for a wiki entry. Cablespy (talk) 16:58, 9 December 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) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EsoTalk

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

Forum software with no independent sources, fails WP:GNG. --Zvn (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only one of four sources is from the official website itself, and it is much famous than a half of systems on the list. If this were not good for Wikipedia, why don't you ask to delete some articles like MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums?--Meow ✉ 18:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other three sources are also self-published: software developer's advert on Youtube, esoTalk forums and the third one a blogpost by Meow, that is you. --Zvn (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is just your reason, please also delete MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums. They absolutely don't have independent sources, and some of them don't have any source.--

Meow ✉ 02:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF; theoretically all those articles can be nominated for deletion at some point if no independent sources are found, but that would need separate review and deletion nominations. When WP:COI of the article's creators becomes apparent, it only works as a catalyst because Wikipedia is not for promotion or to "spread the word" about your new product.--Zvn (talk) 06:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about MyBulletinBoard, Bmforum, FruitShow, kunena, MercuryBoard, miniBB, NextBBS, OvBB, PHPwnage, and Quicksilver Forums? I also can't find significant coverage for them.--

Meow ✉ 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not helping save this article at all. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just urge for the justice.--

Meow ✉ 06:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for great justice. The references are a blog post, a forum posting, a broken link, and a YouTube video? Okay. Looking further, this still doesn't seem to pass WP:N or WP:V. --Glenfarclas (talk) 11:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was reviewing the article in the time that Glenfarclas took to write his post, and I totally agree his findings. All 3rd party references, blog entries, forum entries, youtube videos, are self-published. I did a search myself too, but was unable to find anything above that level. So, it fails the WP:RS part of "reliable secondary sources" in WP:N. Pcap ping 11:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 15 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ophélie Bretnacher

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

Single event only. Subject is not notable apart from her death, article is a more of a crime report than a biography. Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, BLP1E, NOTNEWS etc ukexpat (talk) 18:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the subject is known for only one event, namely her disappearance. Although the death of a young person is sad, there is no viable reason to have a stand-alone wikipedia article on this individual. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Subject fails wikipedia notability guidelines. Thousands of people vanish, and turn up dead a year, and nothing seems to mark this one as special. Also WP:NOT#NEWS Martin451 (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E?? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing else to use and being dead doesn't mean an automatic article. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there's nothing else to use (and I'm not agreeing with the specific claim), then you don't have an argument for deletion, because "living" is an essential element of the policy you're citing. I think you should review the range of potentially applicable policies and guidelines more carefully. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is WP:BIO1E which I linked to in my delete comment above - it covers all biographies. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 02:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if there wasn't anything that covered it, which I just found out that there is, it wouldn't matter. That's a dumb response because it's such a minor detail. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although a person can be here for one event ( Jon Benet Ramsey, imho no where even close on this article. } this seems to be more of a memorial page then anything else. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the deletion.Ophelia Bretnacher It's not a memorial page . The case Ophélie Bretnacher Google: 307 000 Articles Ophelia Bretnacher Photos: 67 700 ... etc.

Actually, I just removed it. The section headers were screwing things up on the log page. Besides, as you just said, it's visible in the page history.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a warning about the "ownership" issues seen above. I also tried explaining that the article neded to be cleaned up. It was all over the place and wasn't not NPOV. Kinda confusing how the model was connected other then she went missing too....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know I am not the owner of this text and I sincerely hope it will be improved. But in this particular case, Hell In A Bucket has mostly withdrawn more than half. why? Improving an article, is not delete it ? ....Why not tell me why you do not mention the important things? Ophélie Bretnacher disappeared at the same time as Eva Rhodes in the same place. Facts are proved and documented, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/animal-welfare-woman-feared-murdered

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1162648/David-Miliband-slammed-failing-assist-hunt-animal-loving-60s-model-feared-murdered-Hungary.html

Why did you cut that ? I just wanted to mention " Ophélie bretnacher desappeared in Budapest near at the same time as Eva Rhodes, the model muse of John Lennon and Yoko Ono". I think this facts are important because Political personnalities in France and in United Kingdom ( helped by Yoko Ono) want to have a response of Hungary. Theses two desappearances at the same time and the same place are a real Européan problem. They will have diplomatic consequences. (I have made a synopsis to day because my argumentation was too long ) Raymondnivet (talk) 09:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the rest of the statement by this user. It is extremely long, and not properly formatted. --King Öomie 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Delete, NOTMEMORIAL. It also isn't the PR arm of the French government. It doesn't matter how noble your cause is. You don't get a free pass from WP:N. --King Öomie 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I'd also like to point out that accusations of censorship tend to ring exceptionally hollow with editors here, and in no way help your case. This article does not meet the criteria for inclusion. These criteria MAKE us an encyclopedia- if it's not notable, it's not covered. --King Öomie 19:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case Bretnacher Ophelia is a state affair Raymondnivet (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Ponyo and Martin. @Kate (parlez) 01:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTMEMORIAL and NOTNEWS. Grsz¹¹ 06:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

307 000 articles on google... Photos: 67 700 ... etc. The case Bretnacher Ophelia pointing the problem of justice and police non cooperation between France and Hungary, violating the Treaty of Lisbon. This is an issue of human rights and democracy in Europe.

Comment- That's an argument for the creation of Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher, not the survival of THIS article. The proceedings would not be significantly different had the man killed some other french woman (though perhaps the coverage would be less pervasive if he'd killed someone less pretty). --King Öomie 13:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:GOOGLETEST. I'm less than surprised to see so many hits relating to the murder of a pretty french girl. --King Öomie 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained because Ophelie believed the construction of Europe. She was a person of great charisma, she had friends everywhere. As the campaign for the return came from across Europe and elsewhere: Germany, Russia, France, Hungary, Italy etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I want to explain something to you as gently as possible. I can't guarantee you won't be offended.

I'm sure she was a good person, and it's terrible that she was killed. But her personality is simply not relevant in this debate. There is no exception in WP:N for people who were 'charismatic'. Her death, in and of itself, is non-notable (which isn't to say that it isn't terrible). The governmental response to the ensuing investigation may be notable- but this DOES NOT allow for the creation of an article about the girl herself, especially if you intend to include a description of her personality, or her political opinions. This article, and indeed the subject itself, is unfit for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. And you seem to be the only person here who disagrees. --King Öomie 15:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now I agree with King. Let things play out it may end up being owrthy of inclusion after the politics play out. That time is not yet though.....Wiki will still be here when it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and I take it well... It was not an argument, it was only to explain so much reactions in Europe:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondnivet (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, there are lots of white females who die under mysterious circumstances every year, and WP can not have an article on every one of them. Bearian (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case Bretnacher Ophelie is a state affair. This is an issue of human rights and democracy in Europe Raymondnivet (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't about that. It's about her murder. It only mentions the political issue in passing. It spends more time discussing the efforts to find her. --King Öomie 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And her murder is non notable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction: It's a non-notable death. According to the article sources it's being treated as a drowning, but murder has not been ruled out. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a good idea : That's an argument for the creation of Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher, not the survival of THIS article. And you are reposting Kings comment why? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Because everybody didn't say ONLY DELATE. Raymondnivet (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was a GOOD argument. I only meant to point out that arguing the relevance and importance of the political backlash of her murder didn't help your case in defending an article about her. --King Öomie 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes I understand ... but I just wanted to say it was an important point of view of socio-political science. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia? Political science does not interest it? I would not say it was my opinion. it is just a scientific interest ... and encyclopedic ... --Raymondnivet (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move - to Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher (currently a redirect to this article), per Hell and King. The aftermath of the crime is notable, but the victim herself is not. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how proper it would be to have an article titled Murder of Ophélie Bretnacher when the article has two sources stating " Forensic experts reported that there was no sign of aggression or criminal acts on her body, and concluded that death was probably the result of a suicide or accident" --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, the nature of the crime is itself a source of controversy in this issue, so at this time, 'Murder' isn't an appropriate title. I was making a point when I mentioned it, not a genuine suggestion. They say that no signs of aggression were found, but the article history mentions a large bruise. I have to wonder which one is incorrect. --King Öomie 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And tittle : Disappearance of Ophélie Bretnacher ? it would be good ? Raymondnivet (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC) And for the murder: there is a big hematoma .It is actually an homicide. Raymondnivet (talk) 16:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're killing me here. I am unconvinced that the article as it stands is acceptable under ANY title (and the original version isn't better). As to your assertion, she could easily have suffered an impact while falling into the river/jumping/any number of other theories. It's not as conclusive as you make it sound. Your keen interest leads me to believe that you're interested less in the political aspect and more on justice being served. --King Öomie 17:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this viewpoint as stated above. One day this may meet the standards of inclusion at this point that time is not here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the beginning regardless of all the arguments that I gave, you absolutely refuse any inclusion whatsoever for the notability, the encyclopedic value, or the socio-political value. I am certain of is that you refuse all arguments, all even better justified. Regarding the argument of justice, no, it is not mine, so that justice is done, it must go to court. I'm not here for justice ... I'm here for the encyclopedic value ... And I return to my first question: censorship ? I have noticed this as the 4 times I mentioned Eva Rhodes H.I.B. withdrew my sentence in less than a minute! You have instructions on Eva Rhodes who was a John Lennon's friend ? You're afraid that this parasite does John Lennon? Worry, I just want to contribute to the desappearance of Ophelie Bretnacher and its consequences on European democracy, and neither Eva Rhodes, John Lennon does not interest me and I am ready to forget them. Chloemassart (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smelling like a lockerroom. Be it meat or sock can't tell yet. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't Know what you mean, but I understand maybe it's an insult for my wife : Chloé. my wife think that it's censorship. I, Raymond desagree with her. But now, maybe she's right. Insults are autorised on wikipedia ? you are an administrator Hell in a Bucket ? you are autorised to insult users' wifes ? I am waiting for your excuses a soon as possible --Raymondnivet (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here on wikipedia what you are doing right now is called either Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry. See WP:SOCK Hell In A Bucket (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HiaB, keep in mind that metaphors are typically lost in translation (not to insult, Chloe and Raymond, your english is actually quite good)- I assume you meant "Smells like a locker room" to imply sockpuppetry, rather than to actually insult the user as a person. Though perhaps stick to "Looks like someone opened the sock drawer" in the future :P. Raymond, your anger is reasonable given the circumstances here; I truly believe this is a misunderstanding. --King Öomie 21:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening, Since 3 days, I made the effort to explain in your language, how it seemed to me that the case of non-compliance of cooperation between 2 member states of Europe, from a student traveler, who will probably drag on for years before coming to your television or your newspaper, when she made headlines a year now of our newspapers in Europe and on the Internet. I thought there was not such a gap between 2 continents, at the internet age. I was sadly disappointed. Your ways and also your comments are not the same as ours. We also, we the people of the old continent's capacity for empathy, I have not always felt (with some exceptions) when you talk of disappearances which seem natural to you. But here I digress from the Encyclopedia ... My wife asked me to stop writing to you and I'll listen. I can add nothing more. I hope you have not tried to insult her. I do not understand your business "meat" and "socks", and I confess that I've had enough. The day you want, you will make yourself this product with your own research. This effort on my part was too time consuming and I have other more important responsibilities. I also hope you do not try to censor us. I'm not sure. I also think you have black listed Eva Rhodes (John Lennon's friend). The connection between Ophélie and Eva was made by the journalists of the Guardian, not me. My wife and me think that it had it's place on wikipedia It's a case of democracy. I salute you. Raymondnivet (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely lost in translarion. I never meant to call your wife any names only refer to a policy we have here. Sorry for the confusion. Wiki isn't a democracy though./...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HiaB was referring specifically to [2]. On FR, that's an essay- but on EN, it's a policy. --King Öomie 21:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain us why do you have in Wikipedia a so long article on Alicia Ross and on the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann and why you don't accept Ophélie Bretnacher ? --Raymondnivet (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick review of the article, they had much more media coverage and seem to have more impact on their collective communities. One day your article might get there, that time is not now. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that the discussion ins't closed, and it can maybe change, if other people want to KEEP this article as The Ophélie Bretnacher case ,

Now you have seen it's not a biography, not news, ans it's very important for people of France and Hungary ? We also think that Ophélie Bretnacher should be on the List of people who disappeared mysteriously in 2008. Raymondnivet (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your arguments as to why you think the article should be kept and others have argued otherwise. You are not improving your case by repeating your comments ad nauseam - the admin who reviews the dicussion will read all the comments and make a decision when the 7 day discussion period has passed. – ukexpat (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand that an admin will read all the comments and will make a decision. That's why I was repeatind. Excuse me. I's the first time. Best regards Raymondnivet (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HIAB removed the phrase that has crucial importance, because it's non-compliance with Européan directives and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is the subject of the actual legal action. This will be the next chapter "Good police and judicial cooperation between countries, members of Europe is specified in the Treaty of Lisbon, applicable on 1 December 2009 and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union". So I surrender, because it is not, to return at an early removal requests, or news, or a tribute to a beautiful white female unfortunately drowned.

I stress a lot for the existence of this article in Wikipedia, or what you propose in fine (despite the hundreds of newspaper articles, television, etc.), because in fact only Wikipedia is encyclopedic and does not undergo the influence of the press, or any group whatsoever except clippings HIAB:). So that only items in multiples of press articles sometimes contradictory (eg an article concludes suicide, another homicide) can approach the nearest neutral ... Insofar as we have a Wikipedia entry, we would have the same English, Italian and also German and Hungarian. Because that Ophelia was French, his family lived in Austria, his friends were German, French, Italians, Hungarians, etc. .. and she died in Hungary . Raymondnivet (talk) 21:33, 14 December 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 nomination withdrawn and page moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/List of articles about Colorado. I am listing the resulting cross-namespace redirect at RfD, as it's ineligible for CSD R2. (non-admin closure) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles about Colorado

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

This is horrible to read through. It would work far better as a category. This is just a collection of links masquerading as an article right now. It can't even claim to be a disambiguation page. Oh, and apologies if I brought this to the wrong place. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Index of Colorado-related articles if there in anything worth merging. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 18:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; unnecessary as Index of Colorado-related articles already exists. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia:WikiProject Colorado/List of articles about Colorado — I created this article to test the automated multilevel dumping of categories on a given subject. This list was created for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of Knowledge as a possible automated successor for the Index of country/province/state-related articles. This list is prohibitively long, but it does list virtually every article about the subject in alphabetical order. I think this list would serve better as a WikiProject resource than a general article. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved: Nomination withdrawn. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:19, 8 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Road 13

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

Proded and dprodded (by other editors). It's a county road with no indication of notability. Classic fail of WP:STREETS. Not sure the justification on the deprod. Shadowjams (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no maps, books, news or landmarks mentioned to suggest notability. Appears to be... a road. SGGH ^ping! 18:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Triadian (talk) 19:49, 8 December 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) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrix Robots Building System

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

Prod declined (by two other editors). Searches reveal the primary sources, and a few things that appear to be press releases. A google news search finds two hits, one of which is a PR Newswire release (press release) and another is a robot building camp that uses the robots (I think). Shadowjams (talk) 18:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or smerge. I can't find substantial independent coverage for this to justify an article. The references in the article are all company material. It may be worth mentioning it in one of the more notable related products e.g., Lego Mindstorms NXT. Pcap ping 12:02, 15 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of email marketing service providers

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

Unsourced comparison, tagged but issues not addressed. A comparison of just three service providers is hardly encyclopaedic and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete leave it to Which?. A comparison is a subjective assessment based on the facts. Wikipedia can provide the facts but it would be illogical for it to provide the comparison. SGGH ^ping! 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too many low quality guides as is. Wikipedia isn't meant to be Consumer Reports. Boston2austin (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unreferenced; these "Comparison of product type X" articles also tend to be spam magnets, and need frequent clearing out of "referenced" redlinks, serving as handy parking lots for non-notable products. MuffledThud (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedic article & unref. Not even a long enough list to provide any broad comparisons. Probably fails wp:NPOV; WP isn't the place for this kind of thing, if a company/product/provider is seen as better/worst than a competitor company/product/provider. Mattg82 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are numerous email marketing providers in the market to validate the need to include a current comparison of the offering. However, would agree with AfD request that more players in the industry should be displayed and references to increase merit of the article. --68.106.235.149 (talk) 05:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC) — 68.106.235.149 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

But Wikipedia is not a consumer guide. There are plenty of sites out there which will provide subjective comparisons. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there may be many such providers, and many of them may be notable, an encyclopedia should not be a marketing guide. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 10 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binfer

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

Unambiguous promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-issue user. I was not able to find any significant third-party coverage, and not one Google News hit. This fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Delete - no independent sources cited to show notability, and none found. JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

depend on what keyword you searched for: Try searching: "private P2P software for direct file sharing". Binfer shows up as 5th result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globos2009 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Three results: Binfer home page; scribd.com, which is editable/addable-to and therefore not a valid reference; finally, a very quickly updated copy of this discussion on a userpage here at Wikipedia. In time, there will be references that count. Binfer is too young yet to be notable enough to get an article here. We celebrate success (and record some failures), but we do not promote. Peridon (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Non-notable software, original author seeks primarily to promote. (I originally tagged this with a PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice (subject to references...) I tagged it for spam. No references given - and there don't seem to be many around. There is a slight problem looking for this, as there is a very similarly named thing (an "expert system shell containing an inference engine based on Bayesian statistics" whatever that might be...). I'm puzzled by this software. There's no mention of cost - and no mention of 'free' either. Has to be one or the other. It seems very recent, which could explain the lack of outside references. Could take off, or vanish without a trace. Time will tell. (Don't you hate people who use cliches?) Peridon (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.masternewmedia.org/send-large-files-of-any-size-guide-to-the-best-tools-and-services Globos2009 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A start. Add it to the article and see what else you can find. Usually 7 days for an AfD, unless nothing is happening and the result is very obvious. Peridon (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious spam, original research, and not even resembling an encyclopedia article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Spam. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source provided (masternewmedia.com) is a single paragraph in an article about a dozen other file transfer tools. This is not significant coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 23:58, 11 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Stone (Colorado)

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

Recreation of previously deleted article Hayden Stone (activist). Little attempt to establish notability, weak references. Most likely self-publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biker Biker (talk • contribs)

NOTE the above redlink Hayden Stone (activist) never existed. The article was previously created (and subsequently deleted) by overwriting Hayden Stone which is a redirect to a completely different article. Apologies for the confusion. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete It seems to me that as the force behind a major conservation movement with legislative impact, this young man is notable. ColonelHamilton (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC) Edit Found another ref.[reply]
- Do you have a conflict of interest in these matters? You were involved in writing the article about his partner in their political consultancy. Please see WP:COI. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Hayden Stone is a major political influence for High Schoolers in the Metro-Denver area. My son went to school with him, and says that he is very well known. Stone is a major player in the Colorado High School mock trial program, and as one can see, politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.178.254.2 (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a particular reason why you inserted this comment in the middle of everybody else's instead of at the bottom? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.178.254.2. This IP editor vandalized the article twice now. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I initially put a PROD tag on this page). There are three references on the page, one is broken and the other two are primary links to lists of state legislation, nothing proving this 19-year-old's notability. I was only able to find one news article about him, when he was 16, just mentioning his involvement with one piece of legislation. The article about his partner at constellation Political, their political consultancy (and one has to wonder about anyone who hires a 19-year-old to run their political campaign), has already been deleted as non-notable. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable Vartanza (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have searched for coverage of Hayden Stone and have come up empty. There are other people covered who share the same name but don't seem to be him, and of course there is Hayden, Stone & Co. which is a notable company unrelated to him. Just a note, the above information about this being a recreation of a deleted article doesn't seem to be true; the Hayden Stone (activist) article has never been created. -- Atama頭 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and investigate Non-notable; alma mater section is untrue (Stone still attends Harvard University). Would be interested to see if User:ColonelHamilton is a sockpuppet or secondary account of User:Qwerty5547. See this edit where ColonelHamilton adds Hayden Stone as an alumnus, and how Qwerty5547 created the page for Hayden Stone on the same day. Not causing a disruption, but would be interesting to see a checkuser or a sockpuppet investigation - does anyone else smell something fishy here? Mononomic (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- User:ColonelHamilton also created the Benjamin Engen article, which is about Hayden Stone's partner in their political consultancy. Also note that both ColonelHamilton and the Ip address above added their comments in the middle of the discussion, instead of at the end. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE I am Hayden Stone. Though I don't care about the content of this article, I see a history of vandalism. I don't know who created it or the page for my partner, but I want this controversy dropped. All info in the article is accurate. Please come to a speedy decision. ColonelHamilton (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in the article indicates notability per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:28, 13 December 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 Deleted under WP:CSD#G10#CSD G10 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multinational empire

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

HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as attack page. AfD is not the proper venue for pages like this. DarkAudit (talk) 18:22, 8 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xwinwm

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

No sources, probably no notability, and the description is flawed. Cygwin/X does not need any specific software add-ons or hacks to pass a control over an X window to MS Windows’ window manager. This software, probably, should provide something different functionality of a window manager. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very little independent coverage --skew-t (talk) 12:35, 9 December 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. Wizardman 22:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community-based Biodiversity Conservation Films

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

Previously PRODed article; PROD removed by what appears to be a sock of the creator; article does not establish notability and fails WP:CORP. —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spam. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure that a general WP:CORP argument is the way to go here, and propose a look at the more specific WP:CLUB. This group does come up on the web pages of similar organizations and their work has been described at the international level. But there is a shortage of independent, third party news coverage. I'll leave it to the community to decide the notability question, but a quick look at WP:CORP in general may not be fair. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 11:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 15 December 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 Withdrawn per SNOW.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish American mobsters

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

This is a BLP violating mainly unreferenced list accusing people of being mobsters. Given that we already have Category:Irish-American mobsters, can we remove this list as a liability without an upside? See also the nomination below Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British mobsters Scott Mac (Doc) 16:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would a list be a liability and a category not be a liability? I don't understand the difference as it concerns liability. Most of the people are dead, so BLP only is a concern of the living. Why not just add the references to the list from the articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and source. Having a category does not preclude having a list. Also, if a list should be deleted due to BLP concers then the category would also have the same concerns. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the above. The category is a far bigger BLP problem as it is not as easily monitored, and doesn't allow us to provide sources. Needs cleanup, not deletion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleanup and redlinks, remove anything bluelinked that does not unambiguously qualify for inclusion on the list from article content. Artw (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the British mobsters list, this includes a good deal of discriminating information. It does need to be sourced. As far as WP:BLP, most of these people are no longer "L". Limit it to deceased people if necessary. Mandsford (talk) 21:56, 8 December 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. None but the nominator favors deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hi-NRG artists and songs

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

This article is a list of random songs with 1 external link with All Music Guide, but in the article are over 9000 songs that claims are "Hi-NRG". Obviously falls WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesis for a genre ~~that lacks an article.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the list of artists, improve with sources, and lose the songs. This is most certainly a real genre (see Hi-NRG - it doesn't lack an article at all), and a lot of the artists can be sourced as such. The songs seem to be very WP:OR and somewhat random. --Michig (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepOnce again the subject DOES have an article, and a quick look at google shows that the subject is notable and that many of the songs can be linked to the genre. Could be better refined but unsuitable for deletion. Weakopedia (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listing all the notable songs in this genre is a perfectly acceptable list article. Dream Focus 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list of artists and move to List of Hi-NRG artists. The list of songs would be more appropriate as a category. (Category:Hi-NRG songs) Am86 (talk) 03:56, 15 December 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Euro disco artists

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

This article is a list of random songs with no sources. What if these songs are not "euro-disco"? Falls WP:SYNTH/WP:OR and WP:Notability RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Synthesis for a genre ~~that lacks an article.~~ Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but limit to information that can be sourced. Euro disco is a real genre ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc., etc.) although that article needs work. A list of artists in the genre is perfectly reasonable for inclusion.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "although that article needs work" - this list of songs is in the Wikipedia since 2007. Nobody does anything. A typical AfD. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly - there are are always people prepared to put effort into deleting articles but they often don't seem to be prepared to put any effort into improving them.--Michig (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What a careless people! RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject DOES have it's own article. A quick look suggests that sourcing the article is possible. The subject is clear and notable and it is possible to link the groups to it with sources. Weakopedia (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If this article is kept, then song titles need quotes and not in italics as per WP:MOS/WP:MUSTARD. Also tables need consistent columns sizes/positions imo. Mattg82 (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but reorganise: Like its Italian counterpart, Euro disco was highly notable in the 1980s, as what Michig stated. The central critism if this list as with that one I brought up, although no better, is that it needs some serious cleanup and also backed up by a reliable third party sources, which was why I originally proposed to merge the two together as it is difficult tell the two apart unless you are an expert in the genre. Other advise is to drop the song column as far too many of these have more than three or five songs they are most associated with. Donnie Park (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its a real genre, and listing notable artists in it is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 17:40, 11 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mydiddle

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

Gossip blog with no indication of notability, and does not meet the WP:WEB standards. I didn't find any reliable secondary sources on the subject. Note too that the article contributors appear to have a conflict of interest. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also per nom. Does not assert notability. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:59, 13 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

APPA (programming language)

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

Two articles started by the same new editor on nascent or non-existent pieces of software. The editor admits to being the author of the software, as far as it goes, at his user page (old version). The descriptions at the web pages are currently very slim. No external coverage whatsoever, as far as I can tell. One contested prod (removal summary: "I have deleted the notice because i belive that i will be done creating a compiler soon."); I have removed the second prod to bundle the discussions here. Mr Stephen (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm usually generous with programming language articles, but these are still in development in an unreleased state and there's a serious COI problem. Delete as vanity pages. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI promotion of unreleased programming languages --skew-t (talk) 12:30, 9 December 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. None but the nominator favors deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yōko Asada

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

Delete. Has been relying on primary sources since Oct 2008, no evidence that non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties for this WP:BLP article are forthcoming. JBsupreme (talk)

Keep She's played major roles in a number of anime. Clearly meets notability requirements. AfD is not Cleanup. Doceirias (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, this is not cleanup. However this person has received nothing in the way of substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. AfD is a place where we delete WP:BLP articles that lack that. That's why we are here. JBsupreme (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the large numbers of significant anime VA roles, have you check through the Japanese VA magazines to ensure that there are no reliable third-party sources? —Farix (t | c) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly meets WP:ENTERTAINER given the number of lead roles in notable productions. If there are specific concerns about the veracity of a specific role, we can go to the credits for that production (which is one of those cases where primary sourcing is appropriate), but that in turn is an editorial concern, not a notability one. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Entertainer, there is bound to be credits to her on the works she has done in credits somewhere. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER due to multiple significant roles in notable works. While non-trivial coverage from third-party sources would probably help improve the article, it isn't required to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Also, WP:BLP is not a concern as the article doesn't contain any contentious material, and the roles listed could be sourced from the credits of works they are from anyway. Calathan (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Calathan. She has multiple significant roles in a notable works. Dream Focus 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is wonderful that everyone agrees with everyone else here, but unfortunately we need reliable third party sources which show that a) her role was significant and that b) the work was notable. We are an encyclopedia, not IMDb. JBsupreme (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you even look at any of those articles that are linked from her page? Some of them have plenty of sources (Serial Experiments Lain is even a featured article). While a few of the listed roles even for blue-linked articles are for works of questionable notability (e.g. D4 Princess), most of the blue linked articles are clearly notable works. As for whether the roles in those works are major roles, for some she played the title character, and I'm sure the sources available for others would back up that her role was major. You seem to be asking for something that is clearly readily available. Calathan (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wish reliable sources for actual biographical content were available. If they were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. JBsupreme (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think everyone else considers it common sense. Do you doubt this person has worked on any of these series? The main article usually list the voice actors for the characters, which those who have the DVD can verify. Parade Parade list her as being the voice of the main character. And would you doubt the information the voice actor company she works for has about her on their official webpage? [11] Google Translation Dream Focus 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am not placing primary sources in doubt. Rather, I am making a very specific note that non-trivial third party coverage of this living person is explicitly lacking. I understand that I am in the minority, apparently, but IMHO this person is not notable unless there is some foreign language coverage I'm not seeing (and has yet to come forward). JBsupreme (talk) 19:47, 10 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramina Mavadin

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

Unable to find coverage in reliable sources Polarpanda (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find any significant coverage in sources; there may be a problem with the translation, but I have a feeling that it is more of a notability issue than anything else. If reliable third-party coverage were presented, I would suggest referencing content, but at present this BLP is composed completely of unsourced material. Mrathel (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any RS, only results I come up with are Facebook pages in various languages, there is not an artcile on either Russian or Azeri Wikipedias. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:13, 9 December 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) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M-Log

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

non notable product WuhWuzDat 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: Per Joe Chill; easily fails WP:N. There is also no support for WP:PRODUCT since there is no company notability. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability; I can't find secondary sources that aren't blogs. It seems like a small group hardware project or similar; see [12]. Could have been prodded instead I think. There parent "Owl Project" doesn't seem notable either. Pcap ping 12:36, 15 December 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. Though I would say the entries should all be sourced, at the list page, itself. Cirt (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British mobsters

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

This is a BLP violating uttery unreferenced list accusing people of being mobsters. Given that we already have Category:British mobsters, can we remove this list as a liability without an upside? Scott Mac (Doc) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - List of this type must have a clear definition of what makes some one eligible, plus have every entry sourced. CitiCat^♫ 15:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BLP requires that we do so. JBsupreme (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per BLP issues. Warrah (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and mostly indiscriminate list that's not much better than a category. It's noteworthy that we do not seem to have an article about "organised crime in the United Kingdom", something that I hope will be written. But a list of "mobsters" isn't that article. WP:BLP problems are obvious; the mention of John Barrie implies that two men mentioned on that disambiguation page, one an actor, the other a snooker player, had some secret second career. Stuff like this was accepted in 2006, but not really acceptable then or now. Mandsford (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Irish American mobsters--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and source. Having a category does not preclude having a list. Also, if a list should be deleted due to BLP concers then the category would also have the same concerns. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep BLP problems are a reason to cleanup and source the list, and remove unsourced material on sight. No grounds for deletion of the entire list. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to clean it up and reference all the items? Because, if not, I give notice I will remove all unreferenced items at the close of this afd, which will leave NO items remaining.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking through I'm not seeing any unreferenced articles on the list - If you spot any I suggest they be removed. Artw (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the list I don't see any referenced entries whatsoever. References on another article will not do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We could duplicate the references on the article pages on the list, but it would be pretty crufty and IMHO pointless. I'm not seeing this done on other similar lists (for instance the majority of items in List_of_Irish_American_mobsters). Whether or not we put the cites on the page is also extraneous to the AfD argument. Artw (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not pointless whatsoever. We do not use other wikipedia articles as sources, full stop, even if they are well sourced. For a completely different example, I have recently been working on List of people from Leeds, which was cut down nearly completely because none of the entries were referenced. Quantpole (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup any redlinks, remove anything bluelinked that does not unambiguously qualify for inclusion on the list from article content. Artw (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep all bluelinks indicating a WP article can have references in the artiicle; redlinks need references in this list. This is how many, many lists are handled. If this is kept and an editor goes in and deletes all the bluelinked items, it should be considered behavior unworthy of an honest and honorable WP editor, pushing their agenda above that of the group. Hmains (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey, here's an idea: Instead of arguing about deleting entries which are sourced at their own articles, howzabout taking time to copy one of those sources over to the list? There are such things as British mobsters, and we have sourced articles on those British mobsters. There is no reason not to have a list of them. Totally spurious AfD. Dekkappai (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sources are there, they are just indirect. Wikipedia is fortunately an electronic resource, so they are trivial to find. We cannot include sas much in a list articles as we do in the individual articles. To satisfy those who for some reason do not yet realize this, there's no harm in copying a key one over for each individual. And the ones without articles either can be written with sources or should be removed DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to be consistent. I once nominated Category:Rapists and all subcats, which by nature is always an unsourced assertion, and the consensus was to keep. While I think we should be cautious about labeling and categorizing people, I don't agree that our BLP policy currently requires all such labels to be sourced. If it did, then we'd need to get rid of most negative categories and lists that serve to label living people. We may indeed want to do that at some point, but I don't think there's consensus for it right now. Gigs (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that we wouldn't need a source that someone is a rapist to put them in a list of rapists? Quantpole (talk) 14:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in the list article. In the main article, yes. Categories always use this sort of "vicarious sourcing", since it's impossible to source categorization. There's some precedent for it for lists as well. If the list article makes further claims other than mere inclusion, then those facts should be verifiable of course. Gigs (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very interesting AfD, I think Gigs comment is relevant, if we have a category for rapists, then why not have this one? Would need to be checked though from time to time though, after my experiences with Vodafone I would be tempted to add them to the list DRosin (talk) 12:46, 15 December 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of post-disco artists and songs

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

This article is a list of random songs produced or performed in the post-disco era. Most of the references in the article are not reliable (discogs/dusty groove), while most of the rest are either blogs or misinterpreted and such. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ridiculous and arbitrary list and WP:SYNTH. Eusebeus (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh yeah, WP:SYNTH is getting down tonight. Boogie and delete! Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i propose to delete most of unsourced WP:Synth's and keep only sourced items. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is a problem that every second list of songs/artists/shoes/booze/etc suffers. It's all about time. We should wait for more reliable sources. Some songs should be deleted, but I think deletion is not a good idea, but fixation is a change, that we can trust in. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that by limiting this to the sourced items, and by providing additional (and sourced) context that explains "post-disco", this can be a worthwhile spinoff of post-disco. I recognize that there's the opportunity for all sorts of jokes about disco music in general, but I'll forgo attempts at humor in this instance, since the author is striving to link to reliable and verifiable sources. Most articles don't bother. To the extent that there are problems with original synthesis, they can be fixed, particularly by limiting this to songs where that label was applied. Mandsford (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Post-disco is a real genre, so listing things that fall into it, is a perfectly acceptable Wikipedia list. Dream Focus 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 00:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Post disco is also up for AFD. at least one of the songs on this list is not described in its article as post disco, but only as performed by a disco artist. we really would need each song on this list to have a solid reference calling it "post disco". if kept, it needs to be trimmed back to only those which are sourced as such.im currently undecided about whether to delete either or both articles.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think that's likely to be good enough, given that the problem with post-disco seems to be that anything after disco gets called "post-disco" in reviews and the like, whatever the genre. Mangoe (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "after the disco"? There's nothing after the disco. Post-disco is just some kind of eighties movement. That's all. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - excellent points. i guess we would need a group of well respected music journalists/scholars giving a consensus for a description of a particular style of music that they call post-disco, with their choices as examples of the genre, before either article here is valid.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - AMG calls it "genre" and this Thriller (album) review emphasize post-disco as "genre" too (and unreliable source last.fm saying it too). Some call it "boogie", but mostly it isn't clear if sources saying "post-disco" is a genre or after disco movement (that's why this AfD). It's so unclear about that. It's the same problem as in dance-pop or alternative dance articles. Yes, we need some experts. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 13:10, 27 December 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. Wizardman 22:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon (band)

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

Fails to meet WP:BAND. Notability of Atomic Rooster does not make this later band notable. If there is any unique information, it could be merged to John Du Cann. Ash (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be completely made up of original research- does not feature any external links or references. Band appears to have low notability- did not release any recordings. Mention is made that the songs they worked on became the basis for the first album by Hard Stuff. I checked the article for Hard Stuff- basically all the important information in this article is already covered there (word for word in some instances). I would recommend that this page be turned into a simple redirect going to the article for Hard stuff (or just deleted). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunk500 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect. Since band achieved little more than demos while together, the text of this article should be merged with John Du Cann and/or Hard Stuff and simple redirects should be set up accordingly. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 10:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge the delete !votes, I only think Line Delete is the way to go.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 22:01, 15 December 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) 16:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 503rd Chamsol Scout Club

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

Non-notable local Scout unit. No sources, nearly no content. The claim "one of the oldest scouting clubs in South Korea" is unrealistic since Scouting was introduced to Korea in 1922; for details see Korea Scout Association. jergen (talk) 12:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was speedied as 503th Chamsol troop. --jergen (talk) 12:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as NN WP:ORG per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 14:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are very few articles on Scout Groups and this one is nowhere near as notable as they are. There have been a great number of attempts to write articles on Scout Groups that have been deleted or merged. I see no place to merge this, so delete. --Bduke (Discussion) 08:33, 16 December 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. Wizardman 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Unitsky

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

WP:NN artist who fails WP:ARTIST. Both the DPRP award and the PROGaward are online, unscientific polls. The "Museum of Computer Art" is a web site where artists can self-publish their work. Toddst1 (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral, weak keep~~ Please note that Toddst1 has removed most of the articles content. While a COI (the artist in question) made this article look rather terrible, it is notable, and easy to clean up. This artist has designed cover art for several notable progressive rock bands (DPRP is very much a reliable and "scientific" award, as it is considered the top honour for modern prog bands, who don't get the kind of coverage that mainstream bands get. To say DPRP is not good enough would be like dismissing all the underground death metal charts because they don't have a national chart). He is notable along the same lines as Storm Thorgerson, just without the multi-platinum band under his belt. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Indeed, when I intervened on an edit war on this article, I removed a lot of unsourced information and claims like "He is touted as the modern day Salvador Dali." and "Many seem to believe it is inspired from the Divine." along with a long list of unsourced credits. None of which belong in the article, some of which has been added back without citations. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DEADLINE, patience grasshopper. There was no edit war. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet WP:ARTIST notability guidelines (online poll based awards are usually not notable). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable, perhaps not, but valid, certainly. The Italian prog awards are definitely notable. If not, wikipedia has a bias against any genre that isn't commercially flaunted, and that bias must be changed. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is ~~an on-line poll~~ this website a reliable enough source to pass one of the 5 criteria of WP:ARTIST? Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an online poll, its just an online website. There are set judges for the Italian Prog Awards. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see there is a "jury" (my italian is rusty). However that still leaves the matter of passing WP:Artist. I guess 4(c) "has won significant critical attention" would be the closest thing that would fit, but the key word there is significant. I'd be hard pressed to defend this web site as being "significant critical attention". Toddst1 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think thats putting an unfair bias on areas of music that are still immensely popular and notable, yet don't receive commercial critical coverage. I leave my keep argument at the fact that he is the artist for a good number of albums with their own Wikipedia article. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but that's really a different discussion which should be played out on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music) and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). If you feel the criteria are wrong, you should work to change them. But in the short term, WP:Artist is the criteria we have to work with. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after flushing out a few sources and cleaning up the article. Notable along the same lines as Storm Thorgerson: has done the artwork for several dozen albums that have their own article on wikipedia. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from Andy Tillison [Po90], [the Tangent]

Hello ED.

I do not think your page should be deleted from Wikipedia. I am not a member of Wikipedia and I have never contributed anything to the page. The article about my band The Tangent has been done by someone else, I do not know who, I do not like the article because I think it is far too long for a band of our status and far too anecdotal. It is not encyclopedic enough and should be far more factual

I have read the arguments involved and believe that the member Floydian is correct in protesting that DPRP polls etc are not invalid, as these polls have been established for at least a decade and require a certain amount of input from the user rather than a tick box system. The fact that this is not a TV poll like the X-Factor does not invalidate the importance thereof. As an industry worker I know that nearly all progressive rock musicians take a very serious view of the DPRP poll (it frightens me to hell!!). As the winners of this poll are likely to quote from it in advertising features in commercial magazines this does indicate a certain industry respect for the poll

I think the proposer of deletion is taking an attitude of "I've never heard of him or this poll, so why should it be on here"

I suggest that you contact member Floydian if you can. You may copy this mail to him. Although progressive Rock music's fortunes are nowhere near as well reported by mainstream media as they once were, my personal view is that your contribution to the current scene is well respected among the vast majority of those who follow the genre.

I am sorry that someone has taken this attitude against you. other than this mail of support, there is very little I can do. i think that for Wikipedia to delete your article wouod be detrimental to Wikipedias astonishing grasp on the variety of contemporary culture.

Andy Tillison —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Unitsky (talk • contribs) 21:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr. Tillison can provide ANY recognized magazines or advertisements where a band quotes a DPRP poll, it would provide some sourced solidarity to the validity of them, and may help in getting them acknowledged as a notability criteria. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 09:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I see Floydian's argument that it's unfair to dismiss obscure, under-the-radar polls on the ground that they're not nationally recognized. Well, yes, awards which lack reliable sources testifying to broad support for their significance and notability fail most Wikipedia criteria for notability and verifiability. I just don't see that as a bad thing. If Unitsky has genuine significance, there'll be reliable sources saying so. When those appear, I'll change my mind regarding his notability. RGTraynor 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- There are notable sources, thats what the DPRP is. It's just not notable to you. In its industry (which is where it matters) it is a VERY reliable and respected source. Wikipedia just needs to wake up and smell the coffee with its criteria for notability almost exclusively limited to historical, and pop/rock/top 40 chart toppers. Asinine. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it will remain non-notable to me, and to Wikipedia at large, without reliable sources testifying to its notability. You've been on Wikipedia far too long not to understand that that is how it works. Wikipedia has never been a publisher of first instance, and we need more than your assertion that this poll is recognized as an authority in its field. That there's only one other article on the English Wikipedia mentioning it doesn't bode well. As it happens, the Dutch Wikipedia neither mentions this poll in its progressive rock article [13] nor has an article on Unitsky himself. [14]. So far the coffee's smelling mighty weak. RGTraynor 19:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - I don't see how the Dutch wikipedia not having an article means something. It's an English website as well. Also, it's not my assertion, but that of professionals in the industry. I will try to find interviews in commercially popular magazines that are apparently reliable because the editor read them, to satisfy the community. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, wouldn't a reasonable inference be that if this Dutch website was all that notable, the Dutch Wikipedia would go so far as to mention it in the article on the type of music for which it's purportedly an arbiter of notability, if not so far as to deem it worthy of a standalone article? RGTraynor 20:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the dutch article says, but I imagine that like the English article it is centred around those 5 or 6 bands that really broke big in the 70's, and the 2 or 3 modern prog bands with coverage by the mainstream media. In other words it was written (for the most part) by someone who isn't aware. Again, as I said, I will try to find some coverage in a reliable source. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't seem notable, & refs too low quality. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond comprehensively this weekend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.90.65.199 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete refs suck, so nn. a note: the main person defending this article in this discussion just does not understand fundamental Wikipedia concepts. don't waste your time arguing. use the time to find references. if they don't exist then accept it is not an appropriate topic for wikipedia and walk away to spend your time improving other things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 19:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Osborne (writer)

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

Non-notable author, per WP:CREATIVE. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 11:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added sources that demonstrate that the subject passes WP:CREATIVE criteria 3 and 4(c). Phil Bridger (talk) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up - I can see that he meets notability. but the peacock language must be remove. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the project, but it's still a mess. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Bearian, needs some cleanup but notability is firmly established DRosin (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability question has been resolved due to the list of sources added to the page that talk specifically about the subject. The article could use cleanup and expansion, but at present shows no problem signs as far as BLP goes. Mrathel (talk) 16:09, 15 December 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. No discussion for it's inclusion after 14 days. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Local Baron

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

Even though this term has been used in Romanian politics for some years, I couldn't find a reliable source to define it. The article has an external link to a self-published source giving a definition, but this definition differs from the one on the wiki in significant ways. The only thing that comes close to a source is the English translation of a magazine article which contains a Romanian psychiatrist's opinions on the typology of local barons. Alas, he has every elaborate theory about what causes something he doesn't bother to define, except vaguely as Nouveau riche.

The wiki article also had a boatload of WP:BLP violations added by anonymous users over the years, which I've removed version before. None of the source that could be checked even referred to those guys as local barons. So, this article is a libel magnet too. It's not too hard to find one Romanian editorialist or another call one politician or another "local baron", but as far as I can tell what they mean by that varies from one writer to another...

Now, the term baron (without "local") is defined in a 2007 Romanian slang dictionary to mean "member of the Social-Democrat Party that autocratically dominates the economical or political life of a city or county". But many journalists use it outside this context, so big YMMV if an article can be written without WP:OR at this time. I should add that even the Romanian Wikipedia doesn't have an entry on this topic (it should be at ro:Baron local) Pcap ping 11:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the term is widely used, including in reliable English-language sources: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. Whether a valid, full-fledged article can be built around the topic, I'm not sure. Ideally, we should revamp the article on the PSD and mention the term there, although there are a few potential PNL (Dan Ilie Morega, Relu Fenechiu) and PDL (George Scripcaru, Antonie Solomon) barons as well - perhaps even UDMR (Attila Verestoy). So I'm undecided for now; perhaps at least a redirect is warranted if nothing else. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further OP comment - after looking through some sources are not about Romania (just clicked on the links at the top), it's clear that "local baron" is a juxtaposition of words common in English and used in many contexts outside Romanian politics. E.g. it's used to refer to mayors in Western Europe or Asia. The contemporary Romanian application does not appear unusual, not even in its metaphoric aspect. So, I'd say delete as mere WP:DICTDEF: people understand what the attribute local in front of baron means. Even adding this info to baron seems totally superfluous. Pcap ping 10:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:43, 15 December 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. Wizardman 17:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnington Truce

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

This article is about a band that does not met the general notability guidelines nor music notability guidelines. There are no reliable sources covering this band. Whpq (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [20]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bonnington Truce and likely was meant to be on this page. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the verifiable internal and external references, then reconsider deleting the Bonnington Truce subject page. Postdigi (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:46, 15 December 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. Kevin (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sauce OnDemand

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, recent launch in October 2009. Has a few links but they not WP:RS's and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Hu12 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added more references - the product was launched by Google at their Google Test Automation Conference a couple weeks ago. Google should be a good reference, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staceyeschneider (talk • contribs) 21:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERITED. Additionaly, does not appear that particular claim is properly sourced. The whole article appears to be nothing more than an Advertisement masquerading as an article, whith blogs as 'citations'. see (WP:RS).--Hu12 (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a hosted on-demand software testing framework used to remotely execute browser-based tests during web application development - in other words, non-consumer and IT-related, of interest chiefly to web developers. This sort of thing falls within the excessive attention side of Wikipedia's inherent bias. IT-related stuff rates an article only if it is of enduring historic or technical importance, and nothing like that is shown here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 10:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Smerdis on this. Eusebeus (talk) 14:31, 8 December 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. Even split after two relists, and I can't say that the delete side has a sufficient policy advantage to discount the keep !votes. Default to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 23:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases

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

Completely unnotable list of video releases. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a catalog nor directory of Disney releases. Just a list of titles, mostly non-linked, and release dates with no sources beyond the usual fansite that seems to have been spammed across all the Disney article. Does not meet Wikipedia's stand alone list criteria either.

Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walt Disney Platinum Editions -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet guidelines at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. It's neither too broad nor too narrow in scope, and the content is encyclopedic (as it records home-video releases of notable feature films and direct-to-video movies). Powers ^T 14:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator. Content is not encyclopedic and only promotes a single entertainment brand. Warrah (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep wouldn't say this for almost all distributors, but just as for some authors we include a list of all the books, we can do it as an exception for this exceptional distributor/producer. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 10 December 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. Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 03:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Borowsky

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. article looks like a resume. hardly any in depth third party coverage. [21]. LibStar (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The awards seem to indicate notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep, appears notable, but needs better references! Danski14^(talk) 20:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not notable classical performer. Eusebeus (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment born 1983 so she has a long way to go to establish herself... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if she was good enough to participate in a concert series that Cecelia Bartoli was artistic director for, I'm sure we'll be seeing more of her. http://www.genovapress.com/index.php/content/view/23035/63/ Other Google News coverage is weak, but not so weak as to require deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improve references first. If none are available then revisit, however there is an implied notability that cannot be dismissed without investigation. SGGH ^ping! 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but I don't see how being one performer in a month-long series of concerts makes for notability, however illustrious the artistic director of the series. No other sources have been presented showing any potential notability. Yes, the article is well written and makes lots of implications of notability, but there's no substance there. So the subject has performed at famous venues: well, each of my children has performed several times at the Royal Albert Hall, and my daughter also at St Mark's Basilica and the Cathedral of Santa Eulalia, but that doesn't make them notable because these were specifically youth performances, as seems to be the case for Ms. Borowsky's claims to fame. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more evidence of notability is provided. --Deskford (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Judging by press quotes on her agent's website, she is notable, but these need to be properly cited. --Klein zach 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge to Young American Virtuosi. No evidence that she's been subject of any direct detailed coverage in reliable sources, or that she meets any of the criteria in WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST or WP:MUSICBIO. Yilloslime ^T_C 03:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young American Virtuosi is also up for deletion at the moment and not looking too good either. LibStar (talk) 12:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, conflict of interest by Violineb (talk · contribs).--Canniba loki 18:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibaloki, note that there's no inherent ban against creating articles about yourself or your organization, provided Wikipedia's guidelines are followed. tedder (talk) 03:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There're millions of musicians with careers like hers. Not every professional musician deserves an article here. As I see it, she's made no impact in the classical music world.--Karljoos (talk) 23:16, 16 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Samaniego

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

fails WP:BIO. almost no third party coverage [22]. LibStar (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but... the Miss Hispanidad event does appear to be notable and she should be mentioned there, once someone creates an article on it.Ma^t_chups 12:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 10:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough third party reliable sources to meet WP:BIO or WP:N. If any of the contest are notable and article created she could be mentioned there. 16x9 (talk) 22:15, 8 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Lee_(racing_driver)

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

not notable Someidiot (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per lengthy comment I posted on the talk page (anonymously), the subject is not notable per WP:N. The AIS was a minor semi-pro series, and the only other drivers or champions to have their own articles are notable for other reasons. Another, uncited, claim to notability, being the producer of a reality show is also insufficient as there is no indication of the show actually having been made in 2 years. Someidiot (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should be AIS. The fact that there is no redirect for the uncapitalized version would seem to bolster the argument that the series itself is of marginal importance, and that being a champion is not sufficiently notable for inclusion. Someidiot (talk) 10:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not competed in the top level of the sport, only competed as an amateur. Angryapathy (talk) 14:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AIS was not a professional series. Also, I am a founding member of WikiProject American Open Wheel Racing where this article would belong and I'm confident in saying I'm an expert in the subject matter. -Drdisque (talk) 00:19, 9 December 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 withdrawn apparently this is a K-12 institution. JBsupreme (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harker School

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

Delete. This is just a middle school. If the consensus is to keep all secondary schools so be it, but this article has been lacking in sources since... J U N E 2 0 0 7. Enough. JBsupreme (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it is "just a middle school" why does the article say "Grades K-12"? Google provides a few sources for general "it exists" verification: [23], [24], as well as backs up that this school offers the full 13 grades. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even a cursory web search (or a glance at the school's own website) would have revealed that the school is K-12. Esrever ^(klaT) 12:42, 8 December 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 g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rjay:the 7th Birthday

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

Appears to be a hoax. The links in the references are dead or, in one case, points to the release dates for Hannah Montana: The Movie. Google searches also fail to support the information in this article. PROD contested by author. Favonian (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, probable hoax. :( JBsupreme (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per G3 Delete this and all other related articles. These are pages for people's home movies that someone is mascarading as wide releases. See [25] and the awful youtube videos, [26]. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. hoax article. --Bluemask (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a (well-written) hoax. A Google search just turns up wikis that link to each other. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the article's creator has a history of creating hoaxes; see his/her talk page. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 20:43, 8 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halina Larsson

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

To me this is a borderline speedy deletion as non notable. But, since it is borderline I am nominating it for a consensus view. I am on the side of "not yet notable" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well.. she currently tours with a major label band, has a studio CD and an EP, and has an article published in a magazine with a circulation of around 1.5 million-plus. So I guess i'm voting "notable" User:Rapidfirebanjo 4:15, 8 December 2009 (EST)
- Comment "Tours with" is not the same as "is notable for her own reasons." Many folk are on the same bill as a major act but are not at all notable themselves.Providing citations in reliable sources will assert notability and verify this artist. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The claim that she has an article in a magazine with 1.5M may not be accurate. The article appears to be a blog entry at that magazine's website - it does not appear to have actually appeared in the printed version. Vulture19 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1) Per the article, she was hired as a backup singer with Coheed & Cambria - she is not a member of the band. 2) Article states itself that the EP was self recorded and self produced. 3) Article itself states subject is unsigned by any label. Also, I have no idea what listing your favorite bands, er, influences has to do with anything. There is no assertion of notability. Vulture19 (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Claims in article seem exagerated, not notable yet --- BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 12:02, 11 December 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.

Uwe Kils

The result was Speedy Close. Too soon (4 days) after prior close. Please use WP:DRV to request a reopen of the old AFD if you believe shenanigans were afoot, AND if you believe the prior closing admin was unaware of such shenanigans. Please also contact the prior closing admin and discuss the matter; he may have been well aware of the sock/meat issues and still judged consensus among remaining comments to be worthy of keep. See also this ANI thread, where this issue is discussed in greater detail. Jayron32 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Prior AfD was marred by sockpuppets of the subject, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils. Searches in news, books, as well as multiple other database research archives unfortunately showed only brief mentions in passing, not enough significant discussion of biographical info on individual himself in independent secondary sources. Article also functions as WP:VANISPAM. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: At present, it appears that fully 100% of the sources currently used in this article are either primary sources and/or sources affiliated with the subject. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because Canvassing by Kils (talk · contribs), [27], [28], [29], [30], 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}}.

Keep – Kils is perhaps more notable as the inventor of the EcoSCOPE and his innovative approach to marine life photography than as an academic. Nonetheless, Google Scholar cites a number of his papers, including one with 115 citations. He is well represented in Google Books. For some reason, he has behaved in a deranged manner with his sock puppets and vanities. We do not know the circumstances of that. Anyway, he should be judged on the merits of his work, and this is not the place to punish him with an inappropriate deletion. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am not seeing significant discussion of biographical info on this individual in any those sources. Cirt (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete He's clearly taken some remarkable photographs, but I'm not convinced that this meets the notability threshold. It seemed he had a publication in Science but this turns out to be a para in "netwatch" pointing people to a website of his photos. Can't see anything in the way of secondary sources. No notable book. On the other hand 16k ghits... NBeale (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the work the subject has done in developing (or co-developing) new photographic techniques meet WP:CREATIVE #2? or the large number of photos appearing in texts count as citations, thereby meeting WP:ACADEMIC #1? Vulture19 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

photographs don't count as citations. The term is pretty well-defined. NBeale (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep on procedural grounds. We just had an AfD on Kils that was closed as keep a few days ago. Nothing has happened since then to make the subject less noteworthy, and there's no reason to believe that the closing admin of the previous AfD didn't recognize the sockpuppets or meatpuppets as what they were (they were pretty obvious). It's far too soon to try again. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils was filed 2 days after the close of the prior AFD. And as there are at least two individuals here with the position of delete, there are not grounds for speedy either way. Cirt (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recuse A lot has happened, per the sock puppetry report. ~~The subject has also stated that he wants this page deleted. [31]~~ Jehochman ^Talk 16:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked at the above diff but I don't really see a statement there that he wants the page deleted. The closest I see there is "good bye English Wikipedia" but that does not sound to me like a deletion request. Nsk92 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - He doesn't say anything about wanting this page deleted in the diff you provided --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The SPA's were noted in the just closed AfD. This one should be quickly closed as keep on procedural grounds per David Eppstein.John Z (talk) 16:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils was filed and subsequently completed exposing the confirmed socking, after the prior AfD was closed. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should the time of a more formal investigation matter? Why should we not assume the earlier admin read the AfD, noted the presence of the spa's discussed there and discounted them?John Z (talk)

Keep, on procedural grounds, per the previous AfD results. Non-withstanding clumsy meat- and sockpuppetry by Kils and Co. during and after the AfD, it is pretty clear from looking at that AfD that there was a consensus among the non-SPA users for a keep. In this case sockpuppetry is a reason for blocks and editing restrictions, not for deleting the article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Comment: I don't blame the nominator for putting this back up, given the last version was unintelligible and misrepresented the situation. Exceptional circumstances sometimes need IAR-style actions. Not that I agree with it necessarily or that I disagree with the last close, but few AfDs have that much going on at once. It's at least possible to think that some editors could not post on the last given direct involvement in current discussions elsewhere regarding the editor in question and politely avoided any possible COI matter. That said, I still suggest any close on this take the "real" opinions of the #2 nomination discussion into consideration, at least. If it sticks around, the "procedural keeps" are moot. I can't deny the at least somewhat vindictive appearance of it being put back up (it being nominatred-- not the act by the nominator. I do understand why it was don). The procedural keep opinions are certainly well-spoken if that idea is being entertained and are a good focus. Content of given opinions need particular note and most good all-around. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose close. We can revisit this in a few months time when the sockpuppetry is forgotten and we can judge this biography dispassionately. I think his notability as an academic or photographer is marginal, but I think the closing admin could see past the SPAs to discern consensus on the very recent AfD. Fences&Windows 01:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fair compromise, and support. Since the article is going to be poked at byte-for-byte at any further changes, let's assume it won't get "worse". In a few months all shall be cleansed from our souls, and who knows, the article might even be better. I have faith in the SPI recommendations working out, and a few months will make sure that has played out properly as a bonus measure of accuracy to claim "stability". Perhaps then, ponder another look. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, would rather this discussion run the full standard time. Cirt (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please see discussion page Uwe Kils 09:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to canvassing template above: I've posted to the author of the restrictions placed upon this user. Apparently plenty of others already did as well, but I figured it was worth posting here anyway, or at least this will be a time keeping marker is canvassing comes in once more. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I already !voted for keeping in the last AFD, so you already know my opinion. I'll note again that he was awarded the Heinz Maier Leibnitz Prize, and that he got a EB-1 visa to travel to the US, and that he seems to have won other two awards, even if we don't have right now the source for them, and that this seems to meet WP:PROF. I'll also note that he appears quite a few times at google scholar [32]. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show secondary sources that give biographical detail on the individual? Cirt (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not participate in the original AfD, but I do not see the points made by Enric Naval above as particularly clear-cut. We do not, for the moment, have any info about what the Heinz Maier Leibnitz Prize is, who awarded it and to what extent it is significant. I do see from the subject's CV[33] that this prize is dated 1979, the same year the subject appears to have obtained his PhD. Now, to the EB-1 visa matter. Here I am something of an expert, having gone through an academia job-based immigration process myself. Despite its illustrious-sounding name (outstanding professor/researcher or alien of extraordinary ability), the EB-1 visa in practice does not really mean these things. It is a particular administrative category of immigration visas that allows to make the green card approval process a bit faster. The decision to approve an EB-1 petition is made not by the peers of an academic in question, but by immigration officials who have no qualifications in the academic subject of the applicant. They rely on a set of formal criteria which in practice are fairly easy to satisfy for any practicing academic. For "outstanding professor and researcher" one needs to satisfy at least 2 out of 6 criteria[34]. Two of them (4 and 6) can be satisfied by publishing several articles and refereeing several papers. All but the most beginning academics can satisfy these requirements. Most people I know who were approved under EB-1 category, were approved while Assistant Professors and quite a few even as postdocs; none of them would have been considered notable by Wikipedia standards at the time their EB-1 applications were approved. Finally, an approval of an EB-1 application is by definition a private matter (unlike public acts such as academic prizes and awards) and is not published in any public forum (the only person who gets notified is the petitioner) and as such they do not satisfy WP:V requirements. Nsk92 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Volkswagen Foundation gave Uwe Kils a grant for EcoSCOPE, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft's Heisenberg Programme gave him a fellowship. This is as yet not properly sourced, but they're grants not prizes. But he did win the Heinz Maier-Leibnitz-Preis in 1979 and this is sourced.[35] If biographical details are lacking in sources, then we should stub this biography down to what we can source from independent primary and secondary sources, i.e. that he was an oceanographer, he was given some grants and a prize, he worked at Rutgers, and his photos have been used in some books and highlighted on the (now defunct) FishBase. Fences&Windows 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why this barrage of deletion requests? I think we need to get some perspective here - if things like Rap Cat are tolerated, Uwe Kils should be kept without question. --Magnus Manske (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user was canvassed by Kils (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Fences&Windows 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as in the previous AfD. Magnus, there is no "barrage of deletion requests; there was only a barrage of sock/meat puppets. I don't see the objection to this renomination, and I don't mind stating again that I believe the subject to be notable--as well as, in ThuranX's words from the previous AfD, "obnoxiously self-aggrandizing." Perhaps I should add all my academic titles in my signature as well? Given the canvassing signaled above, I wonder whether Kils gets the point, but that's another matter. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed by User:Kils. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make matters clear: Cirt, I am sure you do not intend the above remark to suggest something about me, right? Drmies (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject's notability seems adequate for the project. --Sn0wflake (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassed by User:Kils. Cirt (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was canvassed to vote, but despite that I am going to. I am also nobody's sock, meat or glove puppet, and there ain't no strings on me neither. Neither am I even a student of a student of Kils, and to the best of my knowledge I don't even know one. I came in by accident on the second AfD. I still feel there is notability. Perhaps in directions other than the academic, but so what? Borodin always thought of himself as a chemist, but what do most people remember him for? (Yes, the musical Kismet, his posthumous collaboration with Wright and Forrest...) Out of curiosity, what is the record for AfDs for an article? I've not seen more than three yet. Must watch in case... Peridon (talk) 17:52, 9 December 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. No rationale for a directoral merge, though a redirect can be created if desired Wizardman 16:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Fork in the Road (film)

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

A film that seems to have had no impact on its release (not to be confused with the 2007 movie that actually has some ghits). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Kouf. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article indicates this film hasnt been released yet- the author can always create an article once the film actually exists. If it was say, an eagerly awaiting Star wars installment it might be notable enough to have an article prior to release- but that doesn't seem to apply here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunk500 (talk • contribs) 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jim Kouf and allow return once the now completed film gets release and some coverage to meet WP:NF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:28, 17 December 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 List of cognitive biases. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinarity bias

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

Apparently not a notable topic. No sources given: no hits for the phrase on Google Scholar or Google Books, not mentioned in common books on cognitive biases. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is already mentioned on the List of cognitive biases. It belongs there and should not be separated into its own article until it has a reliable source or two.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of cognitive biases as per above. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. Interestingly Bruce M. Hood, a cognitive science researcher, does work on a very similar cognitive bias. His differs from this in that it is not only a positive response to extraordinarity, but also a negative one. In one example asking people to wear a cardigan he is holding. They say okay, then he says "it was Charles Manson's sweater." Then, they say no.TheThomas (talk) 14:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The AfD notice seems never to have been placed on the article itself, so I relisted it to complete the nomination. Despite the long time since the original nomination and the seeming consensus above, please let this run a full seven days from the time of relisting to allow people who have the article watchlisted to notice and comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per above. Eusebeus (talk) 15:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect for now, but if someone wants to do a more comprehensive and sourced article, there's always room to spin it back out. Mandsford (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't do the original AfD properly, and thanks to David Eppstein for doing a proper job. Merge into the list if that's what people want, though I doubt there are even the sources to justify it on that page. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:51, 8 December 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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Borodavkin

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. only 2 hits in gnews [36] which includes Finnish coverage. LibStar (talk) 06:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 15 December 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. No discussion for it's inclusion after 14 days. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polite Sleeper

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

fails WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews [37]. LibStar (talk) 06:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as "significant coverage", the best I can find are reviews for their latest album here and here, and others at some blogs. I don't believe this meets WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 07:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:43, 15 December 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Maline

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

His managerial career may or may not be notable enough. Alex (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If only a portion of a single season, definitely not notable enough. The deep minors make even less notable than that. DarkAudit (talk) 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BASE/N and WP:N – only source provided is an unreliable wiki. BRMo (talk) 22:32, 8 December 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kahn

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

He was notable when he was on the Seattle Mariners 40-man roster. He has since retired, never reaching the major leagues. I do not believe he did anything very notable as a minor leaguer, so I think this article should be deleted. Alex Alex (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never made a major league appearance. Never made it above AA ball. No awards or all-anything teams. That does not meet the standards for baseball players. DarkAudit (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTEMP. Nominator's statement says he was notable as one time, so the article meets the requirements for inclusion. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, notability does not expire, and if he was notable for being on the 40-man roster, then he remains so even after he was off it. Second, he was unusually notable as an amateur, winning the West Coast Conference's Pitcher of the Year award in 2004, and winning a gold medal as a member of the rotation on the USA Baseball National Team that same year.[38] -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Baseball Reference does not list him as ever making it above the AA level, much less the majors. Just being on the 40-man roster is not really sufficient. Using another editor's opinion that the subject was notable as rationale for keeping is not enough. There has to be more concrete proof than "that guy said he was notable". The "National Team" you mention is not the true national team, but a team of college players tapped to play a series against Japanese college players. That is not a high enough amateur representation per WP:ATHLETE. The Pitcher of the Year award is for the conference, not a national award. I'm dubious that it is a high enough award. DarkAudit (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see notability. He was 10-10 as a college pitcher and had a 1-3 record at the highest level he played (which was only AA). No major league appearances and one victory at AA level--not notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hit bull, win steak and Jim Miller. Notability does not simply expire. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:WPBB/N states: "To establish that [an MiLB player's article] is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," and that it does. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing says he's retired. It was added by an IP who put other players as retired and most of the edits were reverted. From what I can find he's still active. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 04:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The opinion of another Wikipedia editor does not meet the standards of notability. Just because one editor thought he was doesn't make it so. Notability may not expire, but I do not believe there was any notability there to begin with. So what has he done as a minor leaguer that's notable beyond merely playing? For a player who never rose above AA level, you're going to need something quite substantial to prove your assertion. The articles provided are roster moves and wrap-ups. If Kahn is mentioned at all, it's in passing. You're left with two articles at best where Kahn is the subject. Not the subtantial coverage required. DarkAudit (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles still mention Kahn, making it coverage and per WP:WPBB/N that establishes notability. Also, WP:ATHLETE states: "people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport," Minor league baseball is fully professional (see professional baseball). I'm also not sure what you mean by "opinion." They are notability guidelines, not "opinions." --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few editors are basing their endorsement on the phrase "He was notable when he was on the Seattle Mariners 40-man roster.". That is nothing but the opinion of a single editor. There is no record that he ever suited up with the major league parent club. WP:N says that an article needs to be about the subject. A mention in passing as part of a wider article about a different topic, say the movement of a block of players from Rookie League to A ball, is not sufficient. Although WP:ATHLETE says ""people who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", the more specific baseball guideline says that minor league baseball players do not meet that more general guideline without significant coverage. A simple roster move is not significant coverage. A catch-all "notebook" column with multiple topics about the club is not significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say "players do not meet that more general guideline without significant coverage" it says "Minor league players, managers, coaches, executives, and umpires are not assumed to be inherently notable. To establish that one of these is notable, the article must cite published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Fan sites and blogs are generally not regarded as reliable sources, and team sites are generally not regarded as independent of the subject. Although statistics sites may be reliable sources, they are not sufficient by themselves to establish notability." It says nothing of "notebooks" because they can be coverage from a reliable source. You can't just make stuff up. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that a "notebook" column in the local paper, the catch-all column for the bits and pieces that doesn't warrant an article of it's own is not significant coverage. These are the types of columns that the most pressing news might be "So-and-so used a black glove instead of his usual brown against Pawtucket today." It doesn't matter how reliable the source is if there's no there there. DarkAudit (talk) 21:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rule saying a news article can't have more than one subject. If it's from a reliable source than it is reliable coverage. The article's subject is not the references, the subject is what the references back-up in the WP article. I'm not going to continue in discussion with you if you keep making up guidelines about coverage. If the news article is reliable and has information about the subject the WP article, there's no reason it can't be used. One of the notebooks you talk about has a section about Kahn and Michael Garciaparra being named AFL rising stars [39], not "So-and-so used a black glove instead of his usual brown against Pawtucket today." You just keep making things up and I'm not going to continue discussing this with someone who can't admit what is right before them and has to resort to making guidelines out of thin air. I hope I made my point to everyone else. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making things up. There is nothing but trivial coverage here. Trivial coverage is most certainly part of the guidelines "Farm Report: Lefties on the rise" for example. The article is about three other pitchers who are definitely not Stephen Kahn. He doesn't get mentioned at all until the article lists other prospects at the bottom of the article. He's 9th on the list. That is trivial coverage. same for "Farm Report: Pitching in the pipeline". He's not part of the main story at all, but 5th on a list of nuggets about prospects. The reliability isn't in question. You're barking up the wrong tree there. DarkAudit (talk) 14:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Trivial material is "Kahn pitched one inning today" and articles like that are not cited in Kahn's article. The main topic about this ref isn't about Kahn's promotion but the subject is related to his promotion, this article is about prospects in full, while Kahn is mentioned in his own section. This article is about cuts in camp, Kahn being one of them. The refs aren't trivial. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They most certainly are trivial. "His own section"? One paragraph in a list of 10 players. Just mentioning his name in a list of dozen or so roster moves. Those are about as passing a mention as it gets. DarkAudit (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree, you just want to argue and I'm not going to take the bait. I still think it's funny you call being added to a 40-man roster or being released trivial but whatever. Regardless of what you call trivial Kahn has still competed at a fully professional league (see professional and Minor league baseball) and even more closely the article cites other refs that are about Kahn so he passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:WPBB/N. Good day. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bona-fide major leaguer. Also playing for the US National team would also make him pass WP:ATHLETE -Drdisque (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Would you kindly elaborate on why you say he is a "bona-fide major leaguer"? He never pitched a game in the major leagues. Alex (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Playing for the US National team and appearance on 40 man roster makes him notable. The article also has enough sourcing to satisfy notability requirements. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the source in the article, the U.S. team he was selected to was a collegiate team for a series against the Japanese collegiate all-stars. When I checked USABaseball.com, it's unclear whether he was a member of the team that played in the World University baseball championships that year. I'm not sure, but I don't think that satisfies WP:ATHLETE since it's not the highest level of amateur baseball. USA Baseball only shows him with 1 start and the referenced article says it was an exhibition game against Canada where he pitched 3 innings. Sorry, but I don't see how 1 victory in AA ball and no major league appearances makes a pitcher notable. Papaursa (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources. The article seems to meet our inclusion criteria. Sam Barsoom 19:42, 12 December 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. No evidence of notability for this record label, the one argument for keep is based on special pleading, not policy. Fences&Windows 00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adorno Records

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

A Google search turns up exactly 10 hits, none of which gives any significant coverage of this label whatsoever. The article author has attempted to add sources, but they are only mentions such as "Rock Ness Monsters on Adorno Recors", for example. Therefore I am of the opinion that this article fails WP:GNG and WP:RS, as well as WP:V ArcAngel (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can find no significant coverage for this label in reliable sources; does not satisfy WP:GNG. Gongshow ^Talk 07:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wrote this article and would like to justify why I don't think it deserves deletion:

the articles I cited about releases on the label (through archival at thefreelibrary.com) were originally published in the Daily Record (which does not maintain its own online archive after a set amount of time). The Daily Record is the largest national newspaper in Scotland with a readership in excess of 2 million (a third of the population of Scotland). I don't understand why this isn't considered a good and primary source considering the permalink available at thefreelibrary.com. Further, the articles cited specifically were about releases on the label (and the first included quotes from the label);
the CDs and records themselves - that they actually exist and sold well (every release has been 1,000+ which in Scottish indie terms is large);
lots of national radio coverage (in addition to airplay of songs) including interviews with the label on BBC Radio One, XFM, Radio Scotland etc. of which MP3s exist;
section about the label in the report for Government by Scottish Enterprise: Mapping the Music Industry in Scotland, Williamson, J., Cloonan, M. and Frith, S.;
section about the label in the most recent version of the book: The Great Scots Musicography - the complete guide to Scotland's music makers, M. C. Strong;
lots of newspaper / magazine / media articles in written press (albeit unfortunately not internet archived);
listings in online retailers such as Amazon and HMV;
there are several other directly comparable Scottish record labels with Wikipedia pages that haven't been as successful as Adorno Records (smaller catalogue / less sales / less impact), also with less / without cited sources, and with less content than I provided in this page;
the label is highly regarded in both the underground scene and industry in Scotland and I think it is therefore notable enough to warrant inclusion on Wikipedia;
as the label is on hiatus since the end of 2005, there hasn't been a lot written about it since then and this goes against it in Google searches, but doesn't make it any less valid from an encyclopedic historical POV surely.

In all I don't really understand why this page's validity is being challenged in a real sense. I didn't understand Wikipedia to discriminate against things which exist mainly in an offline world but it appears to be the case by implication (the record label has only ever released physical releases). If you tell me what needs amending and with what I will do that, surely a better alternative? Pr78 (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — Pr78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The problem is that there is no significant coverage of the label itself. Most of the sources I found only had passing mentions of the label - that is not enough to pass the notability standards of Wikipedia. If you say 1,000 units is large in the indie sense, in the general sense it is really insignificant. Listings on online retail sites isn't an indication of notabilty - it's just an indication of sales. If there are other Scottish labels that are less notable than Adorno that have pages, those articles could be looked at and challenged if need be. The issue with this article is getting primary sources that cover the label and not the artists on the label - if those could be found and added, it would help. ArcAngel (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in context though, the top ten of the official Scottish charts is normally less or around that mark. I can't find an archive anywhere though of previous Scottish charts. As I understand it also, it doesn't have to be international impact for inclusion on Wikipedia but national (ie Scotland) will do, yes? Pr78 (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CORP. Eusebeus (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In addition to my previous post. A Google search on "Adorno Records" (with quotation marks) selecting UK only returns 50 hits including media (Daily Record, Evening Telegraph, BBC etc) and industry organisations (Scottish Music Centre, NEMIS). Same search with quotations on Google but not selecting UK only has 589 hits - looking down page one, the majority of which are referencing the label (as opposed to the philosopher of which some nearer the top are about) Pr78 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — Pr78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Delay until sources are added - WP:CORP says Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. It appears that this company has very little international coverage, true, but if the claims by PR78 above are correct, then there is strong national (Scottish) coverage. However, the article does not cite any Scottish newspapers; indeed it does not cite any secondary sources and only includes a small list of official websites for various acts (not even a website for the label). At this stage, the lack of sources is the problem, not the notability or otherwise. I suggest delaying this AfD until published reliable secondary sources are cited. If WP:N fails after that, relist. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:02, 13 December 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) 16:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lowyat.net

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

I cannot find any reasonably firm evidence that this forum is notable, and the article didn't come with any references. Drmies (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I thought I had looked carefully enough through the history; I didn't notice it had been at AfD before. My apologies. Drmies (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a reasonably famous techie website and forum in Malaysia. Outside of the country, only people accessing the website and forum are Malaysians living abroad. However, the article itself has been non-informational and has been vandalized again and again. I believe this article should be taken down until they learn what and what not to do with wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.13.50.44 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've declined the speedy; the first AfD was sparsely attended and was over a year ago. No harm in letting this run the full week. Mackensen (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources in the article. Miami33139 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are some google news hits but they don't discuss the topic in detail. Polarpanda (talk) 11:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 11:55, 15 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Terrorism

AfDs for this article:

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

An obscure Ukranian Neonazi black metal band with a single album by a weird label. - Altenmann >t 03:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Delete/Merge Entered ("Aryan Terrorism" metal) into google, looked at 15 pages of links. Merge to Nokturnal Mortum Vulture19 (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not independently notable and little to no mergable content. Horselover Frost (talk) 04:51, 8 December 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) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VYRE

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

Fails GNG. I'm unable to find significant (as in outside the trade rags) third-party coverage of this company. Haakon (talk) 12:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why doesn't this meet CSD A7, unremarkable company? Miami33139 (talk) 06:45, 8 December 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. Cirt (talk) 18:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cohler

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nom, declined WP:G4. Was deleted by a previous AfD in 08, thought it's been long enough to deserve another look at from the community. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. I was originally going to say "delete". Sources cited in the article are not sufficient to make him notable: one instance where he served on a discussion panel for techcrunch.com, one bio page from a company he works for, and one link to his blog about puppies. (I'm not kidding, those are the only "sources" in the article!) However, a Google searched turned up an item specifically about him in Business Week. That's beginning to sound more like it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep Cohler has received significant coverage from reliable sources such as The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and TIME Magazine. He definitely meets WP:GNG in that he has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - but the sources in the article need to be replaced with the independent ones. Racepacket (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put the TIME and LA Times references in last week. Is it the TechCrunch references that you object to? There seems to be plenty of independent sources available on Cohler via Google news and I can swap the TechCrunch ones out if they're considered unreliable. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 16:12, 8 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehruddin Marri

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

Non notable journalist. The 2 sentences in the article merely say he is a journalist, and that he was arrested at some point. Notability is not established by reliable sources. Ragib (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a perfectly fine ref that meets all demands there to establish notability. One could argue for WP:BLP1E, but having The arrest of Mehruddin Marri instead of this article seems a bit silly to me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

Notable with several good sources - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable as a journalist who was kidnapped. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:43, 9 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miniaim

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, an unreferenceable article about an instant messaging client. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 8 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eon Netminder

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced article about a non notable browser addon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 8 December 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 19:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shahnawaz Farooqui

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

Non-notable journalist. Notability is not established via independent third party sources. A google search (sans wikimirrors, facebook, blogs) shows only 244 hits). No third party coverage from reliable sources can be found on the subject's notability. Ragib (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Google News search linked above finds several sources describing the subject as "renowned", "prominent", "leading", "noted" etc. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to tell us why he's notable? Refs? --Ragib (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per wp:notability and [40]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ChildOfMidnight. Repeatedly described by sources as "renowned intellectual". cab (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And sources which describe the subject as "renowned" do not satisfy WP:N or WP:GNG. To satisfy either one, there must be reliable sources which "discuss the subject in significant detail." These G-News articles quote Farooqui, but they're not about him. Does anyone have any which do to submit? RGTraynor 13:44, 15 December 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. Kevin (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom McDevitt

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

Fails WP:Notable. The article only says that he held a fairly important job for the last two years and a couple other jobs before that. Nothing is said to show that he is important or influential. Family information is added from a church website. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I started the article it hasn't developed since then. He is now involved in events at the Washington Times so if the Post or the NYT does a profile on him this article could be restarted. As it is now, and as the nominator said, there is not much information out there about him besides being hired and then fired or resigning from a couple of jobs. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep President -- which in this case seems to mean publisher--of a major newspaper is notable. Not as much as the editor in chief, but still notable. The article from the Washington Post is sufficient for verifiability & in my opinion for notability also. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good rationale as provided by DGG (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears pretty notable to me. Artw (talk) 17:20, 11 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean A. Pittman

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

This biography was created by an SPA who also worked on the Don West, Jr. article covering his law partner. It lacks independent third party sources that provide non-trivial coverage of this individual. This article reads like an avertisement for the indivdual and law firm in question. Although the article does have sources, a couple are local media, and one is a website reposting of the law frim's press release. See COIN for details. Racepacket (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, notability not established ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This articles needs serious rewriting. It is full with Wiki links trying to make it look good, but it doesn't. Some of the sources wouldn't be considered reliable enough to establish any notability. Closing admin, good luck! Deganveranx (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Seemed notable but sources don't meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Extensive sourcing still doesn't show notability. -- Atama頭 02:15, 9 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford's court challenge to Prostitution Law

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bedford's court challenge to Prostitution Law

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

Unreferenced essay, also falls afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Possible merge to Prostitution in Canada, but not worth a standalone article. GlassCobra 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is still an essay, it still runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. I see no reason to merge this anywhere. JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable litigation, unlikely to be currently before a court that issues opinions published as public precedents given that it's a new court challenge launched ... on October 6, 2009. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. PK T(alk) 16:51, 8 December 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. Kevin (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royalty Check

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

Article containing hypothetical information and rumors about an album to be released at some unspecified point in the future. Not currently notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No information, WP:CRYSTAL --Fbifriday (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This is the best I can find as far as "significant coverage", and I don't believe there's enough information to support an independent article, not to mention a lack of a release date or track listing. This does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 00:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above by gongshow, Glenfarclas etc --Brunk500 (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL says it all really DRosin (talk) 12:47, 15 December 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 Municipal solid waste. So Why 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Properties of MSW

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

An interesting subject, but this looks like someone copied and pasted an engineering paper. Wikipedia is not a textbook or a scientific journal. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve at a subpage of the talk page of municipal solid waste and delete the resulting redirect. There probably is information here that would be useful for editors seeking to improve that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of this information into Municipal Solid Waste. It's actually an interesting article, but it reads like a municipal public works study and seems to be a synthesis of original research. Also, I've never heard of a page called "Properties of X." Seems like that's what the article on X should be about. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the merge proposal, or add as subpage to talk page per Smerdis. Some potentially interesting material, but with a single inline reference, so needs work before it can be pulled into the other article. That would also help alleviate the concern about a possible copy and paste.--SPhilbrick T 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a good solution, but if we're going to delete the redirect (which also seems reasonable), then presumably a history merge will be needed, which could get ugly because the two articles have overlapping histories. --RL0919 (talk) 01:32, 21 December 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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 02:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yannis Grammaticopoulos

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

Non-notable artist. Only ghits are related to social and networking sites, or to people selling his art on eBay. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:20, 8 December 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. Kevin (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Fagundes

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

Article about a young musician apparently created by the article's subject for self-promotion. Does not show notability, and my searches turn up little beyond a bunch of Myspace-y sites. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 03:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he removed {prod} and {notability} tags multiple times, never even attempted to make his article neutral, never responded on the talk page, doesn't provide independent sources (I strongly doubt that lucasfagundes.com would count as such), and created a blatantly obvious sock puppet. (It's the name of his own guitar, for god's sake.) And, of course, the article is an autobiography. Jules112 (talk) 11:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:47, 9 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Llysa

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

Fails WP:ENT. A pretty but minor model; sourcing can only verify that she's worked professionally. No real notability. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:48, 9 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Centric Sensing

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

Original Research. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fractionally better than OR but no evidence offered so delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR. Miami33139 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research: ...leverages devices carried by humans to collect useful information. The use of "leverage" in this sense is a red flag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 8 December 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. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Violent Acres

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

Non-notable blog. Recent contested prod. Blargh29 (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Doesn't look like it was ever prodded; speedys were attempted though. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was deleted via prod & then restored per a request on my talk page. When undeleting, I didn't restore the revision where the prod was added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment... well, it certainly needs a rewrite and sourcing to show notability. Seems that it got a minor write up by Fox News about one of the funnier postings. Following Fox's link, I read the posting. Hilarious. Surprised this has not gotten more press. Then it's part of an article from Seattle Times that was reprinted in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. Haven't done much looking past that. Too Busy chuckling. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This does indeed appear to be a popular blog (top 100K websites in US overall), but popularity doesn't equate with notability. GNews finds only 2 mentions, neither significant. A Lexis Nexis search reveals about half a dozen more sources, but unfortunately they all appear to either just repeat a joke or say "check out this funny blog." The Seattle Times article is perhaps the most significant source of the bunch, and it is extremely minimal. I would probably give this one a pass if one significant source could be found, but as it stands now there is nothing with which to write an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant sources. Miami33139 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. - Achissden (talk) 01:24, 9 December 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 Radio Philippines Network. Cirt (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solar TV

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

Redundant. Radio Philippines Network should be moved here instead. ViperSnake151 Talk 12:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close as moot It's already been redirected. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:52, 9 December 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. Currently consensus is in favor of deletion but also in favor of allowing recreation once the subject became sufficiently notable. If someone wants to have it userfied or incubated, please contact me. Regards So Why 15:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Earth 2010

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

The article was PROD'ed but the author removed the PROD claiming that Google will yield an image on IMDb; however, even with that, I believe it still fails the WP:NF guidelines as it has no good sources (IMDb is speculative) and it's full of WP:CRYSTAL (it's going to come out in 2010?). —Duncan (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I substantially editted the article to wikify it, and now it is more of a stub to reflect the indie nature of the film. There is a California Chronicle article that describes the film at length. Right now I say keep, and see if the film gains more notoriety. Angryapathy (talk) 14:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Cman7792 (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC) This film has information on online and in many newspapers, especially in connecticut. as the film gets closer to being released, more information on the film will be released as well. so for the time being, keep this article.[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual title of the film is "Another Earth," not "Another Earth 2010," according to the two New Haven Register articles I found (there was a third, but it was just a passing mention). No mention of the film in the Hartford Courant. I don't have access to the Connecticut Post via database, but a search of their website only brings up one of the Register articles, so I'm guessing they haven't covered it. I added the two good Register articles as citations; The California Chronicle is a mirror of the 11/23 article in the Register, but I didn't know the protocol about adding a link to another paper's website. Note the dates on the two Register articles: October 3 and November 23 of this year. They were filming just a couple of weeks ago. That part makes me a little nervous. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very little coverage, from non-notable production company. Oct 3 and Nov 23 Register articles more about filming location and director, respectively, than about the film itself. Delete and wait until closer to release to re-evaluate notability. --skew-t (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Indie film that doesn't meet any of the elements of WP:NOTFILM even were it released, which it has not been. Of the three references listed by Some Jerk, as he says, one is a mirror of a second, which is an article on the director of the movie, not on the movie itself, and so fails as a reference. This leaves a single reference, which doesn't satisfy WP:V. Beyond that, the general criterion on WP:NOTFILM holds that only "full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers " (emphasis mine) counts as valid refs. The degree to which the New Haven Register, with only a third the circulation of the Hartford Courant and isn't even widely circulated beyond its home two counties in Connecticut, is a "large circulation newspaper" I leave up to your opinions, but I wouldn't think it was one myself. Ravenswing 13:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate I gave the article a cleanup, and feel it will benefit from incubation so that it might receive continued attention and sourcing before a return to mainspace upon release and additional coverage. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The little coverage that has been found is mostly passing mentions in articles on other subjects, except for one local paper article about the production. Incubation would be reasonable if there was a high likelihood of the film becoming notable in the future, but it is an independent film by a seemingly non-notable director (the link to his name in the article goes to a different person named "Mike Cahill", unless the director also happens to be a retired professional tennis player), with a cast of non-star actors. Perhaps it will break through, but many small films do not. If that happens, a new article can be created or the old one revived via WP:DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 00:15, 22 December 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. Wizardman 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jostein Saether

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable, obscure writer. Has been nominated for deletion before, but back then, he may have been confused with another person named Jostein Sæther, who is a professor of education, born 1950. Geschichte (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced and no assertion of notability, since the article does not explain why Saether is notable. Having written an autobiography in no way makes a person inherently notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per our standard for Authors. Eusebeus (talk) 15:08, 8 December 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. The only reason cited in favor of deletion was WP:LISTCRUFT which is an essay and as such does not reflect community consensus. Our deletion policy requires policy-based reasons for deletion though and such reasons have not been mentioned. As such the outcome cannot be anything else than keep (see also WP:ITSCRUFT for a longer explanation why simply saying something is "cruft", without further explanation based on policies and guidelines why this is a reason for deletion, is not a good argument in favor of deletion). Regards So Why 15:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts

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

Non-notable cruft, akin to a article like "List of Saturday Night Live guests". A IP removed the PROD with no explanation. TJ Spyke 02:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 02:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good search item. Enough reliable sources are in existence to sustain notability, however the issue of listcruft could be debatable. Either kept as a seperate article or moved to WWE Raw is how I feel it should go down. Now maybe turning it in a prose section of WWE Raw with the list would be nice.--WillC 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The info has been deletd from the Raw article several times precisely because its listcruft. The general agreement was to include mention of the guest host idea and a link to WWE's page on it. TJ Spyke 16:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with WWE Raw. Definitely WP:LISTCRUFT on it's own, but I don't think it should be deleted outright. !! Justa Punk !! 04:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJ Spyke. You are exactly right, we don't have a List of Saturday Night Live guests because that would be ridiculous. Might I remind you, we are an ENCYCLOPEDIA people. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per Justa Punk.--Curtis23 (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Also per Justa Punk. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Also per Justa Punk. Armbrust (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problem with merging and why it shouldn't be done (at least with the Raw article, although it shouldn't be merged anywhere): it opens up a floodgate. These guest hosts are no different than any other acting and 1-night GMs. You would have to add in the Spirit Squad, Maven, Randy Orton, that Make-A-Wish kid, etc. Basically anyone who was made GM for the night. Take a look at Professional wrestling authority figures#Temporary General Managers for all the people. The GM list on Raw should only list people who were full time GM, not one night. TJ Spyke 15:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TJ Spyke Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - notability is easily established with reliable sources; expanding the article to give information about the reason, the effect on ratings, the promotion, the Donald Trump "purchase" and resulting false press release, would make for a very useful non-crufty article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I agree with Gary. Couldn't have said it better myself, and that is true because I failed to above.--WillC 00:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That should have been done by now or while being nominated. Right now I don't see how anyone can think the article should be kept, its nothing more than a table of the guest hosts. TJ Spyke 00:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and recall that this is for a show that is not known for Guest Hosts which has garnered considerable promotion.--WillC 01:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a good time to re-read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Nobody's working on it. The fact that is hasn't yet been improved is a surmountable problem and not a good reason to delete. Remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have to giv your opinion on the current state of the article. Based on the pathetic article, I don't see how anyone can say Keep, and the only original material here is cruft. TJ Spyke 00:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This list is keeping the List of Authority Figures tidy by putting all of the participants into one entry and avoids the issue raised by TJ. Flyingcandyman (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Same as Gary's reason was above.--WillC 00:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to TJ Spyke: You definitely do not have you give an opinion based on the current state of the article. In fact, it is harmful to Wikipedia to do so, and the instructions on the main AfD page remind editors that "the potential of the topic should be considered" (emphasis added). If the subject is notable, the subject is notable, regardless of whether the article currently has sufficient sources to establish notability. The purpose of deletion discussions is not to get rid of bad articles, but rather to delete articles without potential. If the potential exists for an article to become worthwhile and establish notability, it should be kept. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the potential in this article. It's cruft now and I don't see it being more. Someone can work on it on a sandbox, then propose it be re-created. TJ Spyke 23:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you don't see the potential, please see my comment from 00:53, 13 December 2009. There is no valid reason to delete the article, as it meets the notability guidelines. The "cruft" argument is easily dismissed, as WP:CRUFT defines the term as "of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". Based on the mainstream media coverage (Trump's purchase, ZZ Top's hosting, etc.), this obviously doesn't qualify as cruft. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per TJ Spyke. Also the list is an orphan nothing really goes with it and you could just go on and on with this list and it's cruft. Curtis23 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC). Add-on Also not really important.--Zack Ryder Fan Give him a page 00:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you have any valid arguments, per WP:AFD? GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He did, and I could ask the same to those saying Keep. TJ Spyke 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the notability of this can easily be established, publications of details listed here can easily be referenced by Magazines, Newspapers and Sites in and out of the Professional Wrestling Business, this article can also be vastly expanded on I'm sure. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 06:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe, but people can do that on sandboxes. TJ Spyke 21:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's wrong with the idea of doing it on the article? Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 21:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Maybe because it's CRUFT? It's the same reason articles on people get deleted and the article creator told they can continue working on it in a sandbox and later submit it to be re-created. The article is nothing more than a list of hosts, it's no more notable than any other show with guests (I could probably find more sources for SNL hosts than this article, maybe the same for guests on talkshows). TJ Spyke 21:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand the opening argument, given Saturday Night Live hosts. I know, wp:OSE, but using the lack of something as an argument falls flat when the something actually exists. I won't argue that WWE is in the same league as SNL. However, the potential for the WWE list to be more than a raw list is there—editors should be encouraged to follow the SNL model and beef up the article.--SPhilbrick T 15:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do plan to work on the article and not just on the sourcing, I feel much more can be said about how this began what impact some of the Hosts have had on the stories (eg Cuban getting put through a Table was a part of the build up to the TLC PPV, and there has been some documentation on the ratings which can be meddled about with, overall I would think this can be improved dramatically. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 23:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sphil, the SNL article talks about the record for most times hosting, youngest host, the importance they place on the host, etc. It's not a list everyone who has hosted the show. TJ Spyke 23:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although !votes are discouraged, it seems to me that when the reason for deletion is specifically cited as a poor argument for deletion discussions, there has been no proper assertion that the article should be deleted, and therefore there is no reason to expound on a keep !vote. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you are not familiar with AFD's, let me explain something. The nomination reason is valid, and the closing admin will usually ignore comments like yours (which are just votes with no reason given). TJ Spyke 00:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I reckon I know a little more about AfD than you do. You do realize that WP:ITSCRUFT leads to a page called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, right? And while we're at it, you do realize badgering every !keep voter isn't helping your nomination, and makes you look like a brat, right? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care anymore. If it keeps the cruft off of the WWE Raw and Professional wrestling authority figures pages, then fine. TJ Spyke 00:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a nominator withdrawl, can someone close this then? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it's not. I think you'll find that TJ is tired of arguing with people who clearly in my opinion don't understand WP:LISTCRUFT. !! Justa Punk !! 05:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, you mean that opinion essay that isn't even a guideline let alone a policy? 96.244.150.95 (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You're not making any sense.--Curtis23 (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It shows a list of every guest host that has been general manager for WWE Raw for the night. The Spirit Squad, Maven, that Make-a-Wish kid and anyone else who has been a guest host for one night that is not listed, should be listed as they were guest host, not from when Mr. McMahon started the guest host for the night at the end of June of 2009. If the argument is that every guest host shouldn't be listed because there isen't a list of guest hosts on SNL, then the list of General Managers, Color Cominators, and Announsers on the WWE Raw page should be deleted as well. If the List of WWE Raw Guest Hosts page gets deleted, the list of General Managers, Color Cominators, and Announsers on the WWE Raw page should be deleted as well. Gibsonj338 (talk) 06:40, 22 December 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 programs broadcast by Disney XD. Kevin (talk) 02:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney XD Original Movies

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

I've done some searching and, unless I'm mistaken, there appears to be only one original Disney XD original film to date. Since that film (Skyrunners has a page, and since that film is mentioned on the Disney XD page, I don't think a list article is necessary. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —— Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —— Hunter Kahn _(c) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One movie does not a list make. Already mentioned at Disney XD (United States). If Disney XD broadcasts more original movies, then they can be listed at List of programs broadcast by Disney XD. — Sarilox (talk) 19:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This information is also included in List of programs broadcast by Disney XD, which is a much stronger list article. I think a redirect to that page would be an acceptable outcome of this AFD, if not delete. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. LOL that there is a "list" for one item. JBsupreme (talk) 07:11, 8 December 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) 18:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Window valance

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

Dicdef, no hope of expansion, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Lots of articles begin as dicdefs, and I don't see why this article is any less capable of expansion than, say, Venetian blinds. I doubt that characterizing this as a dicdef is accurate, it's just a short article about a physical device. And a FBI director nearly lost his job after a scandal involving window valances. Really. [41] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom lists deficiencies of the article which are debatable but ultimately irrelevant - ie, a bad article does not mean we should delete it. Possible expansion of the styles section seems obvious. pictures, history, more styles, etc. Seems obvious that we should have this article. ErikHaugen (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article has a lot of potential, particularly with respect to the history of interior design. Racepacket (talk) 03:33, 8 December 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SymTorrent

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

A Prod. There are, however, some sources on this so a wider discussion seems appropriate. There may be an appropriate article in which to merge the material. Listing is neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 19:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN, multiple, independent, significant sources need to be in the article and it is the burden of the authors to place it. If sources are placed in the article while this AfD is still open any editor can request me to review this opinion. Miami33139 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, significant torrent client due to the fact that it's the only major one for Symbian.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Towel401 (talk • contribs)
- That tells us that it is unique, but not notable. The homepage says it has 1,000 downloads which doesn't seem very high. A torrent client on a N60 seems like novelty, not notability. Miami33139 (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The software is hosted on many sites, not all go to the project homepage. Its actually quite useful on a phone that has wifi, don't know the N60 does but it runs on all E and N series except the N900 86.43.88.90 (talk) 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is basic but describes the software correctly and from an objective point of view --AGtheKiLLER (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article fails to verify that it is a notable subject worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a general directory of software. The article must show multiple citations to third party reliable sources making a claim that this software is notable. Miami33139 (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As one said, it is the only Torrent client for Symbian. A simple Google search for 'SymTorrent' brings out many many results. In my opinion, thats being notable. Gagandeep (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That lots of google hits makes something notable is your opinion, but it is rejected opinion by the Wikipedia community. Miami33139 (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Wow. Wow. WOW. I am seeing lots of votes here. Okay, so it is the only client for Symbian. So what? Where is the non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 09:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a bunch, scattered in each of the last four years; seems notable enough to merit a keep to me. Not every article is going to spring forth from an author's head, fully written. Frank | talk 23:23, 14 December 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 AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyd graves

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

Fringe theorist who has not been covered by any reliable third party sources, thusly fails WP:BIO Drdisque (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gnews search confirms some coverage in secondary sources. That said, this being an intersection of WP:FRINGE and WP:BLP, two of our most controversial sets of rules, I think the article should definitely be cut down to what can be precisely cited and verified, to avoid trouble. Ray^Talk 01:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus would seem to be the place for this entry to go. There are other 'notable' conspiracy theories on that page and a short entry about Graves it would fit in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Boyd_graves&action=submitseamlessly. Sabiona (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to AIDS origins opposed to scientific consensus with no redlink to Mr Graves, and possible caution the Article originator. At first glance, the article would appear to have been a stub about a possibly notable person who espouses an unpopular theory, article started by a WP:SPA.
I made a few little minor edits... and then looking into it further, it might be that this is an Wikipedia:Attack page - the section title "Cashing In" would appear not to be the wording a proponent may use. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 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. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of female stock characters

AfDs for this article:

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

Original research and synthesis, totally arbitrary examples. How do we know that any of these is actually a common stock character or just someone's opinion thereof? There is also no corresponding "List of male stock characters." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete though i suspect this comment is futile. unless each entry has at least 2 mentions of it being a stock female character, and unless each example also has critical mention of them being a stock character, this is original research. what are the qualities that define a stock character, as opposed to an original character? im interested to see the debate here, though im not hopeful it can be improved or even that the issues involved will be understood by most. i expect "notable, useful, keep". Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed that this is guaranteed to amount to an arbitrary list with no definable criterion for inclusion. --Glenfarclas (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the nominator, the list is arbitrary, and the examples are someone's personal opinion. JIP | Talk 06:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the very wise nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 07:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How on Earth is a catgirl a "stock carrier"? (I'll admit, I've never even seen manga, much less read one.) How is the 'companion' stock character cited with a work on 18th century fiction that doesn't use the term, and then uses Sarah-Jane Smith as the example? (A classical companion and a companion in 'Doctor Who' are quite different concepts). How is St. Joan of Arc a fictional character? I'll call it OR for lack of a better term. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OR issues. Warrah (talk) 14:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: viz, OR and SYNTH. Eusebeus (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ This is actually worse than the list that was nominated the last time. It seemed to have addressed the problem of explaining what the hell these different characters were supposed to be at one point [42], but this type of "you should know what I'm talking about" list of examples from television doesn't work for an encyclopedia. Some I recognize-- "Winnie Cooper" was the girl on The Wonder Years, but does anybody watch that anymore? A surprisingly awful article. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all the fault of User:Colonel Warden. Way back a year and eight months ago, the article was in a pretty good shape. Then this guy suddenly decided to come along and replace a nicely written encyclopedic article with just a list of arbitrarily chosen examples. Many users went on a constant edit war with him, with them restoring the article to its encyclopedic form, and him reverting it to the list of examples, without comment. Then, after a few months, everyone else just gave up.[43][44] The article should either be restored to its version in April 2008 or deleted, and User:Colonel Warden should be reprimanded. JIP | Talk 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even before it went downhill it was oddly arbitrary, It's mainly OR with no bottom given almost any character trait could be called "stock". treelo _radda 01:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We had nothing but Keeps for this last time and the nominator does not explain why he has changed his view from the view he expressed then, nor has he made his objections known at the article's talk page. There is much talk of OR above but little in the way of specifics or examples to demonstrate or prove that this material is original. If the article is inspected, we see that the entries are mostly blue links and, if you follow these, you will find substantial sourced articles to back them up - articles such as Bunny boiler and Bond girl. These terms and concepts did not originate here and the sources prove it. Furthermore, we have sources to back up entries in the list and it is easy to add more. For example, consider a good seasonal example - Pantomime dame. This is a stock character in the traditional theatrical entertainment held especially in Britain during the Christmas season. Most British readers will understand this immediately but foreign readers may require a citation. So, looking for a source, one soon finds an educational work in which the pantomime dame is discussed with Widow Twanky being provided as an example of this stock character, as in our list. I shall now add this source to the list and so it is improved in accordance with our editing policy. Deletion of such well-founded and sourced material would be directly contrary to that policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Restore older version I agree with Jip. We should restore the [45] version, which had several notable examples for each thing, and explained what each category was. Dream Focus 16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Dream Focus 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure WP:OR and arbitrary fancruft. It is not an encyclopedic article and does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for being verifiable and notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and clean up, per above. Well founded information. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note I have contacted some of the editors who edited this article in the past, and contacted all editors in the previous AFD. Ikip (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As with my previous comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in science fiction, I ask, "what sources could a list of stock characters be expected to have?" Does anybody disagree that a female stock character such as the Hooker with a heart of gold is notable? There are several female stock characters that are notable, so a list of them is acceptable. As for sources, see [46] or [47]. Abductive (reasoning) 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a previous discussion closed as an overwhelming keep and anytime someone uses a WP:ITSCRUFT or WP:PERNOM style of non-argument in an AfD we must keep by default. And also keep per User:GlassCobra/Essays/Hotties are always notable. In any event, a plainly discriminate list of only stock characters and only female ones. It is unoriginal research as presumably only verifiable examples are included. Moreover, the list serves a valuable function as a table of contents of sorts to other articles. I finally recommend creating a similar article for males. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out my delete vote because of the recent clean-up. At the moment I'm neither voting for delete or for keep. JIP | Talk 19:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but require sourcing, although it should be adequate for the sourcing to be included in the linked articles. Having this list in Wikipedia was a key justification for deleting Category:Female stock characters, although that was WP:BOLDly emptied and deleted three times and never taken to CFD/DRV; the fullest discussion is probably here. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the sourcing seems to be being added nicely. I agree with Fayenatic that sourcing in the dependent articles is sufficient (otherwise we could never write in SUMMARY STYLE); since not everyone agrees, it is probably wise to put at least one key reference in each section. There is a difference between fancruft and film studies, and those who are supporting the deletion of this article seem to be unaware of that. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely original research. Them From Space 21:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The dramatically improved article cites secondary scholarly sources, i.e. the research of others, and therefore cannot justifiably be called "original" research. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy as mainly now by Colonel Warden, that he may add actual references to the terms being used by other reliable sources as types of characters, and that each exemplar also needs a RS reference linking the character to the sterotype furnished. And suggest he prune any stereotypes or examples which are not readily sourceable by WP policies and guidelines. This would for once and for all eliminate any of the OR which, unfortuneately, is present in the current article. I would suggest, in fact, that he examine the standards from List of eponymous laws and apply them here, then resubmit to mainspace. Collect (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to TV Tropes? Artw (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That there are as much sourcing as there is in the article indicates that the topic of stock characters, and specifically female ones, is notable -- and that the conception of the list is not original research in a Wikipedia sense. Given the state of the list, especially compared to what it was in the first AfD, shows that work is continuing as I at least stipulated during that debate. Whether including a given entry on the list is supported by a reference (and needs to be) is an editorial decision, and not for here. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With rescue under way by A-Nobody and others, it can be made useful and accurate. Mandsford (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OR by Synthesis - a list that does not, and can not have real criteria for inclusion. Hipocrite (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Research cited from secondary sources cannot legitimately be called "or". Moreover, only stock characters that are female and that are backed in reliable sources is a pretty clear and obvious criteria for inclusion. There is therefore no valid reason to redlink this article. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Article has improved dramatically since nomination and the initial flurry of deletes (hence why two of the deletes have now been struck) per many reliable secondary sources found on Google Books to add definitions of the characters as well as academic analysis of the concept in general. While more work can and should be done, no reasonable editor can any longer call the article entirely "original research" and certainly not indiscriminate either. And certainly no editor can in good faith suggest that the newly cited material should not at worst be merged to Stock characters per WP:PRESERVE. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I filed this for AFD not realizing that I had voted "keep" in the first afd. The article was actually in better shape in the first AFD before it degenerated to what I nominated. Thanks a lot to the rescue attemps by A Nobody and so forth; I'll just let this go down as a keep. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep due to the noms flexibility in changing his position to Keep, and the great improvements by the Colonel and A Nobody. Article is a very useful navigation aid, and the topic is clearly notable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: List_of_stock_characters -- Tim Nelson

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang Internet Traffic

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

Proposed deletion tag removed twice. Completely non-notable neologism. Coined a couple months ago on somebody's blog. No third-party reliable sources. ~YellowFives 01:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. Definite COI issue. For the record, "Big Bang Internet Traffic" in quotes yields two gHits, the article and the AfD. Vulture19 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable made-up neologism. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 8 December 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) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DatetheUK

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

Apparent WP:COI creation. Makes vague claims to notability, so might not be eligible for speedy deletion. No third-party reliable sources actually establishing notability, though. ~YellowFives 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 06:37, 8 December 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. Secret ^account 17:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Late Show Fun Facts (book)

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

Non-notable pursuant to WP:NN. Getmoreatp (talk) 06:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Book by well known television personality, and seems to have had moderately significant sales. LotLE×talk 09:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't found any "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (I'm assuming that Amazon.com and a Facebook Fan Page don't count. Closest thing I've found is this, but is that "significant"?) Getmoreatp (talk) 14:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep newsmax, Waterloo Record, Entertainment Weekly, Chicago Sun Times all write about this book.[48] At least the Chicago Sun Times is a full article.Ikip (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's a notable book, but this is not an encyclopedia article about the book. "Here are a few examples of fun facts" pretty well sums it up. This is the lone contribution by someone who spent a couple of weeks on Wikipedia and wrote about a book that he or she got a good laugh out of. I don't see any merit in keeping this unless someone wants to replace it with an entirely different article. I'll reconsider if anyone who wants it kept wants to write about the book itself. Mandsford (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep if the fun facts listed were deleted from the article it would be more encyclopedic. ArcAngel (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to the Late Show article. No need for this to be spun out separately. Eusebeus (talk) 15:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per Eusebeus. The book may be notable, but this article fails miserably to establish that. And I don't think there is enough to say about the book on its own to merit its own article (much of the notability appears to be that it's tied to notable person/show) so (editorial decision) better located as a sentence or two in the show's article. DMacks (talk) 16:00, 8 December 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. Secret ^account 17:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trine Games

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

The notability of this company is questionable. No primary sources given. Eeekster (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Most of the page text taken directly from http://www.trinegames.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=64. Regardless of its notability, the page cannot continue to exist in the state. Reach Out to the Truth 21:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Especially given the first version of the article is a copy-paste from said source. Nifboy (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Reach Out to the Truth 21:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is this interview with a Trine Games CEO. I doubt it's enough to satisfy WP:N though. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 06:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Neutral. I searched a few Game News websites for news items about "Trine Games". I found lots of items about Trine (video game), but nothing useful for writing an acceptable article: GamesRadar: no hits; Gamespot: 0; Gamespy: 1 very short company profile; GameZone: no hits; IGN: 1 very short company profile.
Maybe Trine Games will be notable one day — I'd like to see that — but they're not WikiNotable yet. CWC 17:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from "Delete" to "Neutral" after seeing SharkD's comment below. I'm not convinced yet about Trine Games, but it seems to me we should have an article about Trine Entertainment, the parent company. CWC 05:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are additional hits when searching for "Trine Entertainment" and "Trine Animation": GameGuru.in, GameGuru.in, PC Games (DE), Hindustan Times, The Hindu Business Line, Think Digit, Animation Xpress, Animation Xpress, Animation Xpress. Lots of trivial mentions, including: The Telegraph, The Telegraph, Gaming Heaven, PC Games (DE), PC Games (DE). SharkD Talk 03:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recreate as a section of the notable Trine Entertainment.--M4gnum0n (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per M4gnum0n as I don't think this is notable enough yet for its own article. ArcAngel (talk) 07:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (perhaps as Trine Entertainment, including information about Trine Animation, too). Coverage linked to by SharkD is enough to build up a good article. Marasmusine (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find much on the individual website sources given to see if they would even be reliable sources. I don't see it being particularly notable. --Teancum (talk) 13:15, 15 December 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 Powers Lake, North Dakota, given the weight of the commentary from the non-SPA accounts. –MuZemike 17:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shrine of Our Lady of the Prairies

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

I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even a cursory browse of Google reveals plenty of noteworthy stories about the church. Rosselfossil (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Rosselfossil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. It is notable. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bookworm857158367 started the article as a one sentence stub. Racepacket (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Finding news sources, but it seems this church's biggest claim to fame is it's association with Fr. Ryan St. Anne Scott, a "rogue" priest. However, if that meets WP:CHURCH #6 (it need not be a positive formative impact), then keepVulture19 (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT My mistake, WP:CHURCH is not a guideline. Vulture19 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Incidental mention in the Ryan St. Anne Scott controversy is not significant coverage for establishing notabiliy. I don't see non-local coverage of it as an institution. Racepacket (talk) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Powers Lake, North Dakota, where it is: this is usually a good solution for local churches. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are certainly G-News articles concerning Scott that mention this church, but as we all know, notability is not transferrable. Are there reliable sources about this church, as WP:V requires? I don't see any. RGTraynor 13:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the place where it is. Polarpanda (talk) 13:41, 15 December 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) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saratlas

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

This does not look notable, and I can't find any significant mention in reliable sources. NE2 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website or software: a comprehensive free database of all the motorways (autoroutes) and expressways in France and Switzerland... - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: After much searching, I couldn't find a reliable source for the article. Dethlock99 (talk) 20:35, 9 December 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. keep comments aren't policy based Secret ^account 17:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeshivish Jews

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

I know that there was no consensus last time, but I just don't see this article here. It's a Fork of Orthodox Judaism, and anything here can be placed within OJ. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, if OJ is not the right place for this article, 99% of it can be placed within Charedi Judaism. The rest of the article seems to be WP:OR, there does not seem to be enough out there for an entire article that can be properly placed within Charedi or Orthodox Judaism. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- Yossiea ^(talk) 19:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Last time" appears to have been at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yeshivish (culture) Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided It is very hard for an outsider (non-Jew) to tell if this is really a recognized group or a label put on some people. Even if the second case then it still might be notable, for instance Valley girl, etc. Borock (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)(I didn't intend to equate Yeshnivish Jews with Valley girls since I can see that they are very different.)[reply]
Delete and Redirect Too dependant on local context. Are we discussing Non-Hasidic Haredi Jews? Are we differentiating between Hesder, Merkaz Harav, Itri, the Mir, and Ponovizh? What about Brisk vs. Brisker Kollel? What about YU? What about RIETS vs. regular YU program? What about people who were born Hasidic, went to a Litvishe Yeshiva, and now wear a short jacket and Brisker payos? What about a Yeke who learns in a predominantly Hasidic yeshive in Eretz Yisroel? Mention that this is a term often used to describe the non-Hasidic Haredi should be made in the Haredi Judaism and Orthodox Judaism articles, and this article should be redirected (preferably to Haredi Judaism, I think). Avi (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you are way over my head. However even if this is just a label it still might be notable enough. I didn't vote keep because there are not yet sources that establish even that. Borock (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, if someone is learning in YU's Kollel, they are Brisker, perhaps but are they yeshivish? In reading the article there is barely any distinction between yeshivish and charedi. I will of course wait for Izak to come with all the "official" Wiki policies. He's good with that. :)

For what it is worth, most people outside of YU o not believe YU is yeshivish, for example. Others believe that if you did not learn in Lakewood or possibly Bais hatalmud in the greater NY area, ou really aren't American Yeshivish either. That is my point, it is too much dependant on locality. -- Avi (talk) 20:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would call it a "weasel" word for lack of a better term. If you live out of town, no matter how yeshvish you think you are, you're not yeshivish according to the Brooklyn Ruling Class. Yossiea ^(talk) 20:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Yeshivish article is worth keeping. But it would seem to me that the Yeshivish Jews article probably should be deleted, redirected, salvaging and transplanting any material that can find a constructive home elsewhere. Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article reads like OR from beginning to end, trying to create a subgroup of Judaism where one does not exist. The lead and many of the points are basically describing Haredi Jews who learn in yeshiva, but present it as some kind of offshoot of Judaism, right up there with Orthodox, Conservative and Reform. This is incorrect. There is also a lot of backpedaling (e.g. the lead informs us that most Yeshivish Jews have attended yeshiva — but some have not, and the dress code is black hat, white shirt, black jacket and slacks — but this doesn't apply in all cases either), and almost no references. The conclusion that elects as the "gurus" of Yeshivish Jews a grand total of two people (again, without references) is ludicrous. To Borock: The term Yeshivish is much more grounded and widely known as a style of speech among English-speaking men who learn in yeshivas. I agree with Yossiea that mention of the word "yeshivish" as a tag for religious men who attend yeshiva, and the use of "yeshivish" as a pejorative, may be in order on the Haredi Judaism page, but the rest of it has to go. Yoninah (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1700 Google hits, so it appears this is an accepted phrase. Article needs work. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ridiculous OR article. Only 1700 ghits? another proof that this is just some stereotyping slang from the street. Very little to merge into the other serious article. --Shuki (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It is astounding to me how people who obviously know very little about the subject can make blanket statements which are clearly incorrect. True, the article lacks sources, and needs work, but remember that Wikipedia is not a final draft. Also please note that the term "Yeshivish Jews" is not the most common term, but simply a Wikipedia convention to distinguish the article from Yeshivish. Most of the time, the term is used without the word "Jews" (e.g. "he is yeshivish", not "he is a yeshivish Jew"), as attested by the article's original name Yeshivish (culture) (though "culture" is admittedly not the right word), thus the lack of ghits. There is also an extreme lack of representation by Yeshivish Jews on Wikipedia, due to the general negative feelings toward the internet. But to say this is simply an insignificant fork of OJ is clearly misguided. Keyed In (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See [49],[50], [51], [52], [53] for some mainstream media references to yeshivish. Also please note that in these instances, as in most Google hits, "yeshivish" is an adjective, describing a person, community, etc. and not the manner of speech that is the topic of the Yeshivish article. If there could be a way of renaming (and reworking) this article to something like Yeshivish (adjective) (this is just illustrative, not a name that I think will work under WP guidelines), I would support that, thus avoiding calling Yeshivish people a distinct category of "Jews." Keyed In (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the aforementioned "Yeshivish Jews" I think I know quite a bit about my demographic. Regardless, by wikipedia standards it does not deserve its own article, but should be a redirect into Haredi Judaism where non-Hasidic Haredi Judaism is discussed. Let me ask you, Keyed In, in your eyes what differentiates "Yeshivish" from "non-Hasidic Haredi" (I cannot even say Litvish, as that would disenfranchise people from Yekeshe and Sephardi backgrounds who now identify with the Haredi/Yeshivish movement)? -- Avi (talk) 13:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is also a "yeshivish" family, but all that means is that my husband learns in a Litvishe yeshiva and follows the rulings of Litvishe gedolim. There are a lot of inaccuracies in the article as it tries to define this "culture", including that I am not called a "yeshivish" woman. As I noted in my vote earlier, the article is riddled with OR from beginning to end. I agree with Avi's last suggestion to pipe anything worth saving into Haredi Judaism. Yoninah (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avi and Yoninah-firstly I would like to apologize if my comments offended anyone. I didn't mean to be uncivil and certainly didn't mean to attack anyone in particular. However, I do feel that there is enough here for an article. I would like to address a number of your points:

To answer Avi's question, there are a few differences (in my opinion) between non-Hasidic Hareidi and Yeshivish. First, NHH sounds (to me) like a very rigid classification of one's religious views, and no more, while Yeshivish is a much broader term-an adjective which can modify many more nouns. Secondly, many people who are Hareidi (and not Hasidic) may not qualify as yeshivish according to most, an example being a baal teshuva learning in a Hareidi yeshiva, who has adopted a Hareidi lifestyle. I know that I am sounding horribly judgmental, but I'm just trying to illustrate a point. Besides, just because something can be referred to by what it's not doesn't mean it shouldn't have its own article. Should we delete the matza article because it can be called non-leavened bread?
As to Yoninah's assertion that she would not be considered yeshivish according to the article, I would like to quote from the article, "In its common usage, yeshivish refers to the general characteristics of the yeshiva population, not to someone who necessarily studies in a yeshiva. Therefore, women, who generally don't study in yeshivas, can nevertheless be characterized as Yeshivish." Whether or not you find this label to add anything meaningful to a description of you as a person is irrelevant; since the description is widespread, it is notable. The article admittedly contains OR, and I would be happy to collaborate with someone on fixing it, but deletion is not the answer.
In response to Yoninah's first post, the backpedalling in the lead was added recently by a well-meaning editor, but I'm not sure that it was smart. It's true the article isn't written very well. But neither are thousands of WP articles. I agree that this is not meant to be an equal branch of Judaism. I would like to emphasize again that I don't think the proper name for this article is Yeshivish Jews, because that is too limiting (yeshivish can refer to much more than Jews) and also too much of a classification (making it sound like this is similar in importance to Conservative Judaism). After thinking about it and researching a bit more, I think that, since the usage of Yeshivish as an adjective is by far more predominant, we should one of the following:
- Move the Yeshivish article to Yeshivish (dialect), and the Yeshivish Jews article to Yeshivish, to describe all things Yeshivish, not a subcategory of Jews, OR
- Merge the Yeshivish article into the Manner of Speech section of the Yeshivish Jews article, and move the whole thing to Yeshivish.

But to delete the whole thing and not mention the use of Yeshivish as an adjective at all would be too drasatic. Keyed In (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keyed In: Thank you for your civil and patient explanation. I hear what you're saying, trying to give legitimacy to "Yeshivish" as an adjective, but I still don't think it deserves its own article. A section under Haredi Judaism explaining the adjective (and a "see also" under yeshiva) would be entirely appropriate. That's because the term "Yeshivish" only applies to people who are part of the Haredi, Litvishe yeshiva world, as I implied above with my personal categorization.

Regarding your new comments, why is a baal teshuva learning in a Hareidi yeshiva, who has adopted a Hareidi lifestyle, not considered "yeshivish"? That's certainly not true in Israel, and one of the problems already cited on the article page is that it's too localized. Perhaps the whole term is an American invention?

I would also like to clarify what I said above about the article's inaccuracies. According to the article, I am a "yeshivish woman". According to me and my peers, though, I'm Haredi, with a husband who learns in yeshiva. All the descriptions that the article uses regarding ideology and mode of dress are simply describing Haredim. Yoninah (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It is always a pleasure to deal in a civil and friendly manner. I understand that you feel that the term "yeshivish" doesn't add anything meaningful to the description of someone as Haredi. I do agree that all yeshivish people are Haredi. But not all (non-hasidic) Haredi people are yeshivish. In my example, I would consider him Haredi because he has accepted upon himself to be as scrupulous in his observance as he is taught by his Haredi rebbeim. But it would be very unlikely that he would fit into the "yeshivish" mold without many years of integration.

I agree that the term yeshivish has a varied local connotation. But so does Haredi! I would venture a guess that you and your peers, who consider themselves Haredi but not yeshivish, are living in Israel. The term Haredi is preferred in Israel for a few reasons. First, it is a Hebrew word! Obviously they prefer the term in their native tongue. Not so in the US. More significantly, it is clear to me, after growing up in the US but studying in Israel for the last few years, that there are many more "shades of gray" in the US. Here in Israel, the boundaries are very defined; either you are Hareidi, Mizrahi or Hiloni. In the US, however, you can find (for example) a "baal habos" who is scrupulous about his observance like a Haredi, but who wears a blue shirt and has a (gasp!) non-kosher cell phone. According to the Haredi article, such a person would be lacking some of the major traits of a Haredi Jew; indeed, he would probably not even call himself that. Yeshivish can include such a person. The only reason I can't go edit the Haredi Judaism article to explain this is because insufficient documentation of this well-known fact exists, thus it would be labeled OR. This is just one way the Yeshivish (as an adjective) article can help.

Also, I get 38,000 google hits for "Yeshivish." As I said earlier, most of those refer to Yeshivish as a description, not the dialect dealt with in the Yeshivish article. Someone encountering such a widespread term who is unfamiliar with its usage must have the ability to get at least a bit of info from a corresponding WP article. True, it doesn't need to be as detailed as Haredi Judaism, and can include many references to that article, but it needs to exist for itself.

I strongly feel that my first suggestion above would be very helpful in turning this article away from describing a type of Jew, but instead to describe an extremely widespread descriptive term. Best, Keyed In (talk) 08:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keyed In: I hear you, I hear you. Now that you've brought up the "opposite" of Yeshivish, "Balabatish", we're not going to make a page for that, are we? In light of the fact that there really isn't a lot of documentation, just a word mentioned in an article (like some of the newspaper articles you cited above), wouldn't it be better to start out by describing the two adjectives, "Yeshivish" and "Balabatish", on the Haredi Judaism page, and eventually expand them onto their own pages when more references are available? And I totally agree with changing the page name Yeshivish to Yeshivish (dialect). Yoninah (talk) 12:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that we both understand each other's opinions, and we will just have to agree to disagree.

About the name change, do you think I should ask for consensus on the Yeshivish talk page? Or just be bold?

It has been a pleasure to discuss this with you. Have a great Shabbos. Keyed In (talk) 09:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! Yoninah (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. It all one big chunk of OR. Start to finish. To be fair, I may agree with much of the OR and feel that it is true but that in no way removes the fact of it being a big chunk of OR. Joe407 (talk) 09:30, 14 December 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 Vampire: The Masquerade. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methuselah (World of Darkness)

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

This article is about a race of vampires which fails WP:N as it has not been the subject of significant discussion in reliable sources independent of the subject. The article also fails our guidelines for writing about fiction because it is only described from an in-universe standpoint with no information regarding how it has been discussed in the real world. Them From Space 00:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain I abstain. Rosselfossil (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vampire: The Masquerade Vulture19 (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Standalone article inappropriate and not warranted. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Although it's certainly not from an in-universe perspective, it is not suitable as a standalone article. Putting it into context is the best solution. (The lead clearly establishing it as part of a fictional world and the page goes on to describe its effects on a game. This is all squarely put in reality) - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 8 December 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) 00:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Synod of Mainz

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

Delete Single active page for disambig, which already has Synod of Mainz (Jewish) as a redirect. Avi (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Avi (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because this is a false disambiguation page that does not disambiguate any articles, only red links, while WP:DISAMBIG states: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in Wikipedia article titles" and is for at least two or more actual articles already in existence. The creator of this disambiguation page has jumped the gun and worked back to front and should have first created the articles and then gone on to create a disambiguation page and not vice versa. IZAK (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per IZAK. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 8 December 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.