Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 6

< 5 April	7 April >

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 keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Onion Walking Tours[edit]

Previously speedy-deleted as advertising; now rewritten more neutrally, but still doesn't seem to be notable per WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speed deletion of the original article was appropriate, however if the current article meets the criteria for neutral tone, it should stand for notability. In addition to serving more than 40,000 walkers per year, Big Onion appears in newspaper listings in all major New York papers, it is listed in all the guide books for New York City, and it receives press coverage in the major travel magazines as well as in syndicated newspapers (a story in last year's Hartford Courant was reprinted in dozens of American newspapers and at least one major newspaper in Australia). It is a New York institution on par with many of the city's small museums (some of which have Wikipedia pages) and is a subject of interest to visitors to New York from around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.244.217 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - might be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. With very little effort, and in less than an hours' time, I have found several reliable sources about this tour company from Internet searches. Please see WP:BEFORE. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – looks like plenty of notability has been established now after improvements made. MuZemike 02:52, 7 April 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 G11 just as afd opened. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naven's notables[edit]

No notability offered, no references, no wiki links. Appears to be a company ad. Alice (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Holland[edit]

I think this is a clear WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Creator requested time to improve this article but nothing happened the last 4-5 months. Magioladitis (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this isn't JonBenet Ramsey: a tragic case, but without longterm coverage it's lacking. Not BLP, since the boy is dead, but still...Nyttend (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E, "People notable only for one event" which isn't restricted to living persons. JohnCD (talk)
Delete - A sad case, but Wikipedia isn't a directory of missing people. WP:BIO1E. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, tragic, but a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:55, 11 April 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 with no prejudice against recreating as a redirect Nancy ^talk 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to B.I.G.[edit]

Apparently non-notable song, only available via iTunes (see WP:MUSIC). Contested proposed deletion - deletion notice removed by creator. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. How can the name of a song be a non-plausible search term? Surely the obvious way to search for a song is to search for its name. --Zundark (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 04:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:The song is part of a soundtrack that did chart, it indeed entered the chart at #4[1], plus, dont hate on it, its a good song, maybe you guys havent even listened to it, but well, its a song by a Recognized rapper, dedicated to an even more important one.Ooh, and it has a Music video[2],i really dont know if the song itself charted or is charting,but i am pretty sure it did, or is, ive heard it sometimes on radio and stuff, but i have no idea of where to research for the info about the song charting or not.
So keep the article, it doesnt damage you in any way, does it?

UPDATE: Boom shakalaka haters, the song CHARTED! yall biggie hating brothas[3]--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If it did appear on a notable album, redirection to an article about the album (if we have one) could be an option. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - song doesn't in fact appear to have charted, and appearing as one track on an album that did is irrelevant, as is having a video and being "a good song" (which is open to debate) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It Charted!And i think that this ends the debate, its a Keep am i right? here is the link (=[4]--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 05:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question is charting only on the very minor-sounding "Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles" deemed sufficient to pass WP:MUSIC....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bubbling Under charts indicate that it never appeared on the main charts. eg. if a song appears at #25 on the bubbling under for an official Top 100 chart, it means its actual chart position is #125. If the official chart is a Top 200, the actual position is #225 etc etc JamesBurns (talk) 05:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesnt fail it my brotha (= --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just barely charted, no sources, seems to be a controversial redirect. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 1) This Bubbling Under R&B/Hip-Hop Singles chart - is it notable? We do have a wikipedia entry, its the 25 places under the main RnB chart if I read that right. If the chart is major, the song is probably notable so we just need reliable sources for it. 2)It doesn't matter that it was included on a charting album, it needs notability in its own right. 3) Josecarlos1991, you might want to read WP:ILIKE#I_like_it and WP:AGF Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a major chart. Not all chart singles are notable, though, and I have no idea why something at 125 would ever be enough for an article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spending 1 week at the bottom of the chart below the actual chart does not equal notability. In the absence of any substantial media coverage or awards, it fails WP:NSONGS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasnt 1 week, it was 2 (=, and well, it is a single, from 2 records, from the ``Notorious´´ sountrack, and from the jadakiss new album, i have seen hundreds, if not thousands of wikipedia pages for singles, this is not just a song on the record, it is a single, now, the first deletion allegation was because it didnt chart on no, well, chart, and i proved it did, the song has its video, i know that whether i like it or not doesnt matter, but i think the single deserves its own article, maybe by adding the single cover and more information about it can make the article look nice and shinny. the single is notable enough to have its article, well thats all, good night and thank you guys for your attention.--Josecarlos1991 (talk) 05:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being released as a single does not equal notability, either. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jadakis Article is unreferenced. As such, there is no proof of significant coverage as required by WP:Music. With no references, the article cannot pass WP:N, WP:NOBJ. Also, the most important notice, Per WP:NSONGS, "a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Damn brotha, thats why i said that it would be cool to add more info about the song --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then do it, before the discussion is ended. Its not looking good. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no substantial coverage or awards. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- naw, what for? this fellas would delete the article anyways, and well, since i am not an expert wikipedian, it would take me a shit load of time, which i have cause im on vacation, but i dont know how to put tables or some other stuff, and by the time i'd figure out how to, this guys would have screw all my work up, so well, whatever, delete whatever u want, bye --Josecarlos1991 (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Last Kiss (album), which is the Jadakiss album which features this song, and a more useful redirect than to the Notorious OST. There is not enough material on this song to get an article on it past what I would call a stub, while the parent album is now picking up reviews and is crying out for improvement of any sort. 86.44.27.192 (talk) 14:14, 10 April 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. Black Kite 15:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan DelMain[edit]

Non-notable bagpipe performer. Neither a Google nor a Google News search turns up adequate sources to support notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles and was not able to find any sources for this musician. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In repsonse to Pastor Theo (talk), type into google "Dan DelMain" and the fourth link which pops up is a link to *Portland Bagpiper, showcasing a history and recorded songs. Also, the previous links take you to the *Bagpiper.com website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandelmain (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may also reference *Dan DelMain | Portland Metro Pipe Band which has a link back to the *Dan DelMain | Wikipedia article

--Dandelmain (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Dan_DelMain[reply]

Delete No evidence in reliable sources to prove notability. Spiesr (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 11 April 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 WP:HEY. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Till We Ain't Strangers Anymore[edit]

This song does assert notability as being a charted single in two countries by two very notable artists (although I can't verify the German chart positions), but I have been unable to find any non-trivial coverage regarding the song itself. The only sources I could find that even mentioned the song said nothing about it other than "it's a duet on the album", thus leaving this song without any individual notability. I have tried twice to redirect to the album as WP:NSONGS dictates ("articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album") but have been undone by editors who apparently think that chart singles are inherently notable. As this AfD shows, it is very possible for an article about a charting single by a notable artist to be deleted. Given that there's absolutely nothing to say about this song besides "it barely scraped the country charts and LeAnn Rimes sang on it", I think that the article should either be deleted, or redirected and protected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks notable enough to me, winning a ~~CMA~~ CMT award and getting on the charts makes it a keep in my mind. -Marcusmax(speak) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Charted in Germany and US, and won a ~~CMA~~ CMT award. TubularWorld (talk) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again. That's CMT, not CMA. An award from a network. Also, do you really think simply charting makes it inherently notable? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A charting, award winning song by two notable artists, however lame the song is,should be included as per "songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable" Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the "probably"? This is clearly an exception to the rule as there are NO FREAKING SOURCES. It will NEVER BE MORE THAN A STUB. Why even bother if you can't even get past two sentences? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 23:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need me to quote WP:CIVIL, chill out. Have you looked for sources? Maybe someone reads its background story one day and puts that in. It gets covered, put that in. If not, it stays a stub for a while, so what? There's thousands of articles that are gonna be stubs for a long time until the collaborative nature of wikipedia gets them built up into bigger articles. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have looked for sources, I said that already. And country music is one of the most stagnant subjects on Wikipedia, no one can ever be arsed to build up the country music articles. This one is going to be a stub forever because there is no source coverage. Plain and simple. And what's so bad about redirecting this anyway? Isn't that EXACTLY what WP:NSONGS says? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First off thanks for correcting me on my mistake with the CMT award thing, but at the same time let me reiterate that winning a notable award can help establish notability. This award though I am guessing not as prestigious as some can help establish notability. Although this may sound a bit like synthesis, when you add in the fact it is a charted song this appears to make the article meet our notability standards. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article looks much better now, but this still looks like about as big an article as we'll get. I read a dozen reviews of the album, and none even mentioned the song in terms other than "it's a duet with LeAnn Rimes". I still don't see what's so bad about a redirect, and would probably go with a "third time's the charm". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dylanfromthenorth Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:19, 7 April 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. per NALBUMS; as was pointed out below, exclusivity actually makes them less notable. There may be a rationale for including them as a one-line mention in the artist's own articles, but that's it. Black Kite 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Originals[edit]

Non-notable iTunes exclusive releases. No non-trivial coverage for any of these albums, which are only digital "albums" anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the articles except for ITunes Originals. I don't see any point in separate articles for the ITunes offerings on separate artists, but I'd keep the headline article. Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What point do you see in the headline article? There're no sources for the series as a whole. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; iTunes Originals is a series of albums by many famous artists; it is an original concept in that it is exclusive to itunes, and it compiles album tracks with live performance and interview in a sort of anthology. It is notable as one of the first, if not the first, series of items created exclusively for itunes music stores: a very notable retailer. One of their most notable series of exclusive releases is notable. "itunes originals" gives me 175,000 yahoo hits; I'm sure there's some viable sources in that group; just because an article is not sourced does not mean it's not notable. It just means it needs improvement since sources may be available. Simliarly, I don't see the argument re: individual articles whereas any other album by those artists aren't given a second look in terms of notability, this is, in my view, another album by those artists; even though it's not a physical release. It is entirely possible that like any album, specific artists' itunes originals may not be notable for them, and that should be looked at in an article by article basis, not en-masse. TheHYPO (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to iTunes originals since the individual songs haven't been discussed in third-party sources, which is required by WP:N. Them From Space 19:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. A passing mention on each of the artists parent article is all that is required, if that. No notability for a stand alone article on each and every one of these releases. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. All artists notable. Under notability guideline these shouldn't be deleted, if not notable enough content should be merged to individual discographies. Since virtually all other albums by artists have individual pages, merging content would malform discographies. Odds are sources can be found for each of these anyway, and notability guidelines indicate albums by notable artists are generally notable. Procedural speedy close for individual pages since nominator didn't put AFD notices on their pages. Appears to be sufficient coverage of general iTunes project. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Keeping them is not an option--these collections themselves are entirely unnotable, even if the artists are notable. Delete the lot, and continue the list in the main article, which I think is notable enough. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: trivial coverage for non-notable releases. JamesBurns (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/weak keep the way I read NALBUM, as these are officially released (digitally, but still officially released), they are notable. However, I think a merge would be more appropriate as a matter of consolidation of data. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - entirely unnotable releases, no significant coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 05:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all and renominate individually so that they can be appropriately judged on an article by article basis. Jenuk1985 | Talk 00:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all, since these Internet-only releases fails WP:NALBUMS. A series of non-notable digital releases, which anyone have references or third-part reliable sources to comprove their notability; yeah, because existence don't prove notability. Canniba loki 07:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per TheHYPO and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. TenPoundHammer, "There're no sources" does not translate to non-notable, it just means they haven't been well-sourced YET. I believe many of these albums can be well-sourced - rst20xx (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all (including the parent article). That they aren't physical releases is irrelevant. The series fails WP:NALBUMS for a number of reasons including the fact that there's nothing special about any of them. Exclusivity to one seller actually reduces the likelihood of the album being notable (an exception being if, for some reason, the release garnered substantial media coverage). The individual albums fail notability as does the series as a whole. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rst20xx, if they cannot be well sourced now, then the article should be deleted in accordance with Policy until they can be well sourced. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to say that I believe they can be well-sourced now, it's just that no-one's bothered to do it yet - rst20xx (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, exclusivity to one vendor means none of these albums can actually be considered as officially charting (see WP:BADALBUMS). No charts, no awards, scant 3rd party sources = non notable. TheClashFan (talk) 11:02, 9 April 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 Andermani Empire. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial Andermani Navy[edit]

Entirely unreferenced in-universe plot summary with no assertion or hint of notability -- soundly fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS, WP:GNG. Being marked for cleanup for more than a year has yielded only tweaks to insignificant trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of organizations in the Honorverse and/or Andermani Empire and transwiki to the fiction wikia 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as previous user suggested. Debresser (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me if I'm not placing my comments in the correct place, anybody feel free to move or edit them. The idea of deleting any user created content is absolutely abhorent (sp?) in my opinion. David Weber doesn't create enough content or background material as it is, and having Wikipedia as a reference source has been very useful to me. DO NOT DELETE!!! Having said that, it IS TRUE that sometimes WHERE the content is is a very legitimate argument. The idea of merging the IAN into Andermani Empire does make sense, provided that a "#REDIRECT" is left in place. Likewise, a mention in the List of organizations in the Honorverse that links to the IAN subsection in Andermani Empire also makes sense. LP-mn (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I'd even more support proper transwikifying to Honorverse wiki. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I tagged this more than a year ago and also added a references sections — albeit, an empty one — and note that it is still empty. This is trivia-magnet; it is a non-notable, unsourced fan-playground. If someone cares to beam this outtahere, fine, but it is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. G'day, Jack Merridew 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, favor merge to Anderman Emipre There is a balance required here. On the one hand, the urge to apply ll WP:policies with rigor and the reality of human experience knowledge and behavior. Political positions (whatever their origin) lead to policies which, when applied with over vigor, resu;t in reduced quality for WP as a whole. On the other hand, fannish enthusiam can lead to over many proliferating micro articles which are largely fluff and themselves reduce WP quality. Where that balance should be, or whether statutory clumsiness should be revised, are questions which require some consideration, discussion, and likely compromise. An underlying problem is that one editors trivia is anther's vital interest; one suggests deletion or consolidation, the other expansive fan copy. When the sugject is fiction, as in this instance, the boundary between the two is indistinct at best. Homer was once thought entirely fictional and having nothing but a notional connection to history; experience and Schliemann and Severin have demonstrated otherwise. The Honorverse fiction is unlikely to experience such a transformation, to be sure, but judicious caution is any direction nevertheless would be wise. Perhaps a later Greek admonition, "moderation in all things" might be a guide.

In this instance, the article has not as alleged become a trivia-magnet. It has also not, as hoped, been filled out to become an article with sufficient gravitas to impress. The topic is of low and passing importance in the accounts of this fictional universe and so merger with the Empire article seems reasonable. It is not of so little importance that it should be deleted. That is, if Honoverse content has a place on WP.

The comment by Piotrus, suggesting removal of all such content from WP in favor of a fan site is wrong footed. WP is neutral and does not take positions on the worth of this or that subject by deciding to not cover it. Notability is a filter designed to reduce the article load such that articles each have some gravitas. It is not a tool designed to be used to implicitly implement value judgments about article worth. I therefore strongly appose any such suggestion. ww (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for those suggesting a merge: The text at Andermani Empire sufficiently covers this navy. It is does not delve fully into the uncited in-universe plot summary as the current stand-alone article -- for the better. There is no cited, real-world-relevant content that needs merging. --EEMIV (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you think so, better you leave the merge to others. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is there a transwiki we could move it to? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 13:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to A. Empire. And a wack to whoever added all those tags. That's just obnoxious. Pick a few or use a single box at the least Hobit (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful and sourced to List of organizations in the Honorverse. Not notable in the wider world, so a standalone article is inappropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:58, 11 April 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. There is not enough content to justify the existence of the article. Recently, several x-y country relations articles have been deleted because the lack of notability and this one is no different. All written here can easily be merged in the Foreign relations articles for either of the countries. Tone 16:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Jamaica relations[edit]

This article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable. The external links, presumably provided as references, have no context within the text of the article itself to prove why these events, or such relations in the first place, are notable in the history of either nation (WP:NOTNEWS). The scant information present in the article could just as easily be merged into Foreign relations of Greece or Foreign relations of Jamaica, both listed in the article's "See also" section. It is further difficult to conceive of any information for this article that would not be more suited to these other articles, or to a history article or section on these two countries. If anything, this article simply impedes users from finding appropriate information by being an extraneous article. Furthermore, this article was previously deleted as non-notable and subsequently restored summarily without deletion review. [5] BlueSquadronRaven 21:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- They serve to establish notability, which is the typical threshold for inclusion. They also allow editors to verify information in the article, and add more. It was previously deleted as it was erroneously believed that it failed WP:N. Showing that it passes WP:N invalidates the original discussion, so the deleting admin restored it without discussion, which is what the deletion policy says to do. WilyD 12:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They do not establish notability in any meaningful way. They illustrate an event, but don't convey significant coverage of the topic as a whole. If some third party has written such an overview, with peer review and formal editing and cross-referencing and the like, even to the limited degree of, say, Cuba-Pakistan relations, I'd be inclined to agree that there is significant coverage of the (say it with me now) topic. These two articles on isolated events don't cut it. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable subject, as established in article. It was restored by the deleting admin because the deletion arguments presented in the first AFD are no longer valid. DRV explicitly asks you to talk to the deleting admin first, but pot shots like that are always welcome. Wily D 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due (rapidly diminishing) respect, the simple addition of the two external links actually make the article worse, not better, as they are not used as references for anything in the text. If you are going to take the effort to find news articles, don't be lazy about writing something to go with them or they only serve to obfuscate any sort of notability. And again, there is nothing here so important in history that they cannot be comfortably contained in the above mentioned "Foreign relations of..." articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article already contains useful and relevant (try to claim that foreign embassies aren't...) information that can definitely be verified (it's just a matter of finding the right government website) and the references provided prove that actual active relations between those two countries exist and that there is something to say about them, so the article has room for improvement, and the start is already better than nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DubZog (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, no real sources on this topic are available. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How is it that this article was article was AfDed in March--with the result being "delete"--and yet we're here discussing deletion again? Was it not deleted last time for some reason even though the consensus was "deletion"?

As noted in the nomination, the article was deleted and then restored. The basis of the restoration was the finding of the two external links to news articles by WilyD that are now in that section of the article. As above, I think this only goes against WP:NOTNEWS and does nothing to establish the notability of the subject. Indeed, I think the only thing that has been asserted about its notability is that it should be notable based on the article's title, but lacking any substance should be merged with other articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 01:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- It was deleted last time because notability was not shown. I showed MBisanz the proof of it's notability, so he restored it, since the rationale for deletion "nonnotable" was demonstratably false. Wily D 10:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the mere existence of bilateral relations isn't notable. Still, let's examine the two links to see if something makes this relationship notable. Link 1 tells us that Greece and Jamaica hope to sign a trade agreement in 2005 (anachronistic, and thousands of these exist, and are not notable, instead forming part of the normal course of international relations), and that "several" Greek shipowners changed their flag of convenience from Panama/Malta to Jamaica. Well, I guess the Jamaican consul needs something to do to keep himself busy. Link 2 is a puff piece about the Greek Ambassador to Jamaica: "the congenial Greek"; "He loves the fact that he can learn and deepen his knowledge of the foreign cultures while doing his job"; "'Next time for a better picture, we can get some ladies,' he joked again". Must've been a slow news day in Jamaica. So if we are to integrate these links into the article, we get: "Greece and Jamaica have relations. They might have signed a trade agreement in 2005, and the Jamaican consul in Greece persuaded several Greek shipowners to fly the flag of Jamaica as a flag of convenience. The Greek Ambassador to Jamaica is, according to the Jamaica Gleaner, 'very down-to-earth...a regular guy who just happens to be an ambassador'". Not especially compelling, is it? In fact, this verges on the trivial, so let's delete for a second time. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere existance of bilateral relations IS notable. Foreign relations directly affect people's lives, and even though it is not a topic that is likely to receive extensive media coverage, this is just because the topic isn't scandalous or "exciting" in any other way, yet this doesn't make it irrelevant. Questions may arise about verifiability, yet surely not about notability. However, I think that the sources given provide enough information to write a reasonable article. DubZog (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; no evidence of notability. With all respect to User:MBisanz (the admin who closed the previous AfD and recently restored the article), recreating this article with the only change from the deleted version being the addition of two external links wasn't a good move as the end result basically meets CSD G4 as there's no substantive change from the deleted version - it would have been better to userfy the article and only restore it once it was significantly different. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It was previous deleted for nonnotability - since the references added establish notability the usual way, the old decision was invalid on it's face. It's why the deletion policy is written this way. WilyD 10:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This should have gone to DRV if you thought that the initial deletion was mishandled or you should have taken the time to substantively improve the article if you've found meaningful sources - I note that you told User:MBisanz that you were going to do this when you asked them to restore the article but have not done so since it was restored. By the way, can you please link to WP:N directly and explain why the references meet the standard it sets rather than just write 'the usual way' - this is pretty vague, especially as editors are questioning the significance of the sources you're finding in this and similar AfDs. Could you please explain how these kind of stories constitute 'significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject' and the rest of WP:N? Nick-D (talk) 12:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's explicitly what DRV says not to do. It says to talk to the closing administrator - and MBisanz saw clearly that it was deleted for failing WP:N, but since it meets WP:N, it could be restored. DRV explicitly tells one off if they don't ask the closing admin to do exactly that first. I most certainly did not tell MBisanz I'd go to DRV if it was restored, he recommended AFD, though I knew perfectly well someone who believes bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable would take it there anyways if they thought they had a shot in hell of getting it deleted (and maybe even if not).
    - And no, I won't insult editors by taking them through how an article with in depth, secondary, independent sources spanning a range of time meets WP:N. Any editor can easily examine that themselves and see that they do. It is self explanitory that "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - there's nothing more to say. Wily D 12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the two counties don't even have embassies in each other's countries besides "honorary" political officials. Tavix | Talk 22:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, if even the two countries don't care about this non-notable relationship, why should wikipedia? No reliable independent sources establish this as notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made a few improvements to the article to add a little content, which in my opinion is relevant to this deletion discussion. Now, if the article were deleted, useful and verifiable information about the foreign relations between the two countries would be probably lost from wikipedia, as I can't see any obvious options of merging it with something else... DubZog (talk) 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's a useless content fork. Relevant information on this non-notable "relationship?" Belongs in Foreign relations of Greece and/or Foreign relations of Jamaica. These are almost all (there are a few exceptions) content forks; this is clearly not one of the exceptions.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By your arguement any "bilateral relations" article could be separated into two halves and the information could be provided under the "foreign relations" articles of the countries involved. However, this is not very convenient for the users, who are specifically interested in the relations between those two countries... so as long an article on the relations between those two countries that meets wikipedia standards can be written I can't see a reason to fight against it. And in this particular case I cannot see what makes this article not meet wikipedia standards. Besides, I would think that including specific data on the annual trade balance between Greece all other countries would crowd the "Foreign relations of Greece" article with loads of numerical data, which would be quite bad for its readability, yet to a specific bilateral relations' article it fits in well. DubZog (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; spin-offs like this are meant to protect against the kind of problem that appears on Gun laws in the United States (by state) or, even worse, Timeline of United States inventions and discoveries, not to mention that keeping two unlinked carbon copies of the same content can be quite a tedious job. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just empirically I believe that right now Foreign Relations of X with Y articles are not synchronized at all with Foreign Relations of Y with X, when the overlapping content should be more-or-less identical. For example Foreign relations of Zambia and Foreign relations of Zimbabwe. There is no reason to imagine that this complete misalignment will get better over time and not worse. Hilary T (talk) 07:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently there is too much notable information to delete and a merger with Foreign relations of Jamaica or Foreign relations of Greece would make quite a dangerous precedent. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:43, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of more than one or two news articles talking about these relations. The fact that there are relations between the countries does not make those relations notable. Tim meh ! 16:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing WP:N met. The trade amounts, lack of embassies, and no clearly notable relations between the two indicate no inherent notability either. Willing to change if anything significant added. Hobit (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Admiral Norton -Marcusmax(speak) 00:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an excellent almanacical entry. No point in duplicating the info in two articles. As an almanac entry it doesn't have to assert notability the way a biography does. Wikipedia is a reference work, not an encyclopedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 12 April 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. Tone 16:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper (singer)[edit]

Vanity autobiography of non-notable singer. Subject has himself been promoting the autobiography, and has removed the proposed deletion notice. (His "references" include self-published "Myspace" page. The two mentions in Daily Star's kids magazine has surprisingly similar text, and possibly the same article recycled twice. Other than that, no mention in mainstream media. There is also a big conflict of interest, with the subject himself adding to his own autobiography. Ragib (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:N, WP:MUSIC. --Ragib (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, An autobiography of an artist MEANS that it's written by the artist himself. So, I suppose you were speaking of a "biography" at all points and not an "autobiography". The references include Jasper's MySpace page have been removed, I've noticed. Citation is required. That's understandable as long as it's a matter of the history of the artist (biography). But, removing his page because of this would be simply unreasonable and unethical according to as far as my understanding goes.

The articles issued in The Daily Star were featured in The Rising Stars and the Campus. NONE OF THEM are kids' magazines, I'd beg to differ. And, they definitely are two different articles since they have been PUBLISHED in two different places and dates. Now, of course, we wouldn't assume that the artist has hacked the website of one of the most recognized newspapers' website and has put the articles himself. And, on a second point, the articles referred to the existence of this artist in industry important enough to be interviewed. That, to me or everyone else, should be more important than the noticing if the information on the artist, who already appeared in his exclusive TV show with his band according to this http://www.amadergaan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26270&page=43 and at the bottom of this source http://www.thedailystar.net/campus/2009/04/01/feature_funk.htm, has been REPEATED.

I've also noticed the references to AmaderGaan has been removed when they themselves have a Wikipedia page, placing a strong base on the circle of the industry, HAS put professional reviews on the artist, his band and the albums he was associated with. I'd like to understand why would this happen? If you thought it was just a website forum, you're wrong. Check its Wikipedia page, amaderGaan. It's a big organization which is heavily active in organizing major concerts and TV shows throughout the country, sponsoring big time artists. But then again, from another angle, it's also like a mainstream portal, kind of like Allmusic.com of Bangladesh. It is THE biggest musical organization of this kind of the Bangladeshi music industry. And it also HAPPENS to have a forum. THAT's ALL.

P.S. I'll ask you to search these things, "jasper bangladesh", "jasper kata taarer bera" and "jasper groovetrap" in GOOGLE. Besides the massive attention of the fans Jasper has, a non-notable artist from Bangladesh doesn't have his music illegally shared in more than 400 websites, do they?

P.S.2. And, his song Club Sokina was the 61st of the most wanted songs of 2008, even above half a dozen of Habib/Fuad/Topu songs, among the other giants, on RadioFoorti out of the thousands of songs released all over Bangladesh that year according to this http://www.amadergaan.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27585. He has FANS.

Tran5par3ncy (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace, a self-published social networking site, is NOT a reference for encyclopedic content. Same applies to a forum site like Amadergaan. --Ragib (talk) 03:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks also for bringing up the article on amaderGaan, the website failes WP:N, and is not encyclopedic. I'll nominate that unreferenced, orphaned article when I have time. Existence of a unreferenced article on WP does not make amaderGaan a reliable source ... it was, and still is a web forum. --Ragib (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he seems to have a lot of fans (a cult following?), and mentions in periodicals, thus notable per WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Unfortunately all of the keep arguments above are perfectly void on Wikipedia. The article fails the general notability guideline and self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves - two of the core policies. If this article stays then Wikipedia policies will have to go, I guess. Web Forums, Facebook, MySpace, passing mention in a newspaper... and such sources to validate and verify the notability of one singer who is hardly known beyond the 500 people he grew up with isn't encyclopedic even by the most stretched out imagination. No, dears, this is material for the trashcan. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I do strongly agree with the proposed deletion. As per WP:MUSIC, a band or person is notable if he Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Unfortunately both the references presented on this article are from kid magazines and written by fans and audiences who are mainly school and university students, not an expert or independent journalist. In fact, nature of these two magazines are to encourage young reader to come up and write armature article on different issues. Even I have couple of articles published there. Moreover, he does not have any chart single or any record certified gold or higher or even other coverage. Facebook and Myspace pages can not assert popularity of a person unless he receives significant media coverage from national and regional body. I wonder, it might be a case of WP:COI as the creator of this article is new on Wikipedia and working only on this article. Thus, I vote for a strong deletion of such a Vanity article. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 08:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No matter what your "personal" opinions of the artist and his fans are, NOTHING you've mentioned justifies the page to be deleted. WIKIPEDIA is not about personal opinions. As long as the artist is mentioned in mainstream media (newspapers, TV) with studio albums out making notable places in local charts (what charts were you looking for in Bangladesh? MTV?) and selling large amount of copies (Bangladesh doesn't have anything like RIAA so the number of sales is unverifiable - those in newspapers and magazines are just statements from the artists themselves, so they're as unverifiable as Jasper). But, doing some google search like "jasper kata taarer bera" would feed your personal interest in finding a clue of why this artist could've been NOTABLE. SO, the only thing that seems justifiable is moving the article from AfD to NORMAL articles, removing biography part OR putting a citation needed tag encouraging someone to fill it up from a more reliable source. THANK you. Tran5par3ncy Tran5par3ncy (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: This is a duplicate opinion from the same user, see his first opinion above. --Ragib (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have changed the strong keep to comment as not to confuse the closing admin. Tim meh ! 18:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Ragib (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:N. There is almost no coverage by reliable third-party sources. Tim meh ! 18:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:N and WP:V. And I'd like to point out that this discussion has two nominations for "keep", one by the original editor. If you remove all comments by the original editor (who seems to be a WP:SPA), the discussion is fairly bland. For those interested, you can see here what the article looks like when all comments by, about or in reply to Tran5par3ncy are removed. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 13:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment Dude, we just need the sources - those two on the article are not from reliable sources. If its been in charts then there'll be proof somewhere! We aren't on a crusade to delete everything, we trying build a great quality encyclopedia, which means everything has to be verifiable Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand, bro. But, I don't understand how two articles on The Daily Star (Bangladesh) can be not reliable sources. Check pages like Aurthohin and more. They have one reference from the same newspaper. Whereas this one has two. RadioFoorti website has some problems, so the reference towards the Most Wanted songs couldn't be referred directly. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 11:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Also, you have already voted once. --Ragib (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That was not my argument. The argument is about the reliability of a source you've questioned that HAS been portrayed as a reliable source for another approved page. I'm not violating WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anyway, referring to Aurthohin is a very minor but important point I've mentioned. But, I'm sure you've noticed the other ones too. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, your referral to other articles is simply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Now, since you insist on Google search, let's see. jasper kata taarer bera shows only 126 hits, (after removing facebook, youtube, esnips, myspace etc.). Shows clearly that the subject (Jasper) is quite non notable. --Ragib (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: And add the search result of "jasper groovetrap" to that? Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then according to you, two of other referrals (The Daily Star) doesn't violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That's something to talk about. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Jasper Groovetrap" gets 2 google hits......[6] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WRONG. Do not include the quotation marks when you search. That only searches for sentences like "... jasper groovetrap...". Check this... http://www.google.com.bd/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=nhX&q=jasper+groovetrap&btnG=Search&meta= Tran5par3ncy (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Anyway, so many arguments above is unanswered. Please, check those. I'm not the artist, brothers. I'm not a big fan either. I just opened up a page that an artist deserved. And, I've opened this with all the rules acknowledged. I don't believe I've violated any rules according to his notability or the reliability of the sources. Technically, I'm right. I can't let my article be deleted for improper reasons. So, PLEASE finish the arguments. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What "arguments" are unanswered? Japser (if it's not you) fails WP:N miserably. I also googled Jasper Groovetrap without quotes, and got about 107 results, mostly from self-posted Youtube and forum links. Per WP:MUSIC, trivial or one-time coverage from a single article is not enough. Besides, it seems that the Daily Star weekend supplement articles have a large amount of text from Jasper's press release ... a lot of the text is also found in several fan pages. --Ragib (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com.bd/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=3zD&q=jasper+groovetrap+-facebook+-myspace+-forum+-youtube&btnG=Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= then how about this without facebook, myspace,youtube, forums. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's *exactly* what I've done here, run the query and filtering out Jasper's own myspace page, his facebook page, and other self-published pages. Seems like he is only "famous" :D when we consider his facebook and his own myspace page ... LOL. So much for a "notable" "famous" musician!! --Ragib (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You know what, I rest my case from here. You can do whatever you like with the page. But, I'd hope someone in the future brings Wikipedia more sources for the article to be rebuilt in the future as he really deserves it. Thanks for all, bros. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That GHit argument is so invalid. Try my name - with quote marks you'll have 1,010 hits,a and without quote marks 111,000 hits. That's way more than Jasper (singer). Hahahhaahahha... there goes your famous singer, who only has a self-posted existence on the web, and not really much on the ground. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. That just means you're an excessively self-exposed person on the web AND him on the ground. LOL. Watch before you say, funny guy. Anyway, this is pointless. 202.79.17.132 (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. This is pointless, rather "these" are. The article is, this "singer" is, and the strange argument to keep the article4 obviously is. Can you cite a single reason, apart from your "personal belief" in the "singer"s fame? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Tran5par3ncy have so far edited almost solely this AfD page and the article in discussion (which was almost solely edited by Tran5par3ncy), and 202.79.17.132 edited so far only this page. Probably the same person masquerading as two. Not too brilliant a move, I'd say. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 19:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting My detective friend, it IS the same user. LOL. I was writing something and for some reason I got logged out. So, I pressed "save page" and it took me in as "anonymous" for your KIND investigation. LOL. I don't believe, I've made it clear enough that I REST MY CASE. You can continue with your duty. Please, do not further put arguments about it towards me since I've put an end to mine. I'm very sorry I couldn't give enough sources. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just noticed that the entire article is a blatant copyvio from Jasper's myspace page. User:Tran5par3ncy claims he is not Jasper, yet Jasper's personal myspace page has the exact content as Tran5par3ncy's addition to the page. :). I have removed the copyvio text from the article. --Ragib (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yeah, I've copied it from his MySpace MUSIC page. Why do I need to be JASPER, LOL, for that? Or, did they make new privacy settings on MySpace music pages that fans or viewers can't visit the site. I believe, everyone being able to visit the site is THE main point of it. You sometimes amaze me. Anyway, thanks for removing the copied stuff from MySpace. It's certainly not a reliable source. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Daily star campus weeked supplement article seem to plagiarize a lot of content from the other article (even though the writers are "supposedly" different). Especially, the 9th paragraph "Proceeding further in the album ..." is almost a verbatim copy of the 5th paragraph of the Rising star page. :) --Ragib (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If only you guys monitored all the Wikipedia entries like this one! Wonders would've happened. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have any problem with what we do with our time? Please don't get personal, rather focus on the discussion on *this article* here. I believe the case for the AFD is very clear by this time, and non-notability of the subject has been established. As for your curiosity, yes I DO monitor all new BD related articles, in order to weed out non-notable people writing autobiographies. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 21:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't getting personal, you know. Anyway, what's gonna happen to the article now? Deletion? Just a general curiosity. Tran5par3ncy (talk) 21:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Interesting! I took part in more than hundred AfDs but never faced such arguments. Tran5par3ncy, you are new on WP and I would like to welcome you to this charming world. We are not against any new artist but just waiting for his notability to be established. I would also recommend you (just an advise, don't take it otherwise) to read different Wikipedia policies. It will help you to understand how to work on Wikipedia. You gave us two references from Daily Star; let me give you one! [7]. Cheers. - Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen worse. One guy claimed that the article on a certain person should be kept, because that person shot that editor's brother in the legs, and then drove him to hospital! Another editor actually supported per the brother. What wonders we find here. Such wonderful reasoning! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:22, 8 April 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. Seems that certain notability is established. Still, the article needs a heavy cleanup but AfD is not a place to discuss this. Tone 16:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypno-Disc[edit]

Article about a robot on the TV series Robot Wars. Some of the more notable robots, such as series winners, have entries, but this one did not achieve any success. The article is merely a list of contests summarised from the Robot Wars website. Black Kite 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmmm it's not just the big winners that have their own entries though - this robot's runner-up and two fourth places is better than, say Roadblocks. Failing that it can be put in the List of Minor Robot Wars robots. I must admit, I have no idea of the notability criteria for robots.... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I would have redirected this article to that one, but unfortunately that article is up for deletion as well, and looks like it will be deleted. Black Kite 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno then, I'm inclined to think that if that article gets deleted this one should stay.....on another note I didn't realise there was a Robot Wars wiki[8] :D Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is one of the most memorable robots on Robot Wars and since Storm 2 has its own page and it was only in 1 series (and yet was not a champion), its only right that Hypno-disc gets its own page due to the fact its been a grand finalist too. In fact I recomend giving pages to all Grand Finalists The C of E (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not only was this the most memorable bot of the show's entire history. (It's the only one I remember), the claim "Hypno-Disc was the first competitor robot recreated in toy form when the Robot Wars pullback toys were released." is a significant claim of notability. Do indiscriminate list of reports on the fights the bot was in needs to go, though, as they are not encyclopedic and impossible to reference. Better to link to a website carrying the information instead. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That toy sounds like the most dangerous thing ever invented - pull-back-and-go with that blade haha. I want one. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it does have links to its fights (or some of them at least) The C of E (talk) 15:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Best robot ever. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the first robots to use the kinetic flywheel weapon, The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique pohick (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom is this weapon significant? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 08:51, 9 April 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. Tone 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live from SoHo (The Decemberists)[edit]

Non-notable digital EP exclusive to iTunes. Part of the Live from SoHo compilation whose parent article was deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, non-charting EP with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I strongly feel that every album, EP, and single by a reasonably well-known artist should have its own article. A Google search for 'Live from Soho Decemberists' found 27,800 results. This EP has its own page on Last.fm. If Live on Blueberry Hill, an illegal bootleg (and many others also), has its own article, why wouldn't this officially-released EP with its own album artwork also have one? Is the plan to delete all of the Live from SoHo series, the Live from London series, the Connect Sets, and all other similar series? Will they still be mentioned in the bands' infoboxes but never wikilinked? I guess I just don't understand why these particular EPs shouldn't be included. Is it because they're live versions of previously released songs? Because they're exclusive to a particular seller? Remember, this is an official release from Capitol Records. --Muéro^(talk/c) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-charting EP, no awards, no significant independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (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 delete. Tone 16:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Mattlage[edit]

Long-term unsourced BLP that appears to fail WP:BLP1E. BLP cleanup - I am neutral.Black Kite 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:N. South Bay (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial americruft. If a similar thing had happened in any other country would we for a second entertain an article about the perpetrator? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Revert to my original redirect to the Cindy Sheehan story. Actually at this point none of these are exactly continuing in importance.
Delete, notability is not conferred by living next door to someone notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Shanti Giri[edit]

I am unable to verify this article's contents per a regular Google search, let alone Google News and Google Books. I also tried some alternate spelling without success. Now even if sources do exist that are not turning up on Google, the fact that only the Wikipedia article turns up on Google suggests that the claim this is a "famous" saint cannot be true, because famous people get multiple hits, no? Anyway, multiple editors have prodded or posted speedy delete templates as suspected hoax as well and as such it is probably worth while having a more definitive discussion rather than back and forth speedy delete templating and prodding. A Nobody^{My talk} 18:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried some other alternate spellings and found nothing either. The village of Badangarh has very few hits too, and none mention anything like this. I note that Shanti Giri could be (very) roughly translated to Holy Mountain ... Maybe a fan of the movie is attempting a zen-like prank. Gigs (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see two possibilities; a) this article is a hoax b)this person is not "famous" enough to be considered notable as no sources exist. --DFS454 (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of notability and the likelihood of it being a hoax. I've done several searches for sources and have been unable to verify this "saint's" existence. Cunard (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with A Nobody's well-detailed and thought out nomination. However, I also did a little research of my own, and could not find anything either. The only page I could find that had anything to do with this topic was, in fact, this one. Acalamari 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If cannot verify sources, cannot verify article notability. This is just my opinion.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mean Machine (rap group)[edit]

I don't think that this article meets the notability requirements, per WP:BAND. Chzz ► 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "The group is often cited as the first bilingual rap group, and is possibly the first ever Latino rap group" sounds pretty notable to me (I just sourced it too). Gbooks shows +-70 books for "Mean Machine" latin, so I don't think meeting WP:BAND or WP:NOTABILITY will be a problem. WP:BEFORE — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, sources are available to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 13:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They have a unique place in the history of hip-hop. The New York Times described "Disco Dream" as an "early rap standout".[9] Also mentioned here and here.--Michig (talk) 14:29, 10 April 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. as withdrawn - unsourced BLP now sourced - nice work folks. Black Kite 11:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Beam[edit]

This BLP has been practically unsourced since 2006 and is of dubious notability. BLP cleanup - I am neutral. Black Kite 18:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added enough references to the article to show notability - hundreds more are available from Google Books, Scholar and News searches. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added some references. He's a noteworthy figure, and his writing on Vietnam is sometimes outstanding.

90.242.160.57 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:08, 8 April 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. Article improved (from one sentence!!) and nom withdrawn Black Kite 21:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers[edit]

Not sourced not notable. Was going to speedy for patent nonsense but it does seem to exist so its their for not nonsense I guess. Also included is a redirect page to the main 'article' Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 18:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and tried but couldn't find much....it was shown at Sundance Film Festival last year and has just come out on DVD, which I guess is why this article has appeared. But, no reviews apart from a user-generated one on imDb and a couple of similar ones. I hope someone finds something for it but it looks unlikely Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found this review, but I'm not sure about reliability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a real film with a few secondary source reviews, and fairly wide albeit limited multi-country distribution. Gigs (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the film itself may be notable (per Gigs), the current state of the article is worthless. I'd go with delete, unless there's some source of reliable information that can be incorporated. TheFeds 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, if the subject is found notable by consensus I'll rewrite it myself, just need some references Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete does not meet WP:MOVIE.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK I've tidied it up a lot, but still needs more info, anyone finds some good references or info hit me up Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I have done more renovation. Now meets WP:NF. Through decent reviews and notable cast. Will be adding more reviews to critical reaponse. Search was easier once I realized it was listed under three searchable titles: Turtles Are Surprisingly Fast Swimmers, Kame wa Igai to Hayaku Oyogu, and Turtles Swim Faster Than Expected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is now well-written and with the sources added by User:MichaelQSchmidt, meets the general notability guideline if I'm not mistaken. I've redirected Kame wa Igai to Hayaku Oyogu and Turtles Swim Faster Than Expected to this article as alternate titles. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Now has sources, and there is more. --Apoc2400 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep briefly looked over sources and they seem fine. Nice job MQS! Hobit (talk) 13:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Deletion as nominator -- Article is significantly different from when proposed Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. My own hat is doffed to Dylanfromthenorth who made me believe from his words that a resuce was worth doing. Best regards to all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:30, 7 April 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See–Yemen relations[edit]

This article makes no assertion of why the subject is notable. The external links, presumably provided as references, have no context within the text of the article itself. The scant information present in the article could just as easily be merged into Foreign relations of the Holy See, Foreign relations of Yemen and Diplomatic missions of the Holy See. It is further difficult to conceive of any information for this article that would not be more suited to these other articles, or to a history article or section on these two countries. If anything, this article simply impedes users from finding appropriate information by being an extraneous article. BlueSquadronRaven 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable in the usual way.[10][11][12][13][14][15] No reason to hold bilateral relations articles to a far higher standard of notability than any other articles. One could easily find many more sources if they spent more than a two minutes looking . . . Wily D 17:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not holding these articles to a higher standard. I question their existence at all as their content is better suited to existing articles. The sources you cite are, frankly, mundane and everyday occurrences in the world of international diplomacy and do not add to the article in the slightest. If any of them should be considered as the starting point of a major international incident, then they may be usable as references in a historical article, however, this one is so scant as to be trivial, and there are better-established existing articles this could expand on.--BlueSquadronRaven 18:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They rocket the article past WP:N so fast one could probably measure Lorentz contraction. By arguing for deletion you're arguing against using the usual inclusion criterion, WP:N, for a much more stringient one. Arguing that a single, coherent article would do a better job of communicating it's content by spreading it across a multitude of articles in bits is so on it's face wrong I don't know where to start. Mundane at the international relations level is typically highly notable. Just like mundane cities are typically notable (say Akron, Ohio), mundane expeditions to the moon are typically notable (say Apollo 17) or mundane wars are typically notable (say Sino-Soviet border conflict). The general class of items are almost always notable, because they're so important and influential. Wily D 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to hold your own opinion, but numerous AfDs have decided otherwise. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And numerous AFDs have decided I'm right. For a relationship this notable, they've all closed "keep" or "no consensus". Wily D 18:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's put this another way. The sum total body text of the article is: "Holy See–Yemen relations are foreign relations between the Holy See and Yemen. Both countries established diplomatic relations in 2001. The Holy See has a nunciature in Sana'a. Yemen has an embassy in Rome." This text has remained identical since the article's creation two months ago. What is it about these four sentences that is so compelling they require their own article to house them rather than any of the others I have suggested? There has been adequate time to expand on this topic, even a little. That it hasn't been done suggests to me that there is nothing noteworthy about it except the salient facts that can be merged into existing foreign relations articles. I have a new word for articles such as this: wikiclutter. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article could clearly benefit from expansion. As you seem to be unaware, Wikipedia is a work in progress. No articles are "finished", and the vast majority are far from it. Many articles will sit for a long time until someone has the time to expand them, perhaps they're busy dealing with frivilous deletion discussions. Articles regularly sit around far longer before they're expanded. Because Wikipedia's not paper WP:NOT#PAPER, it turns out we can't have clutter. We have near three million articles, almost all of which are insignificant in importence next to this. And yet from little stubs, mighty FAs grow, even if it takes a lifetime. Wily D 19:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that line of reasoning, a blank page could be considered notable if it had a good title. As it stands, this article is cruft, and I stand by my reasons why it should be deleted and the content (all three points of it) moved to other articles. Further, as it seems quite obvious you are stuck in your ways, I shall not be debating the dubious merits of any similar articles with you any longer. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reasonable argument can be made that the article is cruft. Because it's a parallel article to multiple other articles, no reasonable marge target could ever be found - where would you redirect this? It's unsurprising that with no valid arguments, you choose to present none, I'd go so far as to call it wise. Wily D 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to bet this could never, ever be an FA, which is as good a criterion for deletion as any. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely be the most stringient criterion ever applied in an AFD. Very little of our value comes from FAs, or even GAs. Mostly, it's in Bs and Starts. Wily D 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - everyone who is someone meets with the Pope at some point; it's not that special. For Yemen's 4,000 Catholics (of a population of 23 million), we have Roman Catholicism in Yemen. And as the nominator noted, this "subject" is covered as much as need be by other articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another case of an article saying "I can pick any two countries and let other editors to figure it out". We need to establish special and clear standards for these articles, instead of dragging this into a million separate AfDs, and I would welcome any form of centralized debate. And editors who vote "keep" really need to ask themselves: "If this article hadn't existed, would I find any reason for it? could I even be able to link to it in a significant number of articles, and would the link add anyhting important?" Dahn (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not use WP:N for that standard, as is done widely and successfully across a plethora of disparate article subjects? WilyD 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am, and all articles I voted "delete" on fail it (as noted by me, as noted by other users, including on this very page). The point about special standards would be to avoid these convoluted debates, and set a filter. That filter would stand for: "we won't even be discussing application of WP:N and whether a 'relations' article should be kept if it doesn't meet these criteria". Dahn (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's about 195 sovereign countries in the world. Using combinatorics, that's over 19,000 potential articles. So surely bilateral relations need some kind of standard of notability for inclusion higher than "they exist". Gigs (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not WP:N? Many category of articles (species, cities) have far more than 19000 actual articles, and WP:N is applied to them with great success. Why is this different from every other kind of article on Wikipedia? Wily D 20:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we apply only WP:N blindly, I don't really see a claim of notability here. WP:INDISCRIMINATE comes to mind, among others. Gigs (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's - uh - hard to miss unless you haven't read the preceeding discussion. I can't guess why indiscriminate comes to mind - it's the model of a discriminate article. Wily D 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very short secondary sources merely documenting the fact that there were diplomatic meetings doesn't really establish anything... of course there are meetings, that's what diplomatic relations implies! The one source about the Muslim-Catholic tension is more like it... if there were more secondaries (or even primaries) to flesh that out, you might have something. Gigs (talk) 20:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not short, they're just not freely available (I think one or two are). They are primaries, but since we're trying to establish whether to include this information at all, and the WP:N standard discounts primaries as worth considering with respect to notability, I haven't bothered. Wily D 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSA comes to mind here. Without context in the larger picture of history their mere existence is meaningless. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing completely inapplicable essays is not a valid argument. Wily D 10:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To facilitatethe discussion, the sources cited by Wily D are Yemen warns will review relations with Vatican Yemen: President Salih meets Vatican delegation, receives message from pope Yemeni president meets Pope John Paul II, discusses ties.Yemeni official holds talks with non-resident Vatican envoy in Sanaa. and YEMEN: PRIME MINISTER MEETS WITH NEW REPRESENTATIVE FROM VATICAN.; My opinion is that when the President of a Moslem nation is seeking ties with the spiritual leader of the world's Roman Catholic Christians, it's a significant relationship. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion. Now put those news items cited into a context within the article and you might have grounds for keeping it. Otherwise, WP:NOBJ applies.--BlueSquadronRaven 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos of nothing, that's the worst shortcut I've ever seen for an essay. Wily D 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I'm strongly deletionist against those random country relations, anything that has to do with relations with the Vatican I consider notable, and highly sourceable, including this example. Secret ^account 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am supportive of the statements put forth by WilyD and Mandsford. The article needs better editing and referencing, but it doesn't deserve to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WilyD/PasterTheo's arguments are wholely unconvincing. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how are the one-on-one foreign relations of the Vatican any more notable than those of any other country? Nyttend (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the Vatican conducts notable bilateral relations with a lot of countries - definitely so much so that a single article would be impossibly large. But it's a silly standard when bilateral relations are generally notable per our usual criterion - I don't argue we should delete Montana because it's no more notable than any other state. Wily D 10:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability. . . Rcawsey (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it meets the standard of WP:N. What's different here? Why should we use a much higher standard? WilyD 10:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - A new user of Wikipedia, noticing a reference to "Holy See–Yemen relations", a supposedly notable subject, might expect to see an article with some interesting content. They are likely to be sadly disappointed, and hence likely to assume that most articles on Wikipedia are a similar waste of time. . . Rcawsey (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by WilyD all seem to be very short summaries of press releases on trivial meetings. As such, I don't think that they're sufficient to meet WP:N - you couldn't write an article on the basis of the information they contain. Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles themselves aren't particularly short - the "free sneak previews" are. This is somewhat different. WilyD 12:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hard to make objective decisions about their encyclopedic value if we can't read them, isn't it? In any case, this isn't the news. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Citing irrelevent guidelines isn't helpful, nor does it constitute an "argument". It is longstanding precedent that Wikipedia is not just a parroting of the freely available parts of the internet, but that pay areas of the internet, and even though sources which exist only in hard copy, are also useful as sources. It turns out if you're unable to examine the relevent evidence, you simply can't develop an informed opinion on the subject. The correct action is to refrain from commenting until you know what you're talking about. Wily D 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.Chaudhary Tariq Mehmood.[edit]

Ridiculous lack of notability Truthbanks12345 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable person, borderline pure vandalism. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy not suitable as the article makes claim of notability. WP:PROD would have been best as a non-controversial deletion. You could, however, make a great big WP:SNOWBALL out of it Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for myriad reasons; let's go for WP:BIO as the clearest criterion breach. Seegoon (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability, verifiability, etc Gigs (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - full of subjective original research, peacock terms like "best", without any evidence of awards; no cites. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 6 April 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 per G12 as the salvageable part would still be eligible under A7. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Moore (managing director)[edit]

Unsourced BLP since 2006. Notability appears to be lacking, at best unclear. I am neutral. Black Kite 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a blatant copyright violation of [16]. Removal of all copyvio content would leave us with a one-sentence article that is still unsourced and still does not establish notability. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this is a blatant copyvio, and I've blanked the article and placed the requisite templates on the Wikipedia copyright infringement page.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra Infinity[edit]

Blatant advert, product virtually unknown Truthbanks12345 (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable product that has no RS coverage. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Also seems like an advert. Them From Space 19:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Maralia (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above views. Notability lack; advert. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 23:19, 6 April 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. Havin been significantly improved in many ways in a collaborative manner,result is now keep (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Chang[edit]

~~Being the former president of a Student's Association does not make one notable, nor does working for Greenpeace. Contested prod, for some ill-defined reason. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdraw - since notability is now more specific and verified by the sources.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing turns up in a UK newspaper library search. Hiding T 21:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What was ill-defined about my reason for contesting the prod? It was that the subject is notable for having significant coverage in independent reliable sources, such as the article in the South China Morning Post [17] that I referenced in the article and many others found by a Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did G-hits equal notability? I proded for lack of any notability - you muttered something about Google news search. What, pray tell, makes her notable? That some newspaper ran a "day in the life of a Greenpeace activist" is not grounds for writing her biography. "She is currently working at Greenpeace Hong Kong as a Climate and Energy campaigner" is not an assertion of notability. There is nothing notable in this article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of g-hits doesn't equal notability, but the quality and content of the articles found does. You appear to be using a subjective judgement of importance rather than Wikipedia's definition of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. Notability is inherently subjective, because life is subjective. Notability is not, and can never sanely be, about doing arithmetic on the number and quality of sources. We have to ask, what is she supposedly notable for - and make a judgement. Now I ask you again, why do you think this person is notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is the standard required for a BLP these days, I'm worried. I have more significant coverage in independent reliable sources GTD 10:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - She could have told the reporter anything. This one source is not enough. WAS 4.250 (talk) 10:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete'~~ - Notability is not established by that particular newspaper article, no. BLP1E. Merge it to Cheng Yiu Chung, the ~~chancellor~~. former vice-chancellor. Oh wait, he doesn't have an article. I bet he's not notable either. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep now that the article has had sufficient high quality sources, with references to Chang that establish notability added. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The vice chancellor is the person in charge of a university in the English system inherited by Hong Kong. The chancellor is simply a figurehead. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And what about the other sources found in the Google News search I linked above, such as The Chicago Tribune and The Christian Science Monitor? There are also ISBN 9789622096134 p. 291 identifying the subject as a key opposition figure in the years following the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China, and ISBN 9789629371456 pp. 878-879 covering her role as a Catholic activist, Time Magazine's Asiaweek describing her as a prominent activist[18], her specific role in a campaign[19], and as one of the icons of the year 2000[20], coverage in The Standard of her leadership of student protests[21], and more coverage behind a paywall from the South China Morning Post[22]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- {{sofixit}}... an AfD is a great time to bring an article up to snuff. ++Lar: t/c 12:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Everything in the article is referenced to a reliable source, so what is there to be fixed? Here we are discussing the notability of the subject, not how many sources are in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you bring up the other sources then, if not to establish notability? Defend the sole source in there. That would be what I would expect you to do, if you don't think other sources are needed. You seem to be using whatever argument fits rather than using a consistent approach. This article, as it stands, does not establish the notability of the subject. It needs improvement to do that. Go forth and do that. ++Lar: t/c 12:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't run an edit-on-demand service. Notability is an attribute of article subjects, not of article contents. Citations go in articles for the purposes of verifiabilily. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability may be an attribute of article subjects, but demonstrated notability is an attribute of articles. Unsourced BLPs are subject to summary deletion, as far as I am concerned. No one is forcing you to add anything at all to the article, but since there is no deadline if the article is not currently adequately sourced, you need to either bring it up to snuff, find someone else who will, or stand aside while it is deleted. That is no reflection on you, it's just the way things need to be. BLPs are a huge problem. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unsourced BLPs are a problem, but every fact in this article was sourced to Hong Kong's equivalent of the New York Times or The Times. It's unsourced content in BLPs that has the potential to cause harm, not non-demonstration of notability in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one was unsourced, as I adjudge it. Now it isn't. But if it had been in the state it was when first nominated, I would have deleted it outright. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to be rude. That the sources exist is enough to establish establish notability. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But not enough to keep the article. The article needs to be acceptable under policy. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No notability established. Surely we can do better than this, folks. seicer | talk | contribs 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Now well sourced. Too bad it took an AFD to get some attention to this BLP. Now, can we focus on the thousands of other BLPs that need attention? seicer | talk | contribs 20:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would love to do that, but I have to spend so much of my time fighting off deletion nominations for articles that are sourced to reliable sources such as the South China Morning Post that I don't have any left to look at the more important cases such as the genuinely unsourced ones about children or that contain potentially damaging content. Let's concentrate on the articles such as the one I saw a week or two ago about a 16-year-old who was claimed to have performed in porn films and an administrator had prodded as unnotable rather than deleting immediately. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS won't fly in this usage... that there are other BLPs that are more problematic doesn't mean this one wasn't. ++Lar: t/c 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the argument being made. The argument is that people need to stop trying to delete the genuinely notable ones and focus on the vast majority of much more problematic ones. Scott's systematic prodding for example is probably a better way of going about this (although he did then AfD this article and my impression is that the largscale prodding can lead possibly to systemic bias issues). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Most news articles mention her as a Greenspeace spokesperson, but are not actually about her. The South China Morning Post article is not enough to establish notability. Possibly together with the new articles Phil Bridger found above. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Asaiweek cover'll do me) ~~Comment~~ ~~(tending to keep)~~ I wonder if there are any cantonese-language sources. I will place a post on a WP:Hong Kong page if I can find one. The story sounds interesting (who was the main contributor to the resignation of the former Vice Chancellor of The University of Hong Kong Professor Cheng Yiu Chung) what was that about? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are tending to keep on the basis of a currently unverified and ill-defined assertion, which you find "interesting". Please tell me why?--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - erm, no, there are two themes - (1) currently is significantly mentioned in one reliable source, only needs one more to satisfy notability. thus I am thinking it may head that way and hence my 'tending to' comment, (2) yes the statement is currently unverified and ill-defined - I just noted my curiosity as it doesn't read like blatant vandalism and in which case I was curious as to what it was. If it is/was in fact a notable story, then she has a couple of bordering-notable things on her plate. Anyway, I will see what turns up, and I am pretty sure some folks familiar with Hong Kong issues will make a better job of it than I will. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added some sources. She was also on the cover of Asiaweek: [23]. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, thanks for that. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per sources from Phil Bridger and Apoc. Note also that the nominator has been canvassing for delete votes on an external website.[24]. Closure should take this into account when judging consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, the closer should take the strength of the argument into account mainly. And since you've made no argument, that rather weakens you. This is not an issue of sources, but of notability. Why do you think this person is notable? Please make your case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Consensus means consensus. Strength of argument is judged in part based on how many people are convinced. Of course, if that weren't the case why would the nominator and you and others bother canvassing anyways? In any event, I did make an argument. There are soiurces given by Phil and Apoc. If you need me to be more explicit I can: Those sources demonstrate notability. They meet WP:BIO multiple times over. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Sources don't "demonstrate notability" they never have and never will. All sources do is verify information, the question then remains as to whether the information renders the person notable. So, I see no argument in your statement. (Oh, and if you don't know the difference between canvassing and making a rhetorical and ironic point, then you're not really getting this. Can we stick to the facts of the article please?)--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sources do demonstrate notability but their existence. That's the entire point of the primary notability criterion: that a subject has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We have that here. Many times over. And in any event, there's nothing ironic about saying explicitly on a fairly pro-deletion forum "Perhaps people here would like to vote in this discussion - I could use some deletion support." JoshuaZ (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you mean you don't see the irony. Sorry, I thought it was pretty obvious. You should watch Spartacus, you'd enjoy it, really. Back on point, sources don't demonstrate notability - that's clearly daft. Notability cannot be reduced to a sum, one has to make a judgement on significance - sources may help to make that judgement, but they don't "demonstrate it". They simply don't.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Throwing a cliched reference to a well-known movie =/= irony. In any event, that's precisely what notability means on Wikipedia. The presence of multiple, independent, reliable sources. This has been true for a very long time. Simply making up new definitions doesn't cut it. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Rubbish. Notability is inherently subjective and is determined through discussion towards consensus, not by counting sources. Sources verify. Sure without sources, we can't verify notability. But after verifying facts we need to assess their notability. Sorry, but life is subjective and cannot be reduced to a science student's sum. Thankfully, what you describe is not the way wikipedia actually works, and never has been.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        On the contrary. That's precisely the point of the primary notability criterion. It minimizes subjectivity. Do we have multiple, non-trivial independent reliable sources? Yes. Then the subject is notable. Any claim otherwise is simply an attempt to justify using the hideously ill-defined terms like "marginal notability" which no one has codified. You can't rewrite basic policy and basic history of policy to suit your goals. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You can't codify life and significance. It isn't possible.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't claim you could. The point is that we have a clear set of policies and guidelines which make more or less objective standards. The entire point of such policies is that they remove the subjective element from us as much as possible and simply look at who ends up being important enough for reliable sources to talk about, whether or not they are making the same decisions we would. That's why say Britney Spears is notable regardless of how much she's unimportant in any reasonable view of the universe. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She appears to be known only in her city's local area, and that in itself is debatable. I was made aware of this discussion by a post on Wikipedia Review, where I also post notifications about BLP AfD's that I initiate. Doing so is not a violation of WP:CANVASS. Anyway, the subject obviously does not meet our notability guidelines. As an aside, some of the contributors here voting to keep have dubious, at best [25] [26] [27] records when it comes to protecting BLPs on marginally notable people (of which this article is not one), if the closer wants to take that into account when weighing the arguments. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cla68, you've already had explianed to you that tha content in question is different, that the addition of the phrase "Jewish lobby" occurred after I edited the article, that Israeli and Jewish are not the same thing at all and that the content in question that I kept is well-sourced and still in the article. Presumably the closer can take a close look at this and see how utterly wrong you are. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't necessarily agree with you but I didn't need to say that in this way in this forum and have lined through it. Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, and now that we're moving on to substantive issues do you want to explain how she doesn't meet WP:BIO? JoshuaZ (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable activist involved in historically significant issues of democracy and academic freedom in HK, well sourced. Now someone needs to work on sources for related articles. . . dave souza, talk 09:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per dave souza. -Jackl 08:21, 10 April 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitterness (Desperate Housewives)[edit]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'm tagging this one for sure. All DH episodes have song titles as episodes and this one doesn't have a song to go with it. Sourced from a Tripod page, and to article creator AdamDeanHall; wait until the episode airs to create an article. Don't do it on speculation and certainly never, ever from a source that is not backed by a major media organization. Also, there's only 22 episodes in a season for the average American series. You should know that as well as anybody (this is advertised as a 23rd episode).Nate • (chatter) 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL (but, note to Nate: according to its article, DH series 1 - 3 did have 23 regular episodes each, plus specials). JohnCD (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Apologies then; the WGA strike's aftereffects apparently added on those episodes and I haven't noted it until now (a few other series are going over 22 this year I realize). Nate • (chatter) 04:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Desperate Housewives (season 5) says that this episode is "TBA" and there are no sources on it. Hence WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. No articles related to the series link here. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 22:28, 11 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Larrikin[edit]

no references, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References in support of notability per WP:CREATIVE can be found. I have added references to the article for his work with "Larrikin Love" and "Patrick Wolf". Untick (talk) 12:40, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable notability guideline is WP:MUSICBIO, not WP:CREATIVE. Dlabtot (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has notability and references. Needs more and a rewrite but definite keep Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you believe the subject of the article "has notability"? WP:MUSICBIO lists 12 criteria. Which criteria does the subject meet and why? OTOH, a redirect to Larrikin Love may be appropriate. Dlabtot (talk) 18:10, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 00:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Handzup Radio[edit]

Internet radio station. Now closed, Was it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly non-notable former radio station Bacchus87 (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to establish notability with reliable references. Spiesr (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source provided for its claims of notability, and a look through search results doesn't suggest there are enough. JohnCD (talk) 19:41, 9 April 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. Ty 00:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rock the Cosmos Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.135.61.242 (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to be a bit more specific as to why, since AFDs are not decided by vote. You need to state why it should be kept according to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Has anyone bothered to even look for sources? Is the Liverpool Echo not a reliable third-pary source? How about The New York Times? The fact is that there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources to be found, although, interestingly, many of them are in other languages. This tour is internationally notable! Can people start doing some actual research instead of just sheep voting? DHowell (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not one of queen's notable tours, nothing exceptionally notable about it. A-Kartoffel (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you believe is "one of queen's notable tours"? You've argued to delete every single one of them, even after I've pointed out reliable sources. And what policy or guideline requires things to be "exceptionally notable" rather than just notable? DHowell (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator disqualifies himself per WP:BEFORE and some of the cries for deletion are ridiculuous in their own right - especially the one above, posted even after dozens of sources have been provided. Hello? --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - No WP:MASTODONS. A-Kartoffel (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Test Soon Development[edit]

Apparently non-notable concept, no references provided. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Only 2 ghits for '"test soon development" -wikipedia'. One of those is a twitter tweet dated 2 days prior to the creation of this article that states that the poster is "watching in awe as our contractors innovate a new practice soon to be known across the lands as Test Soon Development". The other is a wikipedia mirror that has stripped the name of wikipedia from its content. JulesH (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Equendil Talk 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Couldn't find anything on this, appears to be made up. -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analogue and digital[edit]

This appeared in the hoax category and I feel it needs some discussion. The article comes across as someone trying to create a new music genra rather than discuss an established one. I have only been able to find a small lastfm group about the topic. Wasted Oompa-Loompa (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it is a genuinely used term for artists like Luke Vibert, Ceephax etc but....I'm not sure it's used widely enough, nor with any creditable sources to back it up. I'm gonna stay neutral, apart from to say it ain't a hoax.... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: well, i'm a fan of this music and the first i heard of the term was when i read this article. large collection of WP:OR, most if not all failing WP:V. a quick google shows that as a genre it probably doesn't pass WP:N either. all the artists mentioned fit quite well enough in IDM, Acid House, Electro, and others. --Kaini (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I heard the term before but like ya say it just isn't used....if I want it I ask the DJ for some dirty acid :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the author still hasn't come forward with a source which mentions this genre. I have been following experimental electronic music for quite some time and haven't encountered this term once. Apparently it is just one person who wants to create a new genre as said above (see: http://xltronic.com/mb/106896) 79.198.192.198 (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism with not enough suitable sources, yet. Gigs (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously a joke even if it has been used before - 122.106.157.215 (talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 23:17, 6 April 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 John Randolph of Roanoke. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion of John Randolph of Roanoke[edit]

This article exists largely as a refutation to a flash-in-the-pan claim that Randolph was a Muslim. The notion is below even fringe, as it seems to be the politically excitable overinterpreting a slightly dubious statement; the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. What we have in the referenced article is gross overkill, a mixture of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. The truth seems to be that Randolph's conversion experience in 1818 wasn't really notable; it occupies about ten pages of a seven hundred page biography which itself consists largely of quotations from Randolph's letters. I have already salvaged what I think is of importance and included it in the main article. Mangoe (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: To summarize the controversy: David Barton made a remark in a rather rambling article which an unwary writer at the Washington Times overstated; that then briefly flashed around the blogosphere. I've already given that the succinct refutation it deserves in the the main article. What we are left with is a WP:COATRACK, because most of the article isn't about that; it's a long IMO WP:OR discursus on Randolph's religion which doesn't pay a lot of attention to the conversion incident either. Mangoe (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This seems to have entered the media because fundamentalist Christian writer claimed that Keith Ellison was not the first Muslim to be elected to Congress [29]. He said that John Randolph was, and that he was converted to Christianity when he recognised God's Truth. The story circulated on the internet and in the mainstream media until it was shown to be nonsense. That's about it. It's not worth a full length article. Randolph was swept up the early 19th century "great awakening", as were many people. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. The idea that Randolph was at any time Muslim is pattent nonsense. To have an article devoted to debunking this idea gives undue weight to the idea itself. I would have advised merging the material on Randolph's shifting religiosity into the main bio... but Mangoe seems to have taken care of that (ie the material is already merged). Blueboar (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into parent article per WP:COAT, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim that Randolph was a Muslim is not supported by serious scholarship. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article deals not with his conversion to be a Muslim, which is indeed not based on any good evidence, but his religion in general. Given that the material is in the blogosphere, we might as well explain this right. The paragraph in the main article could use expansion i, and this article can be used for the purpose, though obviously not in anything like this detail. Since the "conversion:" in this sense can mean reawakening to Christianity, it is a usable search term for the redirect. DGG (talk) 00:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clarify, DGG is correct in saying that the articles is not about his conversion to be a Muslim... what the article is about (according to the lead) is his supposed conversion from Islam to Christianity ... I think the main objection here is over the idea that he was a Muslim to begin with... that is a rejected WP:Fringe concept. If there is more material on his religious views in general that should be merged into, or exported to, the main article, please do so. Blueboar (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to John Randolph of Roanoke per WP:FRINGE. Article also seems to have a fair bit of WP:OR in it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 12 April 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 Metallica discography. Tone 16:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Metallica Collection[edit]

This page meets Wikipedia’s criteria for deletion because article is about a “virtual” boxed set that does not (and never will) exist in the physical world. This article is just a list of all of Metallica’s studio albums and other releases, and duplicates what is already listed in the Metallica discography article. WP:CRYSTALBALL also applies as the digital collection has not yet been released by iTunes, who is its only distributor. Esasus (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Redirect to Metallica discography. A digital box set to be released sometimes in the future ? That the box set will never exist in the physical world is not an issue, that it doesn't exist virtually yet however, is one, that it's not notable independantly of Metallica is another. Equendil Talk 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a plausible search term to the Metallica discography. The mention that it gets there (Metallica discography#Box_sets) is more than enough for the moment due to the fact it is, as pointed out, just a re-release of their existing works. At this time the article fails stand alone notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. I am confused by the nominators concern over the fact that it is an electronic release only. WP:Music make no mention of it as long as reliable sources are provided. To me it would be like saying, in the 80's, that an album released on vinyl doesn't count because CD's were the latest thing. IMHO of course. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about other digital boxed sets, as The Complete U2 or Bob Dylan: The Collection, so why not have that about Metallica's. In few days that box set will be avaliable and there are official references about it on Metallica website and iTunes Store. Scaion (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources do nothing to establish notability because they lack independence from the subject. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only, who really knows Metallica, knows about that box. Others will need wikipedia to know about that. It's the point. Scaion (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of wikipedia. This site is not a promotional or advertising service. If people really want to find out about a release they would more than likely go to allmusic first. JamesBurns (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources to establish notability. TheClashFan (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's not relevant that the album is digital-only. When this is released in a few days, this article will be recreated anyway, and with good reason, as there is precedent and this is a release from a major band. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But this article is not about a new release. The "collection" is just an iTunes marketing scheme to sell the entire Metallica catalogue. If this is a notable "release" then so is my Metalica MP3 CD that I have I stored away somewhere. The albums released by Metalica are certainly notable. A list of the albums released by Metalica is found at Metallica discography. A list of Metalica albums that can be bought through iTunes Store is NOT notable, and that is what this article is about. Esasus (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: agree with the nominator. Notability of this unreleased iTunes box-set is yet to be demonstrated. JamesBurns (talk) 00:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's about a release under the name Metallica, it'll get notability. Scaion (talk) 10:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on wikipedia isn't inherited. JamesBurns (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so! But we know if the article is deleted, somebody will come and write a new one and we'll be here, again. Scaion (talk) 14:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then a redirect is probably in order, altering my !vote accordingly. Equendil Talk 18:59, 9 April 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 (No Consensus) Cheers. I'^mperator 23:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Space Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some of that coverage? And to be notable, the tour must be notable on its OWN, completely regardless of what band it was for, because notability cannot be inherited from another subject. The subject of the article must be notable in its own right, and nothing seems to suggest that here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tour was reviewed in the Washington Post, covered in the Los Angeles Times, and is notable for being the last tour in the U.S. with Freddie Mercury (The Miami Herald). A film of a concert on this tour was reviewed in The Bergen Record. Until you've gone through every contemporary issue of Billboard (magazine), Rolling Stone, NME, and every city newspaper from the venues in which they performed and can tell me that they didn't say anything significantly about this tour, I don't believe for a second that what User:JulesH says is not true. Thanks to FUTON bias, you shouldn't expect to find the text of many of these publications from 1982 in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - trivial, non-notable coverage includes The Washington Post and there's sure more out there, as the band was at the height of popularity at that time. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:16, 9 April 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 (No Consensus) Cheers. I'^mperator 23:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some of that coverage? And to be notable, the tour must be notable on its OWN, completely regardless of what band it was for, because notability cannot be inherited from another subject. The subject of the article must be notable in its own right, and nothing seems to suggest that here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: wow, nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of non-trivial press coverage which is not available on the net, but it is reflected in the standard secondary literature. Again, the title does not ease research. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Covered in the book Freddie Mercury: An intimate memoir by the man who knew him best, and a bootleg recording is documented in Allmusic. Tour was notable for ending with the first concert of the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea. Since this tour was restricted to the United Kingdom, I have no doubt that significant coverage can be found in the British press in 1979. But it will take someone with access to those sources to find it, access which I don't have. I've noticed that Google News Archive is significantly lacking in this area. DHowell (talk) 00:56, 10 April 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 (No Consensus) Cheers. I'^mperator 23:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jazz Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some of that coverage? And to be notable, the tour must be notable on its OWN, completely regardless of what band it was for, because notability cannot be inherited from another subject. The subject of the article must be notable in its own right, and nothing seems to suggest that here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of non-trivial press coverage which is not available on the net or is hard to find due to the title (both, "jazz" and "queen" are not the best search terms), but it is reflected in the standard secondary literature. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour was reviewed in The Washington Post, and it was memorable enough that Rolling Stone had something to say about it even two years later. And I have no reason to doubt JulesH that even more press coverage exists from 1978 and 1979, but thanks to FUTON bias (as well as only being able to use generic words and phrases for search terms, as hexaChord points out) it probably won't be found in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the first link is not bad, as it brings up [30] which provides reviews for a lot of other concerts. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found another full review in the Los Angeles Times. DHowell (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News of the World Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists primarily of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of non-trivial press coverage which is not available on the net, but it is reflected in the standard secondary literature. [31] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour got a two-page review in the Los Angeles Times (calling it the band's "most spectacularly staged and finely honed show yet"), and was reviewed in The Washington Post. And I have no reason to doubt JulesH and hexaChord that even more press coverage exists from 1977 and 1978, but thanks to FUTON bias it probably won't be found in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Day At The Races Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists primarily of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some of that coverage? And to be notable, the tour must be notable on its OWN, completely regardless of what band it was for, because notability cannot be inherited from another subject. The subject of the article must be notable in its own right, and nothing seems to suggest that here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable tour, trivial 3rd party coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of non-trivial press coverage which is not available on the net, but it is reflected in the standard secondary literature. [32] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour was reviewed in Circus magazine (noting that it sold out Madison Square Garden in moments), and also in The Times. And I have no reason to doubt JulesH and hexaChord that even more press coverage exists from 1977, but thanks to FUTON bias it probably won't be found in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As DHowell and JulesH note, there was significant independent coverage of the tour, thus satisfying WP:NOTE. Rlendog (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Night At The Opera Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. Article consists only of a setlist and list of dates. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). JulesH (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some of that coverage? And to be notable, the tour must be notable on its OWN, completely regardless of what band it was for, because notability cannot be inherited from another subject. The subject of the article must be notable in its own right, and nothing seems to suggest that here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of non-trivial press coverage which is not available on the net, but it is reflected in the standard secondary literature. [33] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour was reviewed in Sounds magazine, and also in The Oakland Tribune. There is also coverage in Time magazine. And I have no reason to doubt JulesH and hexaChord that even more press coverage exists from 1975 and 1976, but thanks to FUTON bias it probably won't be found in a Google search. DHowell (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As DHowell and JulesH note, there was significant independent coverage of the tour, thus satisfying WP:NOTE. Rlendog (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheer Heart Attack Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour that only consists of setlists and fails WP:NOTINHERITED Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tour generated substantial press coverage at the time, and should be able to meet the general notability guideline with ease if one looks in a suitable place (i.e., contemporary newspapers and music magazines). I'm also led to believe there was a TV documentary produced about this tour, probably entitled "Killer Queen", but have been unable to pin down the details. JulesH (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable tour that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Just an indiscriminate collection of fancruft. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about this tour, a list of dates without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of non-trivial press coverage which is not available on the net, but it is reflected in the standard secondary literature. [34] --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The tour is notable for being their first tour of Japan where they were met by more than 3,000 screaming fans. Due to the FUTON bias lack of availability of sources from 35 years ago online, I can't find much more, but I have no reason to doubt JulesH and hexaChord that more significant press coverage exists from 1974 and 1975. Killer Queen and Sheer Heart Attack both reached #2 on the UK charts while this tour was happening, so there is no good reason why there wouldn't be significant press coverage on this tour. DHowell (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Manson's fourth video album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Marilyn Manson's fourth video album

Delete per WP:HAMMER Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smash with the hammer. MuZemike 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER of course. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer; I agree with that standard: see User:Bearian/Standards#Unnamed_albums. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , STOP.......Hammer time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Live DVD with little media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:NOTE. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:26, 7 April 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 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Hyde Park 1976[edit]

Non-notable, unsourced concert. I hardly believe that there is any reason for a single concert to have an entire article on Wikipedia this side of something like Woodstock. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a non-notable gig that fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BBC and those books - and I guess 200,000 people are close to Woodstock if you discount the stoned. ([35]) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about how many people attended, I was talking about notability. A single concert is almost never notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 12:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing inherently notable about this concert, a gig without explanation or rationale. A-Kartoffel (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If neither breaking attendance records nor reliable source coverage shows notability to you, what, pray tell, is your definition of "notability"? DHowell (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was one of the largest concerts ever in London, if not the largest. Plenty of reliable source coverage to be found. And I have no doubt that there is plenty of press coverage from 1976 which won't be found online due to FUTON bias. DHowell (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DHowell and hexa, there is significant independent coverage of this significant event, thus satisfying WP:NOTE. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 11 April 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/SNOW keep. Nomination withdrawn after article was improved DGG (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Doors[edit]

Non-notable group with no sources cited that would suggest notability. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of notability, impartialness. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to lack required notability. John Carter (talk) 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a good reminder to follow WP:BEFORE. See Google News for coverage in Christianity Today, Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, LA Times, Time Magazine, Orange County Register, and plenty of less well known RS outlets. Jclemens (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep This is an extremely notable charity, undertaking important work in supporting persecuted Christians. This was originally mainly in communist lands, to which bibles were smuggled in quantity. Since the collapse of the iron curtain, this has been more in China and Muslim countries. The work is inevitably partly clandestine and so cannot be publicised, but it is very important. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I heartily agree with the efforts of groups such as this, but I also heartily agree with my own local church, and it's definitely not notable. If it's not publicised, it can't have the sources required for notability. Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please reference the Google News search above before !voting. It clearly addressed you objection almost six hours before you posted this !vote. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, independent sources that might establish notability? No encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Time Magazine isn't an independent RS? News to me. Jclemens (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is now sourced with 3rd party books and news outlets. Most of the sources are of Christian POV but I think they are reliable unless proven otherwise.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I wasn't able to secure non-Christian POV sites because they're behind paywalls.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Other than TIME, that is. I'll get some later this week. Of course, their mere existence in Google News is enough to demonstrate notability.Jclemens (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, added OC Register and LA Sentinel articles via ProQuest. Is there any specific reference anyone's seen on Google News or some other site which they want me to see if I can find? Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several independant sources are already in the article and Jclemens has shown other independant sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With no disrespect to the nom. Since the article was first nominated, independent sources toward its notability have been added and more shown to be available. I suppose this shows that WP:BEFORE is actually WP:AFTER. Good job to User:Jclemens. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements made to the article since the AfD was opened. The article is now sourced with WP:RS which show notability. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator Requested Closure - Enough evidence has been provided to convince me that the group is indeed notable, so as the nominator I am requesting this AFD to be closed. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 22:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for withdrawing your nomination. As a process note, we can't speedy close it unless the delete !voters change or retract their !votes, but a closing admin should have no problem seeing which way this is trending, and another admin may see fit to WP:SNOW close it before the time is expired. Jclemens (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and so I did.DGG (talk) 00:31, 8 April 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 - nice rescue! Nancy ^talk 06:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Holten[edit]

Artist with no evidence of notability: a Google News search for "Katie Holten" produces no hits. The article appears to be solely the work of a single-purpose account and one other account named after her current publicity agency, and the {{notability}} and {{primarysources}} tags which I added nearly a year ago were promptly removed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Person fails notability criteria. Snappy (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - conflict of intyerest issues aside, there appears to be quite a lot of coverage about this artists. Behind a pay wall, but the STL dispatch writes about her, as well as this article, and some more about her in this article, as well as being featured in this article. And that's just a sampling of the results from Google News searching. -- Whpq (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found a lot of articles covering this person when I did a google news archive search, some with significant coverage. The sources Juliancolton gave are a good example. Also, google scholar finds sources, including this one: [36]. Also there is a lot of mention of her exhibitions on Museum sites: [37], etc. The article does need to be improved--the way it starts is highly un-encyclopedic. I will put in some work now and hopefully that will help convince people this page is worth keeping. Cazort (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice mention in this [38] and this and holten&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=2000|1998 - 2008&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=("katie" and "holten")&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no in the St. Louis Post but ya gotta pay. Worth a keep though, just needs references Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I completely reworked the introduction. It now shows clear arguments for notability, in her (unusual) choice for the Venice Biennale, and her winning the AIB award. For an artist so close to the start of her career, she seems to have attracted an extraordinary amount of attention. Cazort (talk) 16:29, 6 April 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.

Timothy Training Institute — Closed as Withdrawn by nominator

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by nominator. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Training Institute[edit]

PROD contested, so I'm taking this to AFD. Non-notable group. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have edited the page and included even more info-but I still don't know what would make this page, to be "approved". Why would a page, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Doors be considered, when the creator didn't even add one reference, yet when I include more info and add references, the page is still flagged for deletion. I accept the fact that you have guidelines and if my page gets deleted, that's fine, but Im having trouble in understanding why...especially when I compare it to other pages...Is it perhaps a matter of private interpretation? Kevincarldavis (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, Speedy Close: Lack of notabiity; the difference is in the results I find on Google for this versus Open Doors (versus anything). Also, this article was previously CSD:A7 and deleted, and the author recreated the article while supressing a notice that the article in question had been previously deleted. Finally, the main contributing author appears to have COI or at least a non-neutral POV. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as though you don't understand speedy deletion. If the article at least makes claims to notability, then an avenue other than Speedy Deletion must be taken. CSD is used for articles where no significant claims to notability are made. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you don't understand. Among the options for voting are Speedy Close for the AfD process, and Speedy Keep, Speedy Delete, Keep/Delete, Strong Keep/Delete, Neutral, Undecided, amd a few others. Read up. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_6 and search the page for "speedy close"... used all the time. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but what I'm saying is that it isn't right for THIS instance, as the article makes claims of notability. Yes, Speedy Delete is an option, but if Speedy Deletion was already declined, what makes you think it would hold up now? Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rwiggum is completely correct. This article is not a candidate for speedy deletion (at least under the assertion of A7.) There are more than enough claims at importance/significance that such a ruling would be in err. This is especially true when a person is willing to work on it.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said my grounds were CSD:A7; I said that the article was previously deleted UNDER CSD:A7. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Rwiggum: The speedy would hold up on COI, which was just recently added to the list of why I think this is a good deletion candidate. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your talk page yesterday G4 does not apply to articles that were previously speedily deleted---it only applies if there was a discussion (EG AFD). COI is also not a criteria for speedy deletion. People often edit articles where they have a COI---the question is can the author still write a NPOV article on the subject? COI is something to watch for and be mindful of, but it is not the basis for deletion.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Up ~~I am leaning towards~~ keep on this article. I think it has a way to go to meet our quality standards, but when you have somebody who is willing to put in the effort to do so, I tend to side with keeping. I am not completely sold on the organizations notability, but I do see the potential. It strikes me as a specialized form of higher education.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently my suspicion was correct, the Timothy Training Institute apparently is accredited by a group called Christian Quality Assurance:International Accreditation of Christian Institutions for Higher Education for undergraduate training. I am not familiar with CQA, but being listed as providing training at an undergraduate level implies that this is in fact an alternative form of higher education. Which IMO merits keeping. The school offers a 3-year Licentiate in Theology which is sufficient for ordination as pastors in African Churches. As an institute of higher learning in the "third world" I think this is ready for a speedy close---but as a keep.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. With this new information, I'll go ahead and request a close for this. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 15:51, 6 April 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. The general consensus is that the subject is not notable enough to sustain an article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece-Nepal relations[edit]

Yet another pair of countries with only a tenuous connection between them. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wow: this has even less than Graubani/Polymour's articles. And I can't find anything that confers notability on this relationship. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What little information is in this "article" can be easily merged to one of the two "Foreign Relations of..." articles listed in "See also". --BlueSquadronRaven 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, per WP:N [39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. Still waiting on an argument why bilateral relations should be held to a much higher standard for inclusion than WP:N . . . Wily D 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting on an argument why the content of these articles aren't covered by existing "Foreign relations of.." articles or exactly what among the sources you cite defines this topic as notable separately from the main articles. Do you have a better argument than simply directing us to WP:N without an indication of a specific criteria we should be looking at or to contextless newspaper articles that don't assert anything of historical significance in international relations? --BlueSquadronRaven 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chopping coherent material into bits and scattering it across a multitude of articles does not effectively communicate it. It's a disservice to us, and (and worse) a disservice to the reader. Wily D 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, something you and I agree on! Which is why all along I've been suggesting anything that could possibly be covered under this catch-all phrase of a title could just as easily be placed into existing articles such as the "Foreign relations of..." articles cited in the "See also" section. Anything that would expand beyond that would be worthy of a historical article on it's own, not a ctach-all such as this. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one visit by a foreign minister in a 39 years of official ties does not make for a very notable relationship. If all we can say about this is "relations exist, and by the way, the Greek FM came over for four days in 2000 to sip some mint tea", then we may as well delete. That's a news item, not a subject meriting encyclopedic coverage. And since the mere existence of bilateral relations (which in this case are little more than "mere", especially as nothing has happened in the "relationship" for 9 years), let's delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you haven't addressed is why we should ignore precedent, and the usual standards of WP:N, and impose a much higher standard for inclusion than we would for any other type of article. Wily D 18:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent is, these articles get deleted for having no notable content not expressed or expressable elsewhere, sometimes even after being around and unedited for months. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the precedent. Many, many bilateral relations articles have been kept. Precedent is those nobody bothers to find sources for have been deleted, and those somebody has bothered to dig up a stack of sources for have been kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada–Mongolia relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Holy See relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Tunisia relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Pakistan relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania–Uzbekistan relations Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Russia relations for precedent on the issue. Of course, the overarching precedent of WP:N also swings that way. Wily D 19:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poland–Uruguay relations? "Sources" were found, but deemed non-notable, resulting in deletion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses, I'll get it fixed. Wily D 19:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I'll get it fixed."? That, frankly, sounds like an admin about to abuse his authority. I hope I'm wrong. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I became an admin because I know how to do everything by the book. Haven't you assumed enough bad faith today? Wily D 19:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of notability asserted. Gigs (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the claim of notability I asserted? Wily D 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. The article itself doesn't even assert a claim of notability. In other article types, this could be Speedy Deleted under A7 for this fact alone. 2. Looking at your sources you placed here, just as in the case of the Yemen article, they are mostly very short blurbs only documenting the fact that a normal diplomatic visit occurred, as would be expected in the case of relations. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The class of objects isn't elidgible for A7, but nonetheless, what you're proposing would be a radically different standard for inclusion from that currently used, and should be floated at the Village Pump before testing driving it on hapless articles. Wily D 20:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that people are making up new, higher, standards, but that isn't happening. These articles fail the normal old WP:N standards, and just barely miss the criteria for speedy. No one is proposing a new standard here except you, who seem to be proposing that all bilateral relations are inherently notable. Gigs (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article blows by the standard of of WP:N. I haven't once suggested that bilateral relations are inherently notable - what I've suggested is that for almost every set of bilateral relations, a little investigation reveals that they're notable. I haven't argued to keep a single unsourced article - instead, I've found sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject. Wily D 21:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that so far, especially as such news items are used in the articles, all they do is make that article serve as a poor archive of newspaper clippings. WP:NOTNEWS --BlueSquadronRaven 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarise yourself with guidelines before trying to enforce them. NOTNEWS isn't even vaguely applicable here. Wily D 10:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a nn intersection; note, article page does not show AfD. JJL (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the AfD template issue. Gigs (talk) 05:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WilyD has shown that this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", thanks Wily. Hilary T (talk) 08:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any arguments addressing the article, or just ad hominems. If the former, please use them instead. Wily D 17:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made more than enough arguments for the deletion of the article. If you don't like the fact that the template exists, or that I used it accurately, take it to TfD. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; no signs of WP:N being met. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one visit by a foreign affairs minister does not constitute notability. Tavix | Talk 11:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one official visit doesn't confer notability. Wikipedia is not a news service. Hut 8.5 16:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should we prefer your expertise on what should be notable to our usual standards? WilyD 17:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because his interpretation of WP:N doesn't involve blindly following it to the disruption of all? There is no realistic argument for keeping articles such as these until they are fleshed out so that they stand on their own, and the best way to do that is to include information in other, much longer established, much more coherent and contextualized articles first and let them grow and be expanded on until that time. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable international relationship of no substnatial media or academic coverage anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celtstock[edit]

Prodded, article which had already been prodded, so it needs to come to afd. reason for prod was that it is an "Unsourced article about a non-notable organization. Their claim to fame is that they will be organizing a festival, but the festival hasn't happened yet and has no evidence of being notable itself. The article could be seen as promotional." I can't turn anything up myself either. Hiding T 11:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Hiding T 11:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the most recent PROD-er, so per my rationale above. Thanks to Hiding for moving this to AfD. Sandolsky (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. Maralia (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything. Restored AfD notice in article. Hobit (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John the king of the sea[edit]

Article primarily consists of incoherent plot details Is unreferenced and based on this Google Search it appears referencing it is not possible. I also found no evidence any of the Robert Allens on the dab page wrote this. Delete as unverifiable. Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - presumably some kid who has written a story -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced, unverifiable and if this is the plot, unpublishable. Nate • (chatter) 12:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. I wonder, though, which of the Robert Allens we have listed at the disambiguation page might have written these stories? My bet's on the US civil war general. - Dr. Skullbrain (talk) 14:47, 6 April 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 and redirect to Day & Age. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World We Live In (Killers song)[edit]

The fact this is being released as a single seems to be solely based on the playlist of a radio station. I can find no confirmation from other reliable sources or from the band or their record label. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NSONGS. JD554 (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with nom although if it is released on that date we should employ the articles author as our resident psychic Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't we redirect back to the album until more info becomes available? Hiding T 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I felt it was better to discuss it in case someone came up with a source I haven't been able to find. --JD554 (talk) 12:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 13:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. I personally don't see the point in a redirect due to the non-plausibility nature of the title as a search term. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, so the edit history is saved. If this song is indeed released as the third single from the album, we could revert to the current version. And if not, well, then a redirect page is there and it's not the end of the world. Normally I would suggest deletion per WP:CRYSTAL, but it appears that this isn't mere speculation by the article's creator. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence it charted, no major coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete : This single has been reported to be the next Killers single by two leading radio stations (Absolute Radio & BBC Radio 1). However, it should specify that has been no confirmation from the band itself. Also it now seems very likely that this is their next single. <span class="autosigned (talk • contribs) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Art Business[edit]

entirely OR, no sources, it's essentially a short essay with no encyclopedic content, I don't see how it could be salvaged. Beach drifter (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The likely purpose of this article is to serve to farm links to the two sites contained; I will remove them. This may contain enough patent nonsense to be a speedy: However with this new form of direct e-commerce many buyer tendencies still prevail known as "buyer behaviour". O RLY? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best an essay; unsalvageable. 9Nak (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam/turfing. The content of this article was also pasted in its entirety into Art sale; I've removed it there. I don't see anything worth salvaging. Maralia (talk) 20:42, 6 April 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 WP:SNOW delete. Fails WP:V; probable hoax. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armed and Dangerous (2002 film)[edit]

No claims to notability - possibly a speedy delete based on lack of source I could find through Google (ie none), though Google searches difficult because of other films etc with the samename, and no director or actors given in the article. Brought here for your consideration Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If IMDB doesn't list it, it simply doesn't exist. Seegoon (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No mention at the British Film Institute either. Sarilox (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely hoax. I got to digging... and found the 1986 John Candy film and the 2003 video game[46]. Then I found a 2004 Tylene Buck softcore porn film by that same name[47][48][49]. Then I found that 2004 film being sold on Amazon as a 2002 film[50]. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er, dude, I don't think that's it..... Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is not (chuckle). Just offered my search and its results in support of my sense that this is a hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babak Radmanesh[edit]

I'm taking this to AfD as a formality. This article was created by an annoying spammer who filled the majority of the article with unsourced and potentially libellous claims of personal information. These have now been removed, but not before the original poster was blocked from editing. The remainder of the article is OK on the BLP front, but it's unclear whether the subject of the article is actually notable, and since the only person who clearly wants the article is the person who got blocked for making libellous claims, it's unclear whether anyone actually wants this article, nor is it clear whether the subject is actually notable. I put a prod on the article to see if anyone wanted to keep it, and it got deleted as part of an edit, but as there was no explanation it's unclear whether this was an intentional contestation. I'd quite like a decision one way or the other. I don't see the purpose in keeping an article that no-one wants, but other than that, I don't have any views one way or the other. (If it is kept, however, I would recommend that the original article is deleted from the history.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Googling suggests notability, such as here. Interestingly too, at one point [version] "Ealing Times" was added to the text suggesting that some of the unsourced stuff might be from the local paper, and the wording seemed newspaper-style, so it may actually be sourced (even copyvio!), but the editor who added it didn't bother to cite the source properly (like a date) and that version was deleted as the umpteenth attempt to add the same information. It's not on the paper's website, but the date mentioned is 1998 so probably older than the online archive. I have no axe to grind here, I just dropped by to stub-sort it at some point yesterday. PamD (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. If any of the Google hits were to a newspaper or other WP:RS, and the newspaper was added as a source (for what it corroborated), I would change to a 'keep' - but all my own checking of the google results have just turned up unverifiable claims. --Alvestrand (talk) 11:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to contain any verifiable notability from RS.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources for any biographical information should generally mean a BLP is deleted.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Northing turns up in a newspaper library search. Hiding T 21:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelis (Creature)[edit]

An in-universe description that doesn't say what universe it's from? I'm not sure what this is. The only references to the "TLoK Dex" it mentions is from a handful of forums. JaGa^talk 08:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think WP:NOTGUIDE is justification enough. Probably could have been prodded, too. Seegoon (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TLoK seems to be "The Legend of Korah", which seems to be some sort of Flash animation thingy. I'm struggling to find anything to suggest that TLoK itself is notable, never mind characters from it, so I'm going to have to go with delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is little context here, borderline CSD A1, seems to be indeed related to "The Legend of Korah", an entirely obscure piece of video game derived animation thingie for which we don't have an article and it's entirely unlikely we'llever have one as far as I can tell. Equendil Talk 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It lacks context and I'd apply the same rules as we have for CDs. If we don't have an article on the artist, we don't have one on the album. I'd say, if we don't have an article on the work of fiction, we don't have articles about its characters. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Evidence surfaced. Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Master Harold...and the Boys (2010 film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article deleted already because the film was in pre-production and failed WP:NFF. It was recreated by the original author, this time claiming the film is in post-production. Speedy deletion as G4 was declined because this article is different from the original. Delete because (a) according to its own website the film is still in pre-production so still fails WP:NFF, (b) the article has no third party references, and (c) the article is a copyviolation and/or spam because the plot section is a copy of the film's own website Wiki0708 (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFF; editor assertions aside, we need a reliable third party source to indicate otherwise, and the burden of proof is on the editor wishing to retain the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The news of this production and the casting of Ving Rhames as one of its stars was featured on the Reuters news wire: [51]. I will add this to the article. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no disrespects to the nom, as it began filming on January 22, 2009 per Filmmaker, was filming on January 23, 2009 per ScreenRush, and IS verified as now in post production by Film Releases. Passes WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:43, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald L. Conte Jr.[edit]

Blogger, self-published author with no evidence of notability. Chonak (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Chonak (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cursory review of google web, google news, google books, and google scholars shows no independent RS's on the subject. That's not saying that there aren't a lot of hits, because there are, but I don't see anything that qualifies as an independent RS. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found two Google News sources... but from 2002 and 2005, in Hungarian. No apparent RS coverage to meet WP:V. Jclemens (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 07:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Bazj (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete a handful of passing mentions in sources but nothing that makes for WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:20, 8 April 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 Nancy ^talk 06:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dumez Bridge[edit]

Erk. The tagger could be right, but as a cultural sensitivity thing, I'm really uncomfortable db-spamming Iraqi public works projects. Let's discuss at AfD. 3 admins who are very active in CSD work have all edited the article previously, and none of them tagged it for speedy deletion. There are 3 companies mentioned in this article, and it's certainly possible that the intent was promotional, but none of those 3 companies get more than one sentence of mention. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 18:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I tagged this db-spam because I saw 2 companies mentioned (I think "Kirkuk Constructive Laboratories" may be a local government oversight, but I'm not sure) and the creator slapped a bio of one of the engineers into WP:BLP today. As it stands the article isn't about the bridge, it's about the bridge construction project; the details given and pictures provided are what you might find in a company press release. And I'm not sure if the bridge is important enough for an article anyway. Do we have notability criteria for bridges? Rd232 ^talk 20:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's an essay on inherent/defacto notability, which makes a case that bridges of a certain size have defacto notability, meaning that most editors would presume them to be notable in and of themselves. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The essay doesn't "make a case", it just makes an assertion, and it's mostly about places people live in (because some people feel bad if they live in a tiny place with a name and they're not allowed to have an article on it). And the essay literally says bridges "of a certain size", which means precisely nothing. Rd232 ^talk 22:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I take the "bridges of a certain size" bit to mean that bridges that carry more people or more lanes of traffic would have more defacto notable than, say, a 10-yard-long bridge on a two lane road that you cross without even knowing it, or a plank thrown across a creek. Presumably, larger or more trafficked bridges would have more inherent notability, because they affect a larger range of people. Again, it's just an essay, so take it with a grain of salt. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that much is surely obvious, isn't it? The issue is where to draw the line. For bridges, I have no idea. Rd232 ^talk 23:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- the article may be a poor one, but the solution to that is to tag it for improvement, not to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - On one hand, I would lean toward a keep on this one, as in my opinion, a bridge of the size depicted in the photos has some defacto notability (see this essay). On the other hand, we need to rule out the possibility that this might be a hoax as well. To get a keep out of me, I need to see at least one source for this, if only for verification that it exists. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. I was not impressed that Google only gives eight hits for "Dumez Bridge" - and one of those is a clone of my contributions! The pictures look a bit like the Ifraz Bridge (the same in Turkish) but we do need some decent refs. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different bridge. Notice the shape of the legs. Sarilox (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 07:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A 60 meter modern concrete bridge in a city of almost a million people is not notable. I do not know just where the standard should be set, but this is below it. DGG (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, a generally bridge isn't a notable structure; especially a modern one. We have millions of them. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 09:19, 7 April 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 for now, but move to Portal:Baseball as suggested below. There's little consensus in this AfD, but the information would be far better organised and accessed from the baseball portal that sitting randomly about in articlespace. Black Kite 15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 7 in baseball[edit]

WP:NOTDIR: this is "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization", there is no reason why a certain day in baseball is notable (baseball is notable, a day is notable in a way, but the combination isn't. That someone was born on day X in 1893 and someone else died on the same day in 1974 is completely irrelevant and has not received widespread attention, there is no actual link between the two events except the double coincidence of baseball plus day. I'll also nominate all other day in baseball articles in this AfD, the reason is the same for all of them of course. Fram (talk) 12:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 1 in baseball, April 2 in baseball, April 3 in baseball, April 4 in baseball, April 5 in baseball, April 6 in baseball, April 7 in baseball, April 8 in baseball, April 9 in baseball, April 10 in baseball, April 11 in baseball, April 12 in baseball, April 13 in baseball, April 14 in baseball, April 15 in baseball, April 16 in baseball, April 17 in baseball, April 18 in baseball, April 19 in baseball, April 20 in baseball

And if someone wonders, as far as I can tell, we have no similar articles for other "in X" categories in the mainspace (many in portals, but that is something different of course). Fram (talk) 12:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I added April 18-20 to the above list as they were created after the discussion began. Tavix : Chat 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year have made it very clear that there should be very strict definitions of what can go on to the Days of the year articles. Events that are specific only to Canada, for example, are removed from those articles because they aren't worldly enough. It only makes sense that we have other types of Days of the year articles, such as Days of the year in Canada, and Days of the year in baseball. There is nothing wrong with other projects and portals having their own Days of the year articles, such as Days of the year in film, Days of the year in theatre, Days of the year in hockey. If people are willing to put in the work, then these articles should stay. They serve a purpose, they are of interest. They are encyclopedic. Kingturtle (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh? Is this an April Fools Day joke? Kingturtle (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

No, I'm pretty serious. Any indication why a random linking of day X with activity Y, regardless of the year, is "encyclopedic" instead of a clear violation of WP:NOT? Fram (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they are all baseball related, then it is not random. Kingturtle (talk) 13:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The linking of baseball with day X is random. People with two I's in their surname in baseball would be also a random joining of two characteristics. This is a collection of trivia, amusing or interesting for some perhaps, but not a topic of research or discussion in reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 14:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These articles are no less or more random than the Days of the year articles. Give the Days of the year in baseball articles some time. It is going to take some work obviously to get these articles tip-top, but you have to start somewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In what way will they be improved so that they are no longer non-encyclopedic crosscategorizations? I don't care about other articles, perhaps these have to go as well, but that is a different discussion. But these ones: the problem is not the current state, but the starting point, the definition, the subject: such pages can never be encyclopedic and acceptable (if there is a day that has a special meaning for a subject, like e.g. a number of events always happening on the same date, then that can be an encyclopedic subject, because in that case, the coupling of day and topic is no longer meaningless: however, I have seen no evidence that any of these dates has such a relationship to baseball, never mind all of them). Fram (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It seems too random a collection of info to be an article/list. I don't see any policies that defend it; I put little faith in the Days of the year WikiProject's views because it is not official. Anyone could start the Un-notable topics WikiProject, that doesn't mean it's right. The info itself is all very good and would fit right in at a baseball wiki, but it's too trivial for Wikipedia. If topics are notable enough they can go on the main day of the year article, but I don't see a benifit to having "This day in baseball, basketball, cross-country skiing, masonry history". A This day in sports series would be more appropriate, but only baseball is too specific. black ngold29 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep. I'm not clear on why February 7 is notable, while February 7 in baseball is not because it focuses on baseball. Nor am I clear on why a year is more notable than a day - 1952 in country music, 1978 in motoring, 1920 in film, etc. It seems that people find it useful to have these facts together for research purposes. There are a number of journalist and special interest diaries published which give information on what occured on a given day. I can see some cause for concern that this might be an intersection too far, though I can also see the value of this work, and see how it fits in with existing work being done on Wikipedia. If these baseball articles contained very little information, I could see a valid question of doing them by day rather than year, but they do seem to contain a lot of information which links to existing Wikipedia articles. I'm still pondering on this, but I don't see it as a straight delete. SilkTork *^YES! 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it just seems to be a copy of this. So the information is already out there. SilkTork *^YES! 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT is not simply a copy of the other site. I am not using their information verbatim. I am changing content, editing content, and removing content from their information. I am trying to get all 366 dates up onto Wikipedia so that the Baseball Project Community here can make it their own. But we have to start somewhere. Kingturtle (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be quite a few date articles on Wikipedia which focus down in varying degrees on either the topic or the date or both, such as June 2004 in sports. My concern now is if this particular article meets the main content polices: WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV. As they are simple lists presented without opinion, they meet neutral point of view. And as they reproduce material already published elsewhere on baseball-reference.com then the information is not original research, and it is verifiable. I'd like to see a greater range of reliable sources used to support the information, but all in all, these articles meet our core policies, and are in the tradition of Wikipedia. SilkTork *^YES! 17:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on the notability of simple date articles like February 7, and I would prefer if we kept that out of this discussion (but I have no real say in that of course). But the difference between an article on Day X in Baseball vs. Year X in Baseball is taht the total of the second group gives a chronological ordering, where evolutions and so on may be visible (in the best case), and where there may be a definite link between different events (but the births and deaths are mostly not relevant either): no evolution or other information can be gathered from the grouping of events, births or deaths per day though, no matter how notable individual events may be of course. To give a completely fictional example, if year in baseball articles made it possible to note that the first Afro-American player started in 1920, and the first Native American in 1942, then this may lead to at least some conclusions. But the fact that the first Afro-American was born on April 20th, while the first Native American was born on September 7, is utterly irrelevant (for a general list, it is relevant in their personal biographies of course).Fram (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm aware this is an argument to avoid, per WP:NOHARM, but I really do feel that these lists aren't doing any harm to the encyclopaedia. In fact, if we had the time and resources, I'd support doing a [[February 7 in [insert here]]] . As SilkTork mentions, if we can't have this, why do we have February 7 at all? If someone has the time to create these sorts of lists, I'm behind that. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my opinion on why we have a "February 7" and shouldn't have a "February 7 in Baseball". The February 7 article provides encyclopedic information about "February 7" (the day). The "February 7 in Baseball" is an anniversary list of trivia related "facts" about who did what on that day. While the information may be notable, the fact that they happened on February 7 isn't. Tavix (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asper nom and also WP:DIRECTORY Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see WP:NOTDIR as applicable in this case, and it's a sensible spinoff from the articles on specific dates. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 17:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think many people would want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport as an applicable predicent for this AfD. The only thing in common between the dates is certain annual events that are found elsewhere such as the All star game, the World Series, and Opening Day. Everything else is redundant trivial information. Tavix (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How trivial can the information be if it's mentioned in numerous reliable sources? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When something is "trivial" it means it is basically a list of trivia. The information might be, but the fact that they are all on Feburary is just trivia. Tavix (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 5 in baseball is no more or less trivial than April 5. Kingturtle (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But where do you draw the line? Are April 5 in Wikipedia history trivial, or April 5 in Middle-earth history, or April 5 in television history notable, or April 5 in pickle packaging history? There has to be some guideline. black ngold29 14:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking Major League Baseball here. It's been around for 130 years. It has a long history of accomplishments, trades, milestones reached, World Series results. As for Days of the year in television, that actually sounds like a great idea - if someone were to put the time into it. You could list birth and death dates, dates of show premieres, dates networks formed or folded. I don't see anything wrong in having Days of the year in Canada either. Many events of importance to Canadian history are not allowed on the Days of the year articles because they are not internationally significant, which is what the Days of the year group has decided for their criteria there. Kingturtle (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, where is the line drawn? What makes Canada, TV, and baseball notable? Howabout This day in the life of Stephen King, Mister Rogers, Babe Ruth? Those are all notable topics aren't they? It could build and build and suddenly it's a On this day in X history wiki (that's not a bad idead actually, for another site). black ngold29 15:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're equating the history of Canada with Mister Rogers? Kingturtle (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So if Mr. Rogers isn't notable, what line does he fail to cross that Canada does? black ngold29 15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see, Canada is a sovereign nation with 300 years of history. Baseball is an organized professional sport with 130 years of history, was an Olympic sport, has its own version of the World Cup, has professional leagues in over 15 nations. Television has 60 years of history, has changed culture, politics and society. Fred Rogers is a person who was not a nation, had little international significance, and did not have a dozen significant events take place every day of the year. Kingturtle (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Rogers produced a show for children for over 30 years, he's likely got more honors and awards than anyone else in his field, he's been recognized by the US House, Senate, and President. So if that's not enough to make someone notable for a Day in the Life series, than there probably aren't any people notable enough for it. Now that that's settled, I still haven't gotten a specific statement of what makes things notable. ~~The History of rail transport has a 500 year history, would a This day in the history of rail transport series be feasible?~~ lol, oops. I guess so. Anyway, here's what I see so far as your criteria: History of a number of years, international significance, changed politics, culture, or society. So that would be pretty much every country, many large companies, and every major sport. That's a lot of articles (or lists, not sure which). Do those criteria sound right? black ngold29 16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why each nation shouldn't have its own Day of the year articles. You may not be privy to the conversations going on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year, but they've made it quite clear that if an event doesn't have international significance, then they won't include it. Because of that argument, it's only natural that sub-groups are created. I see nothing wrong with Days of the year in Canada. That would be only 366 articles, not a lot. If there is enough information and interest to create such things, there should be Days of the week in <insert sport> and Days of the week in <insert industry>. This is an enyclopedia, a place where information can be presented in different formats. Kingturtle (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is where we disagree. I see 366 articles that have no real goal (I can't see them being FLs, GAs, or FAs) as quite a lot of articles. And I already noted earlier that what any WikiProject has to say is meaningless when compared to policies. black ngold29 01:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A great many articles will never become FLs, GAs or FAs. That is not an argument not to have them. With your stance, the article February 4 has no merit existing on Wikipedia and should be deleted. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't my stance, I have no problem with articles that can't be GAs etc., however, I think that there should be something to work toward. I've worked on Slipknot Demo and it's apparent that with the current info people won't let it become a GA, but there is a chance that more info will come to light and it will be able to be improved. I don't see that poetential with these articles. There's no prose, no citations, virtually no self-containment. What's the goal? Collecting this info with no third party cites that have already connected it is WP:OR in itself. black ngold29 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities ending on A, ending on B, ... It's a different format, it are only 26 articles compared to the massive 366, it has perfectly clear inclusion criteria... What's the difference between my ridiculous example and your date in Baseball ones? Fram (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball is an organized professional sport with 130 years of history, was an Olympic sport, has its own version of the World Cup, has professional leagues in over 15 nations. Kingturtle (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So baseball is more important than cities? Please try again, Kingturtle, you are not adressing the issue at all. Fram (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"List of cities ending on A,..." is a legitimate example of a non-encyclopedic cross-classification. Encyclopedic articles follow other sources in how they organize information. Organizing historical information by date is a clear example of an encyclopedic topic because it is an approach that is routinely used by other publications, Web sites, and sources of information. An obvious example is Wikipedia's own Main page, but information is also organized by date on many other sites and publications (for example, [52], [53], [54]), and even on sites for baseball history ([55]). This type of information can be useful—for example, sportswriters often refer to events that happened on "this date" in history, and these Wikipedia articles could provide them with that information. (For an example, see the bottom of this article [56].) BRMo (talk) 23:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Borgarde (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these are a horrible precedent; we can now have 366 more articles from each article we have. February 7 in football, February 7 in aviation, February 7 in virology, February 7 in astronomy, February 7 in Paducah, Kentucky, February 7 in medicine, February 7 in Sammy Davis Junior, February 7 in South Park, February 7 in ufology, and thousands (2.8 million?) more and 365 others for each of those for Jan 1 thru Dec 31. No, thanks, but we could have our one billionth article later this month that way ;-) . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- you can't be serious that you're equating Canada with Sammy Davis Junior. Kingturtle (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Carlossuarez46 - "Setting a precedent" is not really a problem, since per WP:OTHERSTUFF, if these articles are kept, that doesn't preclude deleting other "February 7 in X" articles. So the notability of "February 7 in baseball" is decided independently of "February 7 in Sammy Davis Junior". In my opinion, you haven't given a valid reason for deletion. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When Wikipedia devotes about 10 percent of its main page to "On this day...", I don't see how it can be argued that articles organizing information by date are "non-encyclopedic" or non-notable. Encylopedia's are about organizing, synthesizing, and presenting information, and this is one way to do it. The information is verifiable; there are no issues of original research or non-neutral POV; these articles fully meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the policy WP:NOT cited in the nomination? The main page is used to invite people in, and to present a wide variety of subjects so that it will interest the largest possible group. The main page is not an article but a portal, and as stated, I have no problems with "on this day" articles on portals. But as an article, they fail misearbly, because the subject is non-encyclopedic: the pairing of two encyclopedic things does not automatically create a new encyclopedic subject, but in many cases (like these) a collection of unrelated facts. Fram (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an example of non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. If dates are encyclopedic for history in general, there is no reason they shouldn't be encyclopedic for specific topics that have a history, including sports and even baseball. And I don't buy your distinction between articles and portals either. The main page links to three date articles. An encyclopedia should be about compiling and organizing verifiable knowledge, not deleting it. BRMo (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No information will be deleted if these pages get deleted, only one method of presenting it will be deleted. I have still not gotten one good reason why baseball related things that happened on the same day in different years are somehow related. What is the link between the birth of a baseball player in 1924 and one in 1949 on January 3, which separates them from someone born on January 4? Are they better players? More likely to become MVPs? Homerun hitters? Greeneyed? Taller? Or does, perhaps, the day of their births have no meaning at all? I am all for presenting information in meaningful formats: list of players per team or per year of birth (since their careers will have roughly coincided and they will have competed one another) may be perfectly relevant. But not one person wanting to keep these articles has given one reason why the day they were born, died, ... is in any way relevant as a method of grouping.Fram (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because a lot of people (though apparently, not you) are interested in knowing what happened on a particular date, especially on the anniversary of an event. That's why dates are continuously featured on Wikipedia's Main page, why books like A Dictionary of Dates are published, and why newspapers and news shows frequently mention events occurring on that day or various notable anniversaries or birthdays. No, it's not science and no one will ever get a PhD for compiling a list of dates. But organizing events by date it is a part of human knowledge and is useful for satisfying people's curiosity, and thus it's within the scope of Wikipedia. I haven't contributed to compiling these lists myself, and it's not really the kind of editing I like doing. But we have an editor who wants to do this work and I appreciate and can use the results. BRMo (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 07:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these pages should be moved to subpages of Portal:Baseball. I see "on this day" pages as collections of only very mildly linked topics, more useful for highlighting of specific events than true encyclopedic usefulness. If the baseball portal isn't interested in hosting these pages and linking to them, delete. Kusma (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When you think about it, it really is going overboard with specifics where we don't need them. Wizardman 13:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appropriate pages for browsing, whichis oen of the functions of an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - In this case, a bundled nomination is not very productive. Each article should be evaluated separately to decide if enough happened on that day to justify a navigational article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOT. I can live with generic date articles, but having date articles by subject is just a can of worms. Sourcing? Weight? NPOV? WP:INDISCRIMINATE? Multiplying essentially pointless non-encyclopedic articles is just an invitation to look silly. If we're happy with February 7 in baseball, why not February 7 in Angels on the Head of a Pin Debate? There must be baseball websites for this sort of thing. WP:NOT Everything We Can Think Of That Can Theoretically Be Sourced (But Actually Isn't And Probably Never Will Be). Rd232 ^talk 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Each Days of the year in <insert topic> would be judged on its own merit and value. By allowing this one, you are not giving a blanket approval to all future Days of the year topics. Baseball has a long history, is an international game. And for the record, nothing on March 7 is sourced, so why should everything on March 7 in baseball be sourced. That's why we have wikilinks. You want confirmation that Pud Galvin was born on March 7, then click on his name, and the Pud Galvin will source it. Kingturtle (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Anyway sourcing aside it's still a bad idea both in general and for baseball. WP:NOT a baseball stat/trivia website. Rd232 ^talk 20:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - These Days of the year articles are simply another way of organizing information that already exists on Wikipedia. Kingturtle (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What it is doing is taking barely connected information and putting it into an article for trivia purposes. The only thing in common for most of these is the fact that they are baseball related and take place on a certain day. We already have all of this information in other places where it is encyclopedic, properly sources, and non-trivial. Tavix | Talk 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. List of events for each day of the year are considered encyclopedic enough for the main page, and baseball has its own portal (Portal:Baseball), which I think is a decent enough criteria for inclusion of such lists of events (and to avoid a slippery slope feared by some people here). We happen to have an editor willing to do the work here, trees are safe since Wikipedia is not made of paper, as for the main objection, I don't consider arranging events chronologically (modulo one year) a form of cross categorization. Reading various comments above, I also have to point out here that pages such as February 7 are mere lists of events, only select entries such as January 1 are the subject of an actual article. Equendil Talk 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Portal:Baseball. Create a "This Day in Baseball" series on the Baseball Portal, I think it's more appropriate. It could be a seperate tab at the top of the page that goes to a page like Portal:Baseball/March 1. Borgarde (talk) 06:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's an excellent idea. black ngold29 03:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Tavix's delete !vote halfway up the page referenced another Afd — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/July 29 in rail transport — as a possible precedent for this discussion, and I'd agree. It's worth noting, however, that the result of that discussion was a No consensus, a decision that was also affirmed at DRV. Both those discussions were valuable, though, as they kick-started a discussion at the Trains project about how to better maintain the information in the Portal space. To date, 4 1/2 of the 12 months worth of articles have been repurposed into Portal space. In that regard, I think that's an excellent model for how to resolve this issue. Keep these articles for now, and let the Baseball project undertake a systematic move of the content to that project's Portal space, without the time pressure associated with a deletion discussion. Mlaffs (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Simply ridiculous! Giant Snowman 02:22, 10 April 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. Closed slightly early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andorra-Canada relations[edit]

As many recent precedents indicate (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albanian-Moldovan relations for just one), the mere existence of diplomatic relations is not notable, and that is what we have here. That the Canadian government calls these relations "excellent" is nice, but what else do we expect for two countries on opposite sides of the world, one of which has "Peace, order and good government" as its guiding principles, and the other of which is a handful of mountain hamlets in an area 2½ times the size of Washington, DC? A war? Biruitorul ^Talk 06:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A Google search of 'Andorra Canada' produces no non-trivial results other than a handful of routine government websites: [57] Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's nice that the relationship between the two countries is "excellent", but there's nothing that confers notability on this relationship, especially considering that neither country has an embassy in the other one (which was enough to delete this article. (PS - They also consider each other allies. Has the nominator asks, what do they need to have for frosty relations between a country with peace as one of it's guiding principles and a country that doesn't have its own airport?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merge what little there is into a "Foreign relations of..." article. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability asserted. Gigs (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N like the majority of these X-Y relations articles. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any sort of useful content that cannot be put in existing article about the foreign relations of said countries. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. The two countries have little, if any relations; none of the relations are notable. Tavix | Talk 22:34, 9 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spill the salt[edit]

Do we have articles on idioms? Anshuk (talk) 06:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, Wikipedia does have articles on idioms. See Category:Idioms (or Category:English idioms). Note that this does not constitute an argument for or against keeping the "spill the salt" article. --darolew 07:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not an idiom but a superstition—one that's already listed in Superstition#Other superstitions—and the content of this article is almost certainly false (Brewer's Dictionary, as well as other sources, makes it clear that Leonardo's use was based on a preexisting superstition, not itself the source of the superstition). If there were as much to say about this as, for example, Black cat, a stand-alone article might be warranted, but I don't think there is. A mention in Salt or History of salt could be appropriate. Deor (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep per Smerdis's replacement of the text, provided the article is moved to a more appropriate title—I'd suggest Spilling salt, with the boldfaced potion of the opening sentence tweaked accordingly. (And I still can't see why overwriting and moving the manifestly unsuitable article should be preferable to deletion of the article and creation of a suitable article at a suitable title.) Deor (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are those who say that the modifications section of the GFDL makes it at minimum strongly preferable to preserve page histories and the record of old contributions. Moving and editing does so; deleting and recreating does not. I find the difference obscure as well, but where the old page is a bona fide contribution and not libel or vandalism, it seems best to humor them. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Be prepared for a surprise ... Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an idiom, and presenting it as such is the wrong scope for the subject. The idea that spilling salt at table is bad luck is a superstition. And such a superstition is encyclopaedic for the simple reason that it's already in one encyclopaedia:
- Edwin Radford (2004). "Spilling salt". Encyclopedia of Superstitions 1949. Kessinger Publishing. p. 224. ISBN 9781417976553.
That's not a particularly good source, though. Here's something to read that provides more:
- John Brand and Henry Ellis (1842). "Salt Falling. The Spilling of Wine". Observations on popular antiquities. London: Charles Knight and Co. pp. 82–84.
- Harry Collis and Joe Kohl (1998). "Throwing salt over the left shoulder". 101 American superstitions. McGraw-Hill Professional. p. 45. ISBN 9780844255996.
- Fanny D. Bergen (2007). Current Superstitions. Echo Library. p. 69. ISBN 9781406835182.
- Robert Means Lawrence (1898). "The folk-lore of common salt". The Magic of the Horseshoe (republished ed.). Forgotten Books. pp. 102–137. ISBN 9781605068084.
Note the existence of salt#In religion. Obviously, we are missing the superstitions and folklore surrounding salt, of which there appear to be many, and on which there appears to be a lot more than a single (unsourced and, from reading the above sources, apparently not quite accurate) paragraph in superstition#Other superstitions to write. There seems to be enough for a breakout sub-article on superstitions and folklore related to salt. And we can get there from here by moving this article to such a title and using it as a starting point. Edit without mercy! Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article has a bad title and no information worth saving, what's the point of "using it as a starting point"? Just write the article you want to write and let this one be deleted. Deor (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have entirely rewritten the article. It probably ought to move to a noun phrase title such as spilt salt, but this is a highly notable, easily referenced, quite old and quite widespread belief. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Smerdis/Ihcoyc's version. If there were ever applicable grounds for deletion, they've vanished in the face of that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of salt It has already got a section on Biblical references that part of this entry could be merged with and it would benefit from a section on related superstitions and how they came to be to keep in line with the "history" part of the title. Creating redirects from titles like spilt salt and spilling salt is desirable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevagen[edit]

Non-notable commercial product: the only reference to the product itself (rather than the active ingredient, for which WP already has an article) is from a press release by the company selling the product. The protein the product is based on is notable, and the research relating to it is notable, but the product itself does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. This is basically advertisement disguised as an article. MuffledThud (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of independent sources about the product which suggest notability. Any useful information/references pertaining to the active ingredient can be merged into aequorin or other articles as appropriate. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the only published article I can find on this is this in Medical Hypotheses. Thia article was written by the creator of the supplement, so is not an independent source, and Med. Hypotheses is a not a peer reviewed journal and is dedicated to the promotion of unproven ideas, so this isn't a reliable source. No prejudice against recreation once their "clinical trial" has been published anywhere apart from press releases and their own website, but until then the article fails WP:V. As a personal comment on the science, I'd be surprised if a calcium-binding protein could survive pH 2 in the stomach, the proteases in the gut, be absorbed into the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier and then enter neurons. If this is indeed the case, I suggest they submit these extraordinary results to Nature. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. But, this page wouldn't be good even with such sources, as the active ingredient already has a page, so no use of an ad-page like this. Narayanese (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tim Vickers. I added a paragraph to the article a couple of days ago explaining that (while the article was prodded), but an IP has removed it today. Doesn't matter much, this article will shortly be history. Looie496 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indians in Romania[edit]

There are several reasons for deletion:

Members of this group are largely non-citizens and their stay in Romania likely quite temporary
The group is quite small (1200 of 20 million+)
The group lacks official recognition and any significant history, having largely arrived in the last two decades
True, the group is mentioned by the Indian Embassy in Bucharest, but a) it's just a five-line mention that, if really needed, could be folded into India–Romania relations b) we'd expect that sort of thing from embassy promotional materials c) the source only confirms they're not citizens. Biruitorul ^Talk 04:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability is shown. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary stay, short history, small numbers, or lack of official recognition have nothing to do with notability. These factors may make it less likely that any reliable sources wrote about the group in question, but it's not impossible that a small expatriate group with a short history can pass WP:N. However, this one clearly doesn't --- only source cited is trivial, and a Google search doesn't reveal any additional sources. Delete. cab (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivia on a marginal presence in Romania, virtually none of its representatives being citizens, permanent residents or even refugees. Dahn (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Allready being said that notability is not there for this one.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:25, 8 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Serbia relations[edit]

This article was prodded, deleted, and restored upon request. It should be deleted again. Many recent AfDs have found that the mere existence of bilateral relations is not notable; see for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations. The only significant diplomatic interaction between these two has been surrounding Kosovo, and that's amply covered here. Nothing else in the relationship exists that is notable (they don't even have embassies), so the article should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there is or should be a specific rule on international relations articles. They are not inherently notable, else we need to have about 18,915+ articles talking about each country's relations. The approach taken by the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations article is to look at notability. The lack of embassy reciprocity (or perhaps because of the lack...U.S. and Cuba) is an important clue to the countrys' strategic relations and their importance. Shadowjams (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no indications of notability other than a single incident to which WP:NOT#NEWS applies and can be covered elsewhere better. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Neither of them has a full embassy in the other country. I doubt the closure of an embassy - which would contravene Wp:NOT#NEWS - can justify the notability of a relationship. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge what little there is to the two "Foreign relations of..." articles in "See also" section. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is partly vacuously tautological, and the remainder amounts to reporting that relations between the two nations are so insignificant that they don't bother keeping embassies in each other's countries! —SlamDiego_←T 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the same reason i PRODED this article...Yilloslime ^T_C 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which was? —SlamDiego_←T 18:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They exchanged ambassadors (or, more accurately, Yugoslavia & Chile did), which demonstrates a serious commitment here. People, having an ambassador in a country means more than having a Foreign Service employee to catch the next plane somewhere & open an office! Besides, am I the only person who is intrigued by the fact that a self-described Socialist/Communist country & a notorious right-wing junta maintained formal diplomatic relations? -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability demonstrated via reliable, independent sources on this topic. A harmful content fork (if anything encyclopedic develops in future in this non-notable bilateral relationship) from Foreign relations of Chile and Foreign relations of Serbia.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:49, 10 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surjeet Singh (Sarangi)[edit]

The article was considered for speedy deletion, but subsequently passed after copyrighted material from the official website of the subject was included. I removed copyrighted material but put every reliable source I could find in the article. I believe the article still fails notability for both music and academics. Hekerui (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a redirect to the page in question:

Comment--I found this. If one or two more sources pop up I think there might be enough for an article, for a weak keep. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know exactly what to make of this. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure he's the same person. Hekerui (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult to decide from the article and the references provided - Does not say his awards, his achievements and how much he is associated with Ram Narayan etc. --Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the one who originally tagged this article for speedy deletion, but I withdrew when the creator made edits that addressed the A7 concern by inserting sources. However, these two sources are trivial: the Allmusic page for Singh does exist, but it is currently blank. The other source simply states that Singh is a pupil of such and such. No prejudice against recreation once Singh makes a name for himself. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that it was in April of last year that I tagged this article for speedy deletion. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. Hekerui (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the London college of Music page describes him as "He has established himself as a wonderful artist and a great teacher in this astonishing instrument", he well might be. These pages on their faculty do not appear to be written by the individuals concerned. I agree they are not wholly independent, but it's a very reputable institution. Needs a proper check for sources in the languages and country most likely to have them, but what's there is a sufficient indication that it is sourceable. . DGG (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you noticed that the page which makes that statement is under the section "Staff profiles"? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, X clamation point 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:57, 9 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CyberFusion[edit]

Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with nom. If this is allowed, then every attempt to get into the Guiness Book will be wiki worthy, and as far as I am concerned, that shouldn't happen. If and when the record is broken, the article can be revisited. Postcard Cathy (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both on notability and on advertising. Joe407 (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable advertising. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 07:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as blatant as advertisement as you can possibly get. Classic wikispam. MuZemike 07:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also tagged as such. This is clear to me, at least. MuZemike 07:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and declined since the AFD is over halfway done. MuZemike 18:48, 9 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of items and artifacts in Negima[edit]

List of entirely unreferenced indiscriminate fictional items. Although there are some cleanup issues which don't factor in the nomination, it still completely fails Wp:N and WP:V. While some parts of the article may be verifiable via the manga itself, I find it unlikely there are any third party reliable sources to show notability. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete as excessive level of plot detail which falls under indiscriminate information. Information about the Pactio Artifacts could be included in the character's descriptions. But beyond that, a list of chapters is a better way to summarize plot information. --Farix (Talk) 02:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete split as main article is too long, wanted to try add more in the beginning, but now it is obvious that no one ever tried to add in any reliable source in it to show notability. Agree with Farix about items could be ~~move to character pages,~~ but should be trimmed as well. MythSearcher^talk 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like those are already there. MythSearcher^talk 05:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No difference between this and the list of weapons in the Star Trek series, list of ships in the Star Wars, or numerous other articles, and they are considered perfectly valid. Do we hold manga to a different standard than science fiction? The length of the article I don't believe is a valid reason for deletion. If there is some parts that need cleanup, then use the talk page to discuss what you think needs to be eliminated, or do the work yourself. Add in a few tags if you see a problem you want to bring attention to. Deletion should be the last resort. Can pass the policy of WP:V by checking the manga for anything mentioned, while WP:N is just a guideline/suggestion, not an absolute law you have to follow. This article would be useful to those interested in the subject, and I don't see how anyone not interested in it would simply stumble upon it, unless they were just looking for things to delete. Dream Focus 13:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ironically, your example articles all have vast quantity's of 3rd party sources available, this does not. This isn't about what has more relevance or differing standards, it's about proving notability and verifiability. Sourcing the manga is not enough to pass Wp:V "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Sourcing the manga alone will not pass this policy. The cleanup issues are not part of this debate, and I specifically said this in the nomination. However, the referenceing issues have no been addressed in any way in well over 12 months. That is ample time to demonstrate notability and provide reliable, third party sources, yet this has not been done. A total lack of references is not a cleanup issue, it's a valid deletion reason according to policy, and the founding ideals of what wikipedia is about. Wp:N only being guideline does not make it any less relevant, it's still based on widespread consensus. Being useful to people interested is not a reason to keep, nor does it address the issues raised. This sort of content belongs on fansites or in series reference books, not a general encylopedia. Please don't bring bad faith accusations into this debate, stick to the facts. The reasons given in the nomination are perfectly valid, and you have failed to address any of them in any real way Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The List_of_weapons_in_Star_Trek only mentions what episode the weapons were first used in. So, if this article listed what manga chapter everything was in, would that be fine? Do you doubt that any of the information is accurate? The point of the notability guideline/suggestion is to help make sure nothing gets in that isn't accurate. But if that isn't in doubt, you don't need it. That's why its a guideline not a policy, a suggestion not a law. Dream Focus 15:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this debate only involves this article. Bringing up a completely unrelated outside the anime scope is both unhelpful and taking away from the issues with this one being discussed. Again, it doesn't matter if every detail is meticulously referenced to the exact page it's mentioned, without third party reliable references it's still a valid candidate for deletion in policy. You can't argue your "not law" arguement on this point. And yes, I do doubt the accuracy, it reads like complete Original Research. Without proper referencing, the accuracy will always be contested. Address the actual issues which are clearly laid out for you, and stop looking for loopholes or excuses. You aren't going to make any impact on the decision by failing to properly address common, valid arguements. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only rule left to discuss here is consensus, which is determined by whoever is around at the time to post their opinions. If it has enough fans to defend it, the article remains, if not it is removed. That's how it works. And everything from plot summaries, to character information, and whatnot, are always original research, since you getting it from what you watched or read in the media itself. So that isn't a valid argument. Tag whatever parts you don't believe are valid, with a citations needed tag, and then someone who is familiar with the series can then look through the issues and give you a reference. Dream Focus 16:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire thing has been tagged for over 12 months. The entire article has the same issues. I can't blank the page as that will be vandalism. If something is not cited, it's not proven it's not original research. You are still looking for loopholes, and are grasping at straws. Prove to me that this article can be improved through 3rd party sources as well as primary ones."If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Until you do so, your looking for loopholes has no purpose. Please don't try to tell someone with experience in completely rewriting pages what is and what isn't Original Research. You don't even understand it yourself. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the only case you have for deleting it are guidelines, which people can choose to ignore. For years now that article has been there, lots of people editing it, far more reading it, and only a very small few seem to have a problem with it. You can delete something if it violates policy, which it does not, or by consensus. The guidelines are only a suggestion on how things should be done, they changing over time based on the opinions of a very small percentage of wikipedia users, and are not binding in any way. Dream Focus 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, my cases are built on policy (with supporting guidelines. guidelines are not my main arguement), and I shouldn't have to keep explaining this simple concept. Guidelines are guidelines, policy is policy. WP:V is policy, and all articles must follow it or risk deletion. Why use wikipedia when you don't agree with it's founding methodology? Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:PROVEIT? You tag something you don't believe and then someone will verify the information, or gets removed. That has nothing to do with deleting an entire article. And you don't need a third party publication. See WP:SELFPUB. I hope that clears things up for you. Dream Focus 19:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's where I got "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." from. WP:PROVEIT is a section in WP:V, which once again is policy. Although it's part of the same policy, WP:SELFPUB doesn't help you here, there are no 3rd party references for it to apply to (you've still not provided them). Manga refs are primary sources, and manga are not self published works. You're trying to argue against policy, with an nonapplicable note in the same policy. if wou want the article kept, offer valid reasons for doing so or shock! - improve the article. Don't keep rewording or scrambling for minor details to try and put a spin on the same arguement. Either source the content in a reliable 3rd party source(and if its self published, then argue Selfpub), or stop trying to counter clear policy because you disagree. If you put as much effort into fixing articles as you do to finding new and inventive wasy to waste everyones time, you might actually save some articles! Either way, I'm going to keep quoting policy as long as it's relevant, regardless of you objecting or failing to understand how afd works. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article has been tagged for a myriad of issues for almost a year and a half, but the only changes have been automated removals of deleted images, the removal of a single section of unreferenced, excessive OR, the occasional prose tweak, and the addition of even more unreferenced OR. There also has been no talk page discussion since 2006, except for automated FUR image notices. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly per above. This article is trying to be several things which Wikipedia is not: namely a game guide, a directory, and an indiscriminate collection of information. WP:TRIVIA states Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts, which applies here. Also, currently the article contains no third-party sources for verification and the notability of this list of items hasn't been proven. Them From Space 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why not have a "list of nouns" for every non-notable fictional work ever? Ridiculous, indiscriminate, trivial list and a content fork.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need insane numbers of miracles, not just one to salvage this article. This is an indiscriminate collection of information & tidbits with a lot of fans made interpretations likes for Mana's weapon which near none or so is namely mentioned in the anime series or the manga. There also quite few informations that are already redundant with other Negina articles like the personal equipment related to each character pactio. --KrebMarkt 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Please note that Dream Focus (talk · contribs) has been WP:CANVASSing editors in order to keep this article.[58][59][60][61] --Farix (Talk) 20:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I contacted every editor that had 25 edits or more, to inform them an article they worked on was up for deletion, and ask their help in adding references, or whatever else was needed. This should be an automatic function. Its not canvassing, its informing people of something they are connected with and would want to know about. I'm not just posting around at random here. Anyone who worked that hard on an article will want to know something like this is going on with it. Dream Focus 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is canvassing. Saying you contacted "every editor that had 25 edits or more" is just another way of saying you contacted people who would be most likely to !vote keep. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 22:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's canvassing, it's against the rules, and it skews the process. Good luck stopping it though.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But by pointing it out, it helps minimizes the affects. And if the case is severe enough, it can be a blockable offense.--Farix (Talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people want to be informed, they'd have the page on their watchlist. Ironically on of the main contributors (who split it into its own article in the first place) has already given his reasons for seeing the page deleted. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider myself a main contributor, I have split it pretty much only because the main article is too long, and consensus at the time is to split these articles. I do not have it on my watchlist, I was informed by the nom instead. MythSearcher^talk 06:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is "List of things in [fictional work]". Some of them are magical, some are mundane, some are named, some are [character's thing], and all of them are a salad of random trivial facts. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not necessarily opposed to these sorts of lists, but this is far too broad as to be manageable. Perhaps if there was a very specified guideline about what belongs in the list, or if there were some references as to why these items are notable, I would feel different. As it stands, this needs to go. AniMate^talk 00:59, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people suspected of Russian apartment bombings[edit]

All of the information in this article is already contained in the main Russian apartment bombings article. There are also POV issues here, and in my opinion this article reads like a POV fork. Offliner (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary fork of info. largely at the main page already, and as much as I dislike this phrase, a "BLP nightmare". If indeed there's independent info. of value here, merge and rd. JJL (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JJL, citing WP:POVFORK. (Igny (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- J.Mundo (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:MOS. This is a typical sub-article. Main article, Russian apartment bombings is huge. These materials should be shortened/removed from main article to facilitate reading, and I removed them in the past. However, someone reinserted most of the information back. Everything here is sourced.Biophys (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as all the entries are properly sourced, there is no BLP violation, nor is there a POV slant (suspects are suspects are suspects). Where this information is located (in the main article or in this separate list), I don't care, but it should not be duplicated.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:15, April 6, 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that at the moment the information is duplicated. The same info is present both here and in the main article, and it is this article that shoud be deleted. Offliner (talk) 17:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not clean up the main article instead? It is, after all, rather long and eligible for splitting.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, April 6, 2009 (UTC)

If anything, I'd rather split off the conspiracy theories and the Ryazan incident, not the list of convictions. Offliner (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could even split off Investigation of Russian apartment bombings from main article. However this does not justify deletion of this sub-article.Biophys (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are less contentious ways to split the article, if indeed its length presents a problem. However, in this case official court rulings/ results of various investigations are given equal weight with the conspiracy theory that Russian government is responsible. So I could add WP:UNDUE to the list of deletion reasons. (Igny (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would recommend to split the conspiracy theory similarly to 9/11 conspiracy theories. (Igny (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete As information is already present in the main article (Russian_apartment_bombings#Suspects_and_convictions for the suspected perpetrators, and within prose for the conspiracy theory), this is essentially a double-up of information that isn't required, which doesn't make it a POVFORK, but an unrequired content fork. If the main article is getting too large and requires splitting, this should be done along the line of the Ryazan bombing, etc, etc, not like this. Even then, the article is not at the stage yet required for splitting, but rather a littl more expansion is probably required in order to push the article thru the assessment stages. 79kb is not necessarily a required stage for splitting of content. --Russavia ^Dialogue 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Russavia. Rd232 ^talk 20:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, legitimate sub-article of Russian_apartment_bombings, which is getting rather long. What to split from this long article is a content decision and should be treated on the article talk page, not here in AfD. Martintg (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is not long at all, as almost an entire 1/3 of it is taken up with references. This is well below the threshold for any legitimate splitting of content. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A comment. The nominator suggested to create several other sub-articles about this subject [62], but he wants to delete this one. Why? We should keep long lists out of main articles for convenience of a reader.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 8 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Life[edit]

A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Definitely a notable record label as its releases prove. Found these references after a quick Google search [63][64][65][66] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added some of the info linked to above to the article (unfortunately one of them is paysite - too bad, it looks like it would have a lot of good non-business info on it). Nice job finding the sources. Wickethewok (talk) 04:33, 6 April 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black British population[edit]

This is already covered by the Black British article. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to United Kingdom Census 2001, surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- J.Mundo (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Not sure which will convey the information better, so I'd leave this decision to the talk page of the Black British article. Either way, the information on this page seems sufficiently encyclopedic to be kept somewhere. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. the info is notable. probably for research purposes. the only question is to make sure that the format that it is pu in does not overwhelm the the United Kingdom Census article. maybe a table format.Joe407 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure why merging with United Kingdom Census 2001 is appropriate. The article uses a combination of 2006 estimates for England and 2001 Census data for the rest of the UK. I would have thought a merger with Black British was more suitable. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a content fork since the Black British article already covers the same ground. A merge with the latter article would therefore seem more logical, though also unnecessary. Middayexpress (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the unsourced stats need severe cutting down. According to Black_British#Population this is a spin off article which is acceptable for articles of that size. (If it turns out that after cutting everything left in the article is duplicated from the main one, I support a redirect since it's a plausible search term.) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is certainly enough purpose to keep this as a seperate article from Black British or the UK Census, all of the information on this page could be expanded even further, and it would be too long to merge with another article. I have already started cleaning up the article, and with a bit more of this as well as adding more sources, there will be no reason at all for it to be nominated again. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 22:52, 9 April 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. Consensus is for either deletion or merging, butthere is no agreement at all as to where it should be merged. Overall, the supporters of deletion have the strongest arguments here. Fram (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King James Bible Statistics[edit]

This is an unencyclopedic topic which is a violation of Wikipedia not being a collection of indiscriminate information. At the same time, all of the citations are to the bible itself, so it consists entirely of original research. Redirect is needless since it doesn't seem like a likely search term, and nothing to merge since there is no sourced information The Seeker 4 Talk 19:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Nomination:

"consider adding a tag such as {{cleanup}}, {{disputed}} or {{expert-subject}} instead; this may be preferable if the article has some useful content"
"investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it"
"The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion." Timlight (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the information looks useful and encyclopedic. Merge with Authorized King James Version. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge the more useful material to King James Bible. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

unencyclopedic? more useful material? please provide an explanation Timlight (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "King James Bible Statistics" and you'll have 979,000 results but it doesn't mean it's 100% encyclopedic and reliable. Timlight (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - An encyclopedia article on a given model of car should include a technical description of the car, such as length, width, wheelbase, engine displacement, horsepower, type of construction, top speed, acceleration, etc. An article on any book can reasonably contain technical information such as number of pages, number of chapters, type of binding, size, different editions, etc. An article on the Authorized King James Version can reasonable contain a similar technical description-- number of verses, books, chapters, longest and shortest books, chapters and verses etc. In addition, things like the shortest verse ("Jesus wept.") are common knowledge for a lot of people and arguable notable information about the book. Perhaps not all of the information in King James Bible Statistics would be appropriate for inclusion, but a lot of it is and should be merged with Authorized King James Version. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be transwikied to Wikisource at all? I'm not familiar with the details of what they take.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things were considered by the author and updates were made. Anyone here possibly will review and edit the stubs I made so are there any more suggestions? (Someone is so nice to add a real explanation)---Timlight (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With either Authorized King James Version or King James Version -- either destination is adequate for the data presented here. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge with Authorized King James Version. The latter seems to be the best place to contain this type of information. Considering it appears that most of this information comes from the source (http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html) why not just add that as an external link to the afore mentioned article.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge isn't a possible outcome. "Merge" means the article history is retained because of the GDFL, so "Merge" is technically a keep outcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source is not limited to (http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-stats.html). Authorized King James Version is already a featured article here; merging King James Bible Statistics will only create clutter in it. --Timlight (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this as obscure as the origin of April Fools' Day?; "AfD tagging" is absolutely hilarious! - Timlight (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real list, parts of which reprinted every now and then [67] and [68]. Seems like an obvious merge and redirect to Thomas Hartwell Horne rather than to the article about the KJV. Mandsford (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a separate article on Bible Statistics (a larger work) is a much better place for King James Bible Statistics, but my attempt here is not about a dry list of numbers associated to KJB. Timlight (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss whether to merge with the main article--either would make sense. Deletion would not.The contents is suitable for Wikipedia as would any other descriptive contents of an equally major work. Would make as much sense as to remove population statistics .DGG (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Usage portion has been removed; sample of statistics are within Variations area. Thanks for your observations. - Timlight (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator did not explain why they considered the topic unencyclopedic and the sources are clearly not limited to the bible itself. (basically the nomination is missing a policy/guideline based reason for deletion) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism done by AutisticMonk talk

(cur) (prev) 17:21, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (23,421 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:59, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (23,416 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 16:10, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (18,893 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 15:17, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) m (17,615 bytes) (→History) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 14:03, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) (16,704 bytes) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 13:43, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) (16,827 bytes) (Some references were removed, but I thought the links were still applicable.) (undo)
(cur) (prev) 08:51, 2 April 2009 AutisticMonk (talk | contribs) (7,700 bytes) (→Notes) (undo)

Admins, please remove *AutisticMonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23,421 bytes of spam/deliberate article violation on King James Bible Statistics --Timlight (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - although again (like you posted at RFPP, where you requested full protection), you could have removed this yourself. This is not vandalism, and I'm not sure what an "article violation" is. Tan | 39 14:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: Deliberate insertion of personal opinion into an article is already a type of modification. The issue is not just about inserting 23,421 bytes (or more) of letters/words but the repetition of it. I could remove unnecessary info but article is already under "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion". Besides, Wikipedia editors work on improving an existing content, not on deleted article. --Timlight (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability of this topic established via reliable sources. If there is a significant Christian movement that uses this (incomprehensible to me) method to evangalize or convince people of whatever they're trying to people convince people of by counting punctuation in the king james bible, that movement might deserve an article. But this is largely original research and beyond that (to me) largely undecipherable. There also appear to be some NPOV problems here -- these "statistics" are used by one group appearing to try to advance an argument -- but the "statistics" themselves would likely be contested by many other christian groups as irrelevant or wrong.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be some interesting information that could go in the article for the main author listed, but this article reads like its from a specific christian encyclopedia, not the one its in now. if someone can rescue it so it reads like a neutral discussion of notable material published on the bible, go for it. i have my doubts its possible. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bible statistics here are quoted because they're part of an argument used by pro-KJB groups in preaching, evangelism, seminar, and publications ^[1], hence the title "King James Bible Statistics". Bible statistics has been controversial ever since the debate on Bible translations erupted as cited (indirectly) by articles on Bible version debate, King James Only movement, and List of omitted Bible verses. "KJV Only" and "KJV Onlyism" are considered "smear words" but "King James Bible Statistics" is not and that's a big difference in its usage. --Timlight (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." If there's bias, let's fix it. --Timlight (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial coverage. How many times are you gonna comment/vote here, Timlight? Tan | 39 16:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ The Believers Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue 3 by Theological Research, September 2003

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 01:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, on re-reading all the arguments. This is, fundamentally, a list of trivia. There are no notable religious teachings here, and no true scholarship.
When I was researching my !vote for this, I couldn't help noticing that similar content appears in other wikipedia articles for other Bible versions (e.g. Masoretic Text), so there's probably a case for expanding this AfD to include other Bible-related trivia.
It all probably does have a place in some wiki that's specific to the Abrahamic religions, so I'd support a transwiki if anyone knows of one.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notable about a small set of facts like this concerning the text. No evidence presented of mainstream sources taking notice of this so-called debate. JJL (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

anachronistic idea of mainstream. For centuries the detailed study of these things was very much mainstream. Andsince when does WP only consider the mainstream,anyway? The wiki that extensively treats the Abrahamic religions is Wikipedia. The major preoccupation of most of Western culture for millennia is central to our purpose. DGG (talk) 04:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of 'King James Bible Statistics', this article should be deleted. PhilKnight (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant as opposed to the many references to "Believers" web sites in the article. Perhaps "disinterested" would have been a better term to use here. I'm aware that many individuals have gone beyond mere concordances to count the number of X in the Bible, but don't see evidence that this count for the KJV is notable, esp. in the context of the opening sentence of the article, which states that it's about "a label used by "KJV Only" groups, like The Believers Organization,[1] to promote and preserve the highly contested superiority of the (KJV)". . If that is a notable endeavour, surely someone has noted it in all this time? JJL (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge to King James Only movement. As far as I can see, that's the group most associated with this topic. Don't merge with the KJV article. At most a sentence belongs there. Hobit (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 6 April 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 following rewrite by TerriersFan. The original article was on a single school, rather than the district as a whole. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Public School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - school districts are notable as government bodies and also serve as convenient repositories for information on otherwise nn schools. TerriersFan (talk) 01:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that the Carlisle Public school is part High school, that would make the school notable per WP:NHS. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. School districts are inherently notable and are useful for merging content from non-notable schools. Cunard (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been pretty well established that high schools/school districts are inherently notable. faithless (^speak) 07:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick glance at Google News will show that the independent Boston Globe, among others, is consistently covering it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When I nominated it, it was "carlisle school" and had a one sentence definition as a small school in the middle of nowhere; not a school district R3ap3R.inc (talk) 11:36, 6 April 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 closed - duplicate nomination. TerriersFan (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlisle Public School[edit]

Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 01:13, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania–Singapore relations[edit]

Contested prod. Only reason given was "rm silliness." One side doesn't even have an embassy. No real relations of which to speak. Jd027 (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N--I could not find non-trivial coverage of this topic in independent secondary sources. Consensus at previous AfDs is that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute notability. See, for example this, this, this, this, this, etc. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep - the only way to not find nontrivial coverage in independent secondary sources is to avoid looking.[69][70][71][72] and so forth. Wily D 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are indeed independent and secondary, but they're coverage of the topic of international relations between Romania and Singapore is trivial at best. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not for any reasonable definition of the word trivial. Wily D 14:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that none of the sources or references found by WilyD have yet made their way into the article, nor has the one external link present in the article right now been referenced in any meaningful, contextual way to the text of the article. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, all they do is serve to establish that the subject is appropriate for inclusion as an article. Wily D 11:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a one-day visit by Romania's President on a five-country tour 7 years ago doesn't give us much to write an article about. Also, both countries have GDPs of well over $200 billion, so $15 million in trade is a drop in the bucket. Other than that, this is the typical no-content, non-notable bilateral relations article, and should be deleted as such. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reason that I used in the Romania-Uzbekistan deletion debate, replacing "Uzbekistan" with "Singapore". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the addition of the news items referenced by Wily D. Although I understand the drop in the bucket argument (15 mil is less than 1/1000th of $200 billion) I cannot imagine, by analogy, that we would delete any of the articles on "United States and ______ relations" by comparing amount of trade to the combined GDP's of the U.S. and the other nation. Mandsford (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm tired of repeating myself, but the same arguments I emphasized in about ten identical precedents so far should also apply here. Dahn (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work by WillyD to find the sources. A Presidential visit is a big deal in the diplomatic world, even if he visited other countries at the same time, and the trade is significant if not enormous. Cool3 (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WilyD's saved it, I think.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WilyD to the rescue, confirming notability (though someone should put the references in the article). Pastor Theo (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - world leaders love to travel. Yes, state visits make the news, but they're not evidence of particular importance in a relationship. Nothing indicates that President Iliescu did anything more in Singapore than shake a few hands, sit down for a dinner, and sign a few pieces of paper affecting very few citizens of either country. Note especially that in the seven years since the visit, nothing newsworthy has happened regarding the relationship. (Well, Loredana Groza did sing there in 2007 to commemorate 40 years of relations, before the French, American, British, Saudi and other ambassadors, and kicked off a "Romanian month", but after all, the embassy does have to do something to justify its existence.) So I continue to argue that one visit, even by a head of state, doesn't do much to change the equation.
Regarding bilateral trade: the US (officially) has zero trade with North Korea, Cuba and Iran, but of course those relations are highly notable, more for their adversity than anything else. I'm sure, though, one can find a handful of US-X relations where very little trade occurs and where one could claim a lack of notability based on that and the absence of other notability-creating factors. São Tomé and Príncipe – United States relations, Netherlands Antilles – United States relations (the Netherlands Antilles aren't even a state, so that really should go), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines – United States relations come to mind. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability isn't inherited from brief visits from senior politicians or generated by tiny amounts of trade. In-depth sourcing is needed to meet WP:N, and that's not the case here. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, your personal opinion of whether these things are notable or not is irrelevant because they have been the subject of substantial coverage in reliable sources so tough luck. Hilary T (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hilary T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a) just because an article can exist, doesn't mean it should; b) "X has relations with Y and, by the way, the President of Y visited X for a day once" isn't really an article. There's no evidence a comprehensive article could be created out of this subject. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sufficient so that right now it holds value as a piece of a reference encyclopaedia. The plethera of sources suffice to show that a decent article can be constructed, which's really what's necessary. Wily D 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the "article" now contains (and no, it's not an actual article, nor can it be one) is precisely recorded at the respective "Diplomatic missions of..." articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to respond to statements not grounded in fact. It's transparently an article. That's it's stub/start class is not a criterion for deletion, but expansion. Wily D 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, even a single sentence can be called an article (not that this has much more). But actual articles (as opposed to bits of text masquerading as such) have some actual content, say 3-4 paragraphs at a minimum. One can't get there with this subject, which is in fact a good reason to delete it. Mentioning a one-day visit that had no impact isn't going to help much - that's essentially trivia, not evidence of any sort of meaningful relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three to four paragraphs is a fairly high standard, and one that flies in the face of standard practice. Someone who spoke Romanian or ... Cantonese?(What's the main language of Singapore?) could probably expand it without much difficulty, especially if they lived in one of the countries and could easily access bigger libraries which'd have relevent local content. Wily D 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "standard practice" you're referring to: every article should at least in theory have the potential to reach FA status, and that could never happen here. Romanian is my native language and no, I haven't found anything except that one story on Loredana Groza singing at the embassy. The "sources might exist, so let's wait for an industrious editor to make his way to the Romanian National Library just to embark on a probably fruitless search allowing this article to expand" argument is a) improbable and b) irrelevant, since the burden of proof lies on those defending the article to find sources showing clear notability, something which has yet to occur. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If diplomatic relations are not notable, then why have Template:Foreign relations of Romania and Template:Foreign relations of Singapore? As long as Category:Bilateral relations of Romania and Category:Bilateral relations of Singapore are populated with articles, I don't see why this particular one should be deleted. I am in favor of creating a consensus on what "relations" articles are appropriate, but not of deleting them on a case by case basis with no standard. — Reinyday, 01:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Keep per WP:N RenegadeMonster (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The three lone facts in this article (date of establishment and location of embassies) can be more than adequately covered in the "Foreign Relations of" articles listed in the "See also" section. Any major diplomatic incidents between the two countries would be more appropriate for history articles for each nation. If there were more to relations between these two countries than would be conceivably covered in existing articles, it would have surfaced since the article's creation. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, another one by WilyD? Please do some research guys! --can dle •wicke 23:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 01:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging should be considered for these things, with a disambiguation page left behind. In my opinion this topic passes WP:N but I'm not sure about how many events we have to talk about. Being generous: establishment of relations = 1, presidential visit =2, tax treaty=3, but judging from the sources it's never going to be so big it wouldn't fit in a list of relations. Nerfari (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I'm on the fence on this. There are 200-some countries and territories so do we need a "relations" article for every combination? I'm sure there is some documentation for all of them somewhere but is there enough to justify an article or should it grown in the parent article(s) instead? -- Banjeboi 07:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable bilateral relationship about which there is no meaningful commentary or sourced coverage anywhere on the planet. Nothing encyclopedic established.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the meaningful commentary and sourced coverage already discussed in this discussion? WilyD 21:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I look at those "sources" and see nothing as to meaningful commentary or sustained analysis of this irrelevant bilateral relationship. I understand that you apparently see something very different. I can't help you with that.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, for one thing, the four articles you sourced cover the same single event - A presidential visit by Romania to Singapore. Hmmm, there was a tax treaty announced at that meeting... which was likely hammered out months in advance by junior ministers and bureaucrats in both countries and had nothing to do with the visit except for staging the announcement. So, thank you for providing coverage of the 2002 presidential visit to Singapore by Ion Iliescu. You could write an article about that from this, but since many people probably fell asleep when this came on the news in 2002, who'd read it? How many times do things like this happen between countries in a year? It's darn near routine. Are they always so Earth-shattering and world-shaping as this? Can you get something out of more than one year, so as to give us something that even resembles ongoing, long-term, third-party coverage? This doesn't even scratch the surface of WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Two stories makes it more than one event. They don't have to be WP:INTERESTING to pass WP:N. I still recommend merging however. Nerfari (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There just isn't an appropriate merge target (nevermind that folding every set of bilateral relations of a country into a single article would result in articles that'd take weeks to download over dialup modems.) Wily D 11:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        For all the substance of them, I'm guessing not so long. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I suggest creating Bilateral relation of Romania and/or Bilateral relations of Singapore. Anything which is short and lacks potential for expansion could be merged there, (whether or not it technically satisfies WP:N) while longer articles could be or those with potential could be linked to in a summary style. It's not a perfect solution, but I don't think a perfect solution exists for a set of subtopics which fall in-between two main topics. Nerfari (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        New articles do not need to be created for that. There is already Foreign relations of Romania and Foreign relations of Singapore. --BlueSquadronRaven 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Romania has an ambassador in Singapore, which indicates a serious political interest. (Precedents about ambassadors not proving "notability" only demonstrate an unwise decision & should be ignored.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That fact is duly noted at Diplomatic missions of Romania. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And is that list the appropriate place to explain what duties & interests the ambassador has in Singapore? If one answers that question, I believe one begins to turn this article from a stub to something useful. -- llywrch (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do those duties & interests differ in any significant way from those of Romania's many other ambassadors? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article's topic is fine, and may grow over time. Dream Focus 22:42, 10 April 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 Khazars. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khazaria.com[edit]

Website of little or no notablity. There are no reliable sources, and this may be an advertisement without them. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Khazars, the main article. This does not deserve a full article of its own. See also WP:NOT#WEBHOST; WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. IZAK (talk) 08:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not some vanity site, but a resource of great importance in Khazar scholarship. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one scholarly work referencing the site. Will add more as time permits. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ism et al had a valid claim for AFD with the article as it stood. However, I have just added a multitude of citations from notable sources that mentioned this website, including non-fiction, scholarly, and literary works. In light of these new additions, I do not see how this AFD can continue to be promoted in good faith. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT#WEBHOST; WP:NOT#MYSPACE and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Shuki (talk) 20:14, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lonestar State of Mind[edit]

A non-notable film who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the general principles of WP:MOVIE. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lone Star State of Mind (film), which is also about this film and is somewhat better in quality. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd part coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 04:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the verdict is to delete the film, then I would have thought it would be useful for the title without the disambiguator to redirect to Lone Star State of Mind as a plausible mis-typing...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both Regurgitated IMDB information is not the same as an article. No prejudice against a proper article if it's possible, but regardless of the potential notability, this has to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ill Na Na 2: The Fever[edit]

Contested prod, recently restored. Not a notable album, as it was never released. Sources only trivially mention the album, and any relevant material should be covered at Foxy Brown. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NALBUMS which say "and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources.". The unreleased album has several independent reviews. Nsaa (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see independent reviews of it, just one- or two-sentence mentions in the context of something else. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as editor who challenged original WP:PROD on deletion review. There was much speculation over this album before Brown officially announced the termination of this project. As I've cited, news sources like MTV and Yahoo have written full articles about (now-wasted) progress done on Ill Na Na 2. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, more than enough coverage between the MTV and YahooNews articles to pass the significant coverage criteria of WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is exactly the sort of article the rule was written for. It received enough press attention to be notable despite the fact it wasn't released. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 7 April 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JLearnItME[edit]

Why is this encyclopedic? Recently created at various wikiprojects so also a promotion attempt. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnIt. Simeon (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject per se is perfectly encyclopaedic. However, it seems to fail notability as there are no third party references, nor could I turn any up - all sites I could find were merely offering it for download. I42 (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 6 April 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. Tone 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of gamelan ensembles in the United States[edit]

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese music ensembles in the United States, this article also does not contain any proper references, does not establish any notability, and seems to be a directory of various ensembles around the country. Probably WP:LISTCRUFT too (as pointed out by an editor on the similar AFD). The references section at the bottom of the article says that it is "based on a directory", which is a blatant violation of WP:NOTDIR. Eugene2x►^talk 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete = This is just a big list of external links and fails the guidelines in Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. Only one ensemble, Gamelan Sekar Jaya, has a Wikipedia article, and even that is unreferenced. There is in any case already an article, Gamelan outside Indonesia, which contains much of the information in this list. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd part coverage, WP:LINKFARM, WP:LISTCRUFT. JamesBurns (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason...? Eugene2x►^talk 19:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list started from information from the American Gamelan Institute, which is a reliable source. There is a gray area between lists and directories, and Wikipedia would be well served by pushing the boundary a little towards the directory side. This list is a good example of that gray area that should be kept. Most of the information can be easily verified by following the links to the organizations listed. There has NEVER been a challenge to the veracity of the information on this list. There is a logical disconnect with the idea that everything on a list has to have a noteworthy wikipedia article associated to it. Several of the organizations listed could merit an article of their own, probably a few never will. But why say that lists should not be comprehensive because only some of the entries are notable? The topic covered itself is notable, so why not have a comprehensive list? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic may be notable, but not any of the ensembles, save for maybe one or two. As for AGI, it is a questionable source at best and I have not seen any references to it in the article. Additionally, why is the article so specific? List of gamelan ensembles in the United States? That seems to be overly specific, which causes the list to essentially become a directory of sorts. Eugene2x►^talk 19:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is meant to be comprehensive, and if it were to cover more than the US it would be way too long. It was my hope to create more of these for the rest of the world. I've started on the UK (in my user space). (I wonder why I bother trying sometimes.) Sources are added to keep articles reliable, and help us remove any information that is questionable. There is still no comments that say that the information is lacking in veracity. If a group has a website, and is listed at the AGI site, do you really believe that we need more sources to confirm its existence? --☑ SamuelWantman 01:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the problem of confirming its existence; that's pretty easy. However, we need many more sources to deem whether or not every ensemble deserves to be listed. That's a big problem in this article, especially since there are only some sporadic resources on the web that point to the ensemble. Google searches only give 10 results for each on average, and that's including Wikipedia and the groups' own webpages. And again, AGI is a source that I don't deem very reliable. Eugene2x►^talk 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we need many more sources to deem whether or not every ensemble deserves to be listed". The idea is to list EVERY ensemble in the US. I believe it does. I am making no claims on each groups notability, only that they can be confirmed to exist. If they exist they are listed. What is the problem? Why do you think AGI is not reliable? They are not the best at updating their site, but the information listed is reliable. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 02:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you are basically saying that this list should be a directory. This in itself warrants a deletion. It does not matter as much whether AGI is reliable or not, but the fact that it is merely a single source and at the very best a directory (the site even claims so). Lists still have to comply with policies and guidelines such as WP:N and WP:RS. Additionally see WP:BAND. As far as I'm concerned none of them pass any of those requirements. Eugene2x►^talk 05:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is a gray area between lists and directories, and I am trying to push back against the deletion of verifiable material that is in keeping with the pillars of Wikipedia and valuable to an academic community. This pages are being threatened because of the application of GUIDELINES as if they are hard and fast laws. This page has existed without ANY objection until it became a battleground between editors fighting a battle that has nothing to do with this page. Wikipedia would be well served by focusing deletion efforts on pages that are truly problematic. Guidelines need to be interpreted thoughfully. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 09:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the reason that the article was left alone is because nobody else had looked at it. Just think from an encyclopedia point of view; of what use is this article? It's essentially a copy of the directory found in AGI minus the addresses and phone numbers. Why do we need to borderline on having a directory in the first place? And although guidelines should be treated with occasional exceptions, this article violates numerous aspects of policies and guidelines. As such, WP:IAR does not apply here. So until at least several of the ensembles even become close to notable and there are a few more reliable sources for each and every ensemble listed, there is little reason to keep this article around. Eugene2x►^talk 17:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article looked like advertising. 207.233.65.6 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Individual items within a list do not need to satisfy notability. See the featured List of Meerkat Manor meerkats and List of English words containing Q not followed by U for example. This list currently provides relevant encyclopedic information on the diversity and popularity of certain instruments/forms/repertoires, and it still has room for growth. ~~The external links do need to be moved out of the main text and into a "Notes" section though.~~ [Done]. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What encyclopedic information? At best this is just a copied directory from the AGI website. Do clarify, as I do not see the purpose of such an article. Lists are still articles and WP:N still applies. The other lists document rather basic ideas that need few references or notability, so your comparison does not make much sense.
"[G]amelan ensembles are distinguished by their collection of instruments and use of voice, tunings, repertoire, style, and cultural context", which we help to elucidate by having a list. In the future, hopefully the article will be converted into a table format to allow those insights to be more easily gleaned. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, while the notability guideline is less stringent with lists, the problem I see is that absolutely none of the ensembles listed are notable. The lists you mentioned at least have a majority of notable content, but I can't say the same about the gamelan ensemble list. Eugene2x►^talk 20:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the meerkats are notable enough to have a separate article. There are many lists which are in the same position. The rest is a matter of philosophical difference: Meta:Eventualism got Wikipedia to where it is today, and is why people like it - it's an open, honest, and patient attitude towards editing, suitable for everything except BLPs. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eugene2x says "the problem I see is that absolutely none of the ensembles listed are notable". This is not so. Eugene, do you know anything about this subject? Just because there aren't yet articles about the notable ensembles does not mean they are not notable. I think it would be quite easy to show notability for many of these groups. The reason I made this list was to encourage the creation of some of those articles. Without this list, their creation would later be challenged with the ironic rationale that they were orphans! It seemed to me better to have the list than to have the Gamelan outside Indonesia article become filled with this information. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 20:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then please tell me how they are notable. There are no sources, an average of 10 hits on Google including Wikipedia and AGI, and basically a directory of cruft. Are we supposed to keep this article for the next 20 years or so, just waiting for the ensembles to become popular? This list can be recreated at a later date, but certainly not now, seeing how it is based on a directory. The comments on the previous similar AfD I mentioned adequately describe the article's shape. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an extensive list which would probably better served as a category. It's become a linkfarm and a directory. A-Kartoffel (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:LINKFARM. Article was created from another directory and has been maintained to be an updated version of that directory. --Ronz (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LINKFARM does not apply - this is not a MERE collection of external links.

Official sites are counted as reliable sources for non-controversial information (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources).

Not all items need to be notable.

See Featured list examples to get an idea of what we accept: Willowtip Records discography, List of Soul Eater chapters, List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films, List of Final Fantasy compilation albums, etc -- Quiddity (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many times do I have to say it? Featured lists obviously don't look like blatant directories with some information about them tacked on, and they also look very different from the current state of this article. You're comparing apples and oranges. So let's say there's an article comprised of only external links. Then we tack on a few tidbits of information. It's no longer a mere (in the literal sense) collection of information, right? Yet it's still a WP:LINKFARM. Your argument doesn't make any sense and is rather weak to say the least. Analyzing words according to their strictest dictionary definitions and finding loopholes won't do anything to change how the policy or guideline should be interpreted. GraYoshi2x►^talk 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another indiscriminate list. The sources are not third party and violates DIRECTORY and WP:NOTGUIDE; the list itself is even credited as coming from a directory! A category would be relevant here as categories do not need the in-depth encyclopedic coverage that lists do. Them From Space 01:02, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wikipedia is not a directory. Would be better served as a category. TheClashFan (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Individual items need not be notable, when the subject is. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 15:57, 12 April 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JLearnIt[edit]

Why is this encyclopedic? Recently created at various wikiprojects so also a promotion attempt. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JLearnItME. - Simeon (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject per se is perfectly encyclopaedic. However, it seems to fail notability as there are no third party references, nor could I turn any up - all sites I could find were merely offering it for download. I42 (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did find this, but that's not enough to show notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:31, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secure SMS Messaging Protocol[edit]

My thanks to the hammer wielding otter (see below). The nomination should have read: "This article is a battleground between two rival proponents of something or other and appears to be references to their papers and a massive episode of COI. I'm wholly unsure that the article is about something that even should be here, nor whether it is notable, verifiable or anything else. The whole thing is masked by two editors who seem to be having a pissing contest. And yes, I am doing my best to assume good faith!

I think we need to discuss the topic and its notability and verifiablity and reach a consensus on keep/delete. This AfD may fire the necessary warning shot across the two contestants' bows, and we may end up with an encylopaedic article as a result. or no article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timtrent tried to list this at afd but Twinkle crapped out and didn't finish its job. Fixed that for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hammer wielding otters to you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - oops! I acknowledge a plurality of otters. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - They reject your reality and substitute their own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nothing is real. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
zap it into a thousand pieces (until something better and completely NPOV appears, anyway) --AlisonW (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doing a quick google search SafeSMS gets 1,830 hits, SMSSec gets 1,720 hits. These results seem to confirm the view that these are little used protocols falling below notability guidlines and article is really a platform to try and push these products. --Salix (talk): 08:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SSMS Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just done some quick research. As Secure SMS Messaging Protocol#Further reading shows, there is a topic to be had here. But the COI-motivated dispute between a researcher at Iran University of Science and Technology and a corporate vice president of CellTrust Corporation, both using multiple accounts and both on occasion not logging in, has largely hidden this from view. There are, in fact, quite a lot of papers and articles on this subject, by more than just the two protagonists in this particular battle here at Wikipedia, to be had.
Obviously this is the wrong title, since there's no one single protocol. But I strongly suspect that there's enough source material for a breakout sub-article of Short Message Service#Vulnerabilities, dealing with research into the security vulnerabilities of SMS and the various security mechanisms that can be added to it, to be written. And we can get there from here by renaming this article and editing it, mercilessly. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes an article could be written, but I am unconvinced that even combined it really gets to the level to satisfy WP:NOTE. Quite what level would be required for Significant coverage? Ideally a review article by a third party to meet WP:SECONDARY. My feel is that all of these are very much in the Research part of R&D, have not gained much attention by the industry and are not ready for market. --Salix (talk): 18:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what is interesting is that the two editors who wish to prevail are not so far interested in making any comment here, yet they soon notice when the other edits the article. This is the same with the related AfD (see above) and leads me inexorably to the conclusion that this article is simply a battleground and has no encyclopaedic value. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:54, 7 April 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 Swami Sahajanand Saraswati. Mgm|^(talk) 10:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All-India Swami Sahajanand Day[edit]

Clearly fails Wikipedia:Notability. Google search returns some results and only one appears related to the subject of this article. See this and this. From the style of writing used, I also suspect that the article could be copyvio. The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 16:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to biography - Verifiable fact as the editor has given ISBN #; page 95 here but no other coverage to justify a complete article. —SV 18:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! Most of this article appears to be copyvio, too.-The Enforcer _{Office of the secret service} 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Swami Sahajanand Saraswati where it is already mentioned And looking at this editor's edits, a large proportion of them appear to be copyvio, and since he hasn't responded to any of the many notifications he's had, I've indef blocked him making it clear that he needs to respond and make it clear he understands and will follow our policy to be unblocked. . I see he is a suspected sock also. Dougweller (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 6 April 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. Needs cleanup expansion and sourcing or else it will be back (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Rowley[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable actress, bit-player is not notable. MBisanz ^talk 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can source it, but I'm getting just 12 hits across the newspapers. All I can find is what's there, as well as her walking out of the television show "Trust Me: I'm A Holiday Rep" and being replaced by Paul Burrell and a trivial holiday mishap. Hiding T 09:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sources, but I lean towards deletion. Hiding T 09:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't agree with absolute deletion, perhaps a move somewhere into the Hollyokas main page or minor/recurring characters would be better?--D-Weaving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.116.72 (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She had a non-minor role in Hollyoaks and its spinoff and placed in a major competition (it is my personal opinion that televised competitions with millions of viewers count as long as it is verifiable). The Holiday Rep thing was too short to be notable, but with the other stuff confirmed, it doesn't have to be. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and further source. Wiki does not care if minor, if coverage neets the GNG. Google News. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all coverage in the above google news search is trivial, and therefore this article does not meet the GNG. I can't find any sources that can serve as the backbone for this article without needing a synthesis to make sense. Them From Space 16:46, 9 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live from London (iTunes)[edit]

Non-notable iTunes exclusive. No reliable sources found, fails notability for albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. A passing mention on each of the artists parent article is all that is required, if that. No notability for a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage for a non-notable release. JamesBurns (talk) 04:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, another series of non-notable releases. Canniba loki 01:44, 8 April 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carr (writer)[edit]

Can't find any reliable secondary sources that mention this writer. Fails to meet any of the general notability guidelines. The page does read more like a personal bio. Bluecup182 (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me there are a list of reliable secondary sources in the footnotes including the Guardian newspaper, the Bookseller (the major publishing trade magazine in the UK) and the BBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.245.122 (talk) 19:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking though the sources; the BBC link doesn't lead to any mention of Paul Carr and a search on the BBC website for both "Paul Carr" and "The Secret Election", for which this link should be linking to, brings up nothing.

The Bookseller website requires a subscription to view so I am unable to check its contents.

There are a couple of links to articles on the Guardian website that mention Paul Carr but they are about projects he has been involved in and not about Paul Carr himself.

The other links leads to either articles written by Paul Carr, information hosted on Paul Carr's website, what look like press releases and one review of his book.

~~*Delete~~ There seems to be no sources that shows that Paul Carr is notable as outlined in WP:CREATIVE Bluecup182 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creator of a body of work that has been subject of multiple independent reviews, many of which are cited in the article. Plus, I think anybody whose autobiography has been published by a mainstream publisher should generally be considered notable. JulesH (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have struck out above a "delete" comment and bullet point that were added in the middle of an existing comment from the original nominator by an anon user. I'm not sure what the intended effect was, but changing another user's contribution is not generally accepted in AFDs. I have also indented the nominator's comment for added clarity. JulesH (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least 2 reliable sources including The Guardian. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim_Shapiro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I nominate this article for deletion as it seems to be a very clear case of WP:BLP1E. ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC) ephix (talk) 14:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For starters, Ephraim Shapiro is not a living person. He has been deceased for 20 years. The nom's only policy cited as a rationale for deletion is WP:BLP1E, a subsection of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which is a policy written for dealing with living people. Also, articles about this case went on for months, probably over a year. They involved not just he subject, but also his son and other suspects. Xyz7890 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi, there is no WP guidline dealing specifically with biographies of deceased person, see here, its content is still relevant and we have to discuss it here. Perhaps I should have cited WP:N, or to be specific this section. that the subject of this article is notable only for one event is the most troubling factor, that the even was prolonged over a year and featured in the media for that duration isn't significant enough. thanks. ephix (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though it was negative publicity that initially drew the subject into the media, that does not automatically constitute a neutrality issue. If we had a policy that media mention over negative exposure does not qualify a person for an article, then thousands of articles should be deleted. But that is not the case.

What's more, the main source, the Baltimore Jewish Times, was careful not to make the coverage of the subject an all-out vilification, and to describe Rabbi Shapiro's honorable life as well. The publication implied that this exposé was with regret and not without controversy.

To avert the concerns about the single source, I did add references from a few more sources to the article.Xyz7890 (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article gives undue weight to the negative aspects of the subject and is primarily sourced by a single publication which is cause to question its neutrality. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if neutrality were to be an issue with this article, the proper action would be to apply to {{npov}} tag and address the issues, not to delete it. Besides, the article, and its main source (the Baltimore Jewish Times), does not only describe the subject as a child molester. It also tells his life story as an honorable rabbi. Xyz7890 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The AfD process decides if Wikipedia should have an article with this title, and I think it's pretty clear that it should.
The allegations of child-abuse are serious, and need to be well-sourced if they're to remain. In this case they are well-sourced: the guy was convicted and the convictions were reported in newspapers, and the reports are linked. There's not much left to discuss except the level of detail the article should go into, and AfD doesn't prescribe that.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content of BLP is not relevant here at all. The policy is WP:RS, and the sources are sufficiently reliable. DGG (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The larger topic of molestation by clery could include a list of notable offenders. Otherwise the personage and the events are notable. I would like to see more about the person other than the molestation story.Joe407 (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I first wrote this article, I tried to provide as much info as possible about the person, and I provided as much as I was able, based on the info I found. The section about his life is about the same size as the one about the posthumous molestation accusations against him. Xyz7890 (talk) 05:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I dont see why the sources shouldnt be considerd main stream and profesnal, also i dont beleave that the negetive facts over takes the importence of this very notable biagraphy.--Chaim Shel (talk) 15:06, 7 April 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 Holiday Extras. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airparks[edit]

Airport offsite parking operator that has no notability independent of its parent company, Holiday Extras. All references are travel industry sites. Fails WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:ADVERT. I tried re-wording to remove advert tone but there is little to no encyclopedic content worth salvaging. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is another non-notable operation of the same parent company written with a similar WP:TRAVEL tone:

Better Choice Parking (BCP) is independent of Holiday Extras and has a longer history that its parent company. A noteworthy and recognisable brand in the UK, worth keeping. Jonclarke84 (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Airparks to Airpark. No non-trivial reliable sources about this topic. Fails WP:V. Likely search term. -Atmoz (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Airparks and Airpark are completely unrelated and a redirect would not be appropriate.Petland1 (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article may be unrelated, but Airparks is also the plural form of Airpark. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Airparks is not the plural form of Airpark in this context. Airpark is a way of parking airplanes at houses in the USA. Airparks is a British brand of car parks. It can be confusing and a redirect would only serve to exacerbate the confusion. Petland1 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you make a redirect, the current article is no longer the context. The same would apply if I made a redirect out of the article of a non-notable dog called Apples and redirected it to the fruit. Obviously the dog has nothing to do with the fruit, but the redirect would still be suitable, because there'd be no connection made between the two. (Furthermore, the history can be deleted before the redirect is made and the links related to the company can be removed to further enforce this). Do you know an alternative plural for the word Airpark? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The key phrase there is "non-notable". If the article in question isn't notable then yes, you're correct. However Airparks is a recognised brand in the UK and unknown in the USA. I think Airparks has enough notability in the UK to be included on Wikipedia (an international site). See National_Car_Parks as an example. Petland1 (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 01:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom. All promotional with no encyclopedic material. Them From Space 19:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Airparks and Better choice parking into Holiday Extras, with redirects. For rationales see below - Pointillist (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are different brands of one corporate group:

Holiday Extras press release (here) says they are.
Search of Companies House Webcheck service shows BCP Limited (Company No. 00781158) and Holiday Extras Limited (Company No. 01693250) share the same registered office. The name Better Choice Parking is not registered.
The individual brands are non-notable and appear to be renamed from time to time, to suit the marketing needs of the parent.

One editor is linked to both BCP and Holiday Extras:

Jonclarke84 (talk · contribs) contributed to both the Holiday Extras and Better choice parking articles but now says BCP "is independent of Holiday Extras".
Jonclarke84 matches the name of Holiday Extras' web copywriter Jon Clarke.

Holiday Extras' expertise in affiliate/viral marketing means it is difficult for editors to check for reliability of sources and conflicts of interest, so readers are likely to be mislead if we allow separate articles for all their sub-brands:

Holiday Extras seems to own a large number of sites that may indirectly link back to Wikipeia editors, e.g. Show-and-Stay is owned by Holiday Extras and has articles by "Tony Hill" whose name is similar to user Tonus Hill (talk · contribs) who created the original Holiday extras article.
Editors have cited paid editorial in comparison shopping sites (e.g. travelsupermarket.com ) as reliable sources for statements.
Jon Clarke says "part of my job" is to place articles "via Article Marketer to generate backlinks to our landing pages".
DomainTools links their airparks and BCP brands, e.g. the record for Holidayextras.co.uk links to the record for Airparks.co.uk which links to the parkbcp.co.uk and bcponline.co.uk records.
Holiday Extras pays commission on apparently third party brands (e.g. here).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mgm|^(talk) 09:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Granite Shadow[edit]

Utterly unverifiable. Stripped of any guesswork, the article becomes "Operation Granite Shadow is the declassified code-name for a classified plan". Octane (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the only source is a dead link, and search engines reveal very little to nothing. There is no evidence it currently exists, see Google News search. It may be a fringe theory, because there is no research available on it, see Google Scholar search. It might have existed, according to DailyKos, not the best source, but now ....? Bearian (talk) 21:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Bearian. TillsTalk 00:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsourced. Ryan4314 (talk) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete take your pick: unsourced hoax or unsourced conspiracy theory.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:21, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live from SoHo (Linkin Park EP)[edit]

Non-notable iTunes-exclusive live EP with little or no media coverage of significance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in media coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live from SoHo. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 15:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks appropriate sources to meet Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, and no appropriate sources can be found. Randomran (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-charting EP with lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources. Fails WP:NM. — Σ xplicit 00:17, 8 April 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. Black Kite 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Denton[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously PRODed article by an IP user, which was deleted by another IP user. Page is for a footballer who has never played at a fully-professional level, failing notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 10:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - the first AfD listed was for a completely different individual of the same name. - fchd (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near to being a notable sportsperson. Does not meet WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not yet and may never be notable. --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oi Leave our striker alone - hes fab and he will be playing for us next season and he will go on to play for England then all you twerps who wanted to delete him will look like you are a bunch of silly billies ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.204.228 (talk) 22:36, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cao Pao[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cao Pao

Apparently a historical personage, but actually just someone's fanciful imagination. This person never existed, not in history, not in fiction. (Not in Rafe de Crespigny's biographical dictionary of the Three Kingdoms period) In other words, a hoax created by someone who claims he knows "true history". Too bad it's never going to be verifiable. _dk (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and warn user that Wikipedia is not SecondLife. --Nlu (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreams do not count as sources. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:35, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merali Jivraj[edit]

Not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 07:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don´t see any reputable references given in the article and the links given by the original editor in the discussion page is a copy of the article in wikipedia.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BEFORE requires nominators and commenters to make an effort to find sources before writing off an article. Just because the article's current sources aren't reliable, doesn't mean the article shouldn't be here. It could simply be a case of a newbie editor not knowing what are the proper sort of sources to use. A trout for Kittybrewster for providing a non-rationale for the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with MGM in general, but in this case, dunno. I tried to find sources, and only found two dubious ones, which I added. There are a few others like [73] that confirm that the family was a power in the Ugandan business world at one time. Nothing to back up most of the content. Possibly the author could provide better ones. The difficulty is that back issues of Ugandan newspapers and magazines from the 1950s and 1960s are very unlikely to be online. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:22, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saetia[edit]

Lack of reliable coverage of this band. Google news provides no hits and no allmusic article. neon white talk 07:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An article from "Metal Injection" says "Over the course of the last decade, the dissonant hardcore sound that was reinvented and pioneered by CTTS and other luminaries like PG. 99 , HOT CROSS , ORCHID , and SAETIA...". Thus this asserts the notability of the band, as a pioneering figure. [74]. -Binary TSO ^???
Keep No Allmusic entry, you say? Well, what's this, calling them "one of the great screamo bands"? Or this four-and-a-half-stars-out-of-five review of their retrospective? This was a pioneering '90s underground screamo group, whose lack of news coverage is due to the fact that major news agencies don't cover underground hardcore (not, thereby, a reason for us to ignore it). You're looking in the wrong places (as usual!). Idiomag reviewed their retrospective eight years after the group broke up. Tiny Mix Tapes calls them "Genre-defining" [75], and Prefix Magazine called them "monumental". [76]. Geoff Rickly of Thursday, in an interview with Alternative Press, said he regards them as pivotal among his early influences (they played in his basement!). [77] A review of offline '90s punk publications would provide reviews (try Punk Planet, HeartattaCk, and Maximum Rocknroll). The group meets WP:MUSIC points 6 and 7, the former for its connections to the highly notable Hot Cross and Interpol(!). Chubbles (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all trivial mentions in largely unreliable sources. We can't rely on circular notbility either. Common sense applies to all guidelines. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever that this band is "the most prominent representative of a notable style". To suggest so is stretching criteria a long way past breaking point. --neon white talk 16:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all the case. Allmusic, Tiny Mix Tapes, and Prefix are all well-established review sites, and the TMT and Prefix references are necessarily retrospective, having been written about Hot Cross, a more recent band. When Hot Cross was signed to Equal Vision, everyone sat up and said, "Hey, that's the singer from Saetia!". Are they the most prominent? I don't know how to determine that, and it sounds like it'd be largely a matter of opinion anyway, but they are undoubtedly one of the most prominent. Chubbles (talk) 16:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Mix Tapes, and Prefix have no reputation at all. We have to insist on good sources with reputations not just someones random, one of the literaly thousands out there, website because we cannot find any better sources, this suggests non-notability to be. We don't extend the idea of reliable coverage to include anything. If we did this notability would be a pointless concept. Notability can't really be inherited from another band who's notability is seriously questionable as well and seems to largely rely on having members of a previous band that in my opinion is equally non-notable. --neon white talk 05:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do extend it to third-party review sites; this is independent coverage, and the Allmusic reviews (seemingly ignored by all observers) are illuminating as well. The fact that there are thousands of websites out there is meaningless, and I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove; all I've attempted to prove is that this particular group is of sufficient renown to merit encyclopedic interest. Hot Cross and Interpol are both quite notable; there is no serious question about this. Chubbles (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point of notability is that there is a line, we don't move it to include anything we want or there would be little point in the policy existing. It says significant coverage in reliable sources and the burden of proof is on the sources to prove reliabilty. We usually consider reputation, history and editorial control as factors in reliability. It's very rare that a small music review webzine/site/blog is going to have any of those. THe point i am making is that it is very easy for people to self-publish music reviews and there are thousands who do, so it's almost inevitable that any non-notable band is going to be 'noted' be one of these sources and that is why we don't usually consider them. It might be independent coverage but it isn't in a publication of any note or reputation. The allmusic reviews are fine but not usually enough to establish notability. Hot Cross notability is questionable and not established in the article and seems to be based on circular notability. Persons who were with a band whilst they were still unknown usually do not inherit any notability from them so i think the interpol link is not relevent. --neon white talk 08:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, Hot Cross is notable. Also note how often Saetia keeps getting brought up in these reviews; Hot Cross was like a screamo supergroup, with Saetia leading the pack of forefathers. If this were one or two small-market self-publications you'd have a case, but it's not. There is a clear consensus outside of Wikipedia that this group is important, and I am trying to have that reflected inside of Wikipedia. Chubbles (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Chubbles said above, you might not find a lot of "mainstream" sources for this band, but there's a wealth of "underground" media reporting on them. I'll take some time myself to add to the article, as it is currently lacking any good sources at all. neon white has a point. I'll stay neutral until I can find some good sources to back up the claims made. Radiant chains (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not being covered by mainstream reliable sources generally suggests something isn't notable. Remember this isnt a music directory. --neon white talk 16:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This argument amounts to "the group does not pass WP:GNG even though it passes WP:MUSIC, and so should be deleted". What is the purpose of having WP:MUSIC if we are not going to use it as an indicator of a group's significance? Chubbles (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC is a guideline not a policy, it's there so that editor can get an idea of what might be considered notability in music articles, reliable sources are still required to establish all notability. We don't simply rely on an editor's opinion that the band is important or one of the criteria is met. --neon white talk 08:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is also a guideline. The only policy we're dealing with here is WP:V, and the sources brought to light so far verifiably demonstrate that the group has significant connections to other notable outfits and that they were important representatives of their style. Chubbles (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see how it fulfills the criteria in either guide. --neon white talk 05:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Chubbles. Band has notable members and is influential in this style of music. Tomdobb (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither statement has been verified. --neon white talk 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singer Billy Werner is in Hot Cross, drummer Greg Drudy was a member of Interpol (band). This meets criteria six of WP:BAND.Tomdobb (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding the original nomination, Google News does bring up some matches. Radiant chains (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable ones. --neon white talk 08:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let's see: this band's heyday was in the late 1990's, which means online references would be spotty. So has anyone bothered to look for the NYC equivalent of NME or The Rocket & see if they merited coverage? At the least, I'd hope someone has investigated whether Greg Drudy could be verified as a member of this group, which is it's strong claim to notability at the moment. (The article on Drudy lacks any citations at this writing.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a review from UC-Davis that comes up on a Google news search[78]. Reg is required to view it, but it contains this quote, "Drummer Greg Drudy was a founding member of Interpol." Tomdobb (talk) 20:34, 10 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jdimypai Damour[edit]

WP:ONEEVENT, The event itself received national coverage but this article focuses more on the event than the individual. Article is at this point completely unsourced. Mfield (Oi!) 05:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. It tells us where he is from and that he worked at Wal-mart, besides that, it describes the event.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
08:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete A clear case of WP:ONEEVENT; subject is not notable in any other way. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it horrible that you can say "not notable in any other way". Jeez - someone died. ALL human life should be celebrated ... are the 96 who dies at Hillsbrough notable .. they are all named on the page related to that disaster. Is someone more important if they die with lots of other people? If that;s the case where is the page listing the victims of the Nazi death camps? SICK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.252.87 (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Head (Documentary)[edit]

Film fails all of the notability criteria for films. This appears to be a straight to DVD release that hasn't been screened anywhere. A google search for "Fat Head" "Tom Naughton" reveals some coverage in blogs, but nothing that would satisfy the general notability requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." This movie may eventually garner enough coverage to warrant an article here, but as wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's a too early for an article now. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not using "This appears to be a straight to DVD release that hasn't been screened anywhere." as a reason, are you? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 06:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NF and WP:N. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. Add is basically another platforming of one of many who guestioned Super Size Me (indeed, some points are nearly word from word from dozens of other sites) Also curious about it being a "2009" article, when the one RS I did find is from 2008,[79] while I see blog postings about it from 2007? As an aside, considering SPA nature of the creator and ad-like quality of the article (repleat with spam) and his deprodding his own article, I would guess this was created by Naughton or one of his representatives. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing relevant notability criteria. Note that I was notified of the article here, FWIW, though I think it fails notability pretty unarguably. MastCell ^Talk 20:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient reliable sources to establish notability. I.e. the Chronical review is great but until another couple of reviewers pick it up it's too early for a Wikipedia article. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy back to author as just a tad premature. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the review in Box Office Magazine added by Squeakles it scrapes by on notability grounds. Whether it needs cutting down to get rid of unverifiable material is not a case for AFD. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A single review isn't significant coverage though. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:00, 10 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Affinity Konar[edit]

First-time author whose book has been published but is not garnering much attention or high sales fails WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - Author has just published her first book on March 8, 2009, so I support waiting for a few months before we decide on this new author's notability; rather than delete now just to create the article later. Unionsoap (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dunno. "They may be notable later" doesn't seem like a valid reason. Shouldn't a person prove their notability before they're given an entry in Wikipedia? --JaGa^talk 06:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 01:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11). The praise by Ben Marcus mentioned in the article is what is called a blurb in the industry and does not confer any sort of notability. Combined with the lack of press attention this amounts to nothing more than an attempt at advertising the book. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:42, 7 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infacted Recordings[edit]

A non-notable record company who's lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources means it fails to meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG. And cast a skeptical eye on all the bluelinked bands mentioned in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm working my way through tagging them at the moment. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Transwiki. Transwiki MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GPS in the Earthmoving Industry[edit]

Essay-formatted "paper". Completely the wrong tone and premise for a Wikipedia article. Ironholds (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps this nomination is too hasty. While it is true that the article is an unencyclopedic essay format, that can be changed, as can the tone. My question for Ironholds would be, is this a topic that does not merit inclusion on Wikipedia because it is not notable? Also, keep in mind that the article is marked as "under construction," and it was created less than one day ago. I'm going to wait until further edits are made to the article to make a decision about whether or not this article merits deletion, and I would suggest you do the same. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Wikibooks. Too much an essay / original research. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Love[edit]

Zero evidence of notability. Resume comprises two minor acting parts and a middle management job at a major magazine. Mr. Darcy talk 19:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, speedy close. Page was vandalized and most content removed. By SPA "Editlove" in November. I restored the content after AFD began. Appears notable enough and sourced enough now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work, but I'm not sure I see notability in there even after the restorations. The justification I offered up top still seems to apply. Mr. Darcy talk 00:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But she's not "middle management at a magazine," but treated as a "celebrity"/notable person of sorts by the media and her industry. [80] [81] [82] . I don't know if she ought to be notable, but she gets more genuine 3d party coverage than a large number of the actors wikipedia finds notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep based on the role in The Hills. Very weak because the listed sources in the article (except IMDB) actually raise notability questions: #2 is a restaurant review (Ms. Love, a diner, enjoyed the black bean burger); #3 is a link to purchase the DVDs for The Hills; #4 is an internal 404 screen with a shadowy depiction of the Oscar statute; and #5 is about some event where Love showed up in her role as a magazine employee. So the article needs improvement, but this seems like a "keep and improve" situation. Townlake (talk) 04:50, 6 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Machado[edit]

no references, fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting in the correct section: There are several references to this player on the media. Such as:

newspaper Diario de Noticias) at www.dnoticias.pt Feel free to search for more articles, I can mention this one for example: Article http://www.dnoticias.pt/Default.aspx?file_id=dn04010805091008
newspaper Jornal da Madeira, http://www.jornaldamadeira.pt/not2008.php?Seccao=10&id=105407

Published CDs and DVDs: http://www.madeiramandolinorchestra.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=39

Performances in national and international broadcast television and radio. Performances with renowned Orchestras such as http://www.teatrolafenice.it/ Kabrinsky (talk) 06:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now there is sourcing. Kabrinsky (talk) 08:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Diario de Noticias gives a nice detailed article, but the other links aren't good sources. The Jornal da Madeira might be a newspaper, but the link goes to a blog that recommends a couple of websites without giving any details about Fabio. madeiramandolinorchestra.com is not an independent source because Machado is part of the orchestra (to establish notability sources need to be independent) and the http://www.teatrolafenice.it/ website doesn't mention him at all. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madeira Mandolin Orchestra is an independent source, since Mr. Machado is no longer associated with them. Also I only gave some examples (feel free to browse for more), since someone mentioned that the article didn't comply with WP:MUSICBIO, however now it does since more than 1 valid reason has been given. And even if you personally don't want to consider the Madeira Mandolin Orchestra as independent source, the published CDs and DVDs with Mr. Machado as their First Mandolin and Soloist, comply with the MusicBio. Kabrinsky (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the Madeira Mandolin Orchestra has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels, that would establish the notability of Madeira Mandolin Orchestra, not of Fábio Machado. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Still fails guidelines. Enigma^msg 16:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate. Kabrinsky (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline WP:MUSICBIO lists 12 criteria; in order to be included in Wikipedia, a musician must meet at least one of these criteria. Fábio Machado does not. Dlabtot (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:MUSICBIO ,

- the first criteria is "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.[note 1] * This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles". As it has been posted, there are several articles regarding Fábio Machado in Diàrio de Notícias, the most important newspaper in Madeira Island. Website at www.dnoticias.pt

Also there have been 2 CDs and 1 DVD that are published and for sale in the stores. Remember that Fabio Machado is NOT the Madeira Mandolin Orchestra, therefore independent from them.

- Criteria 6 says "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable". The Madeira Mandolin Orchestra is one the oldest in Europe and the oldest of it's kind in Portugal. The Orchestra "Teatro della Fenice" is well renowned as well.

- Criteria 7: read the articles published by the local newspapers (like the one already linked). The title of the article I linked means "Mandolinist shines in Europe", by an independent source.

- Criteria 10: Machado has performed several times in television and radio.

Just because you can't find it, it doesn't mean it does not exist. And yes, it's verifiable. Kabrinsky (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your assertions to be taken seriously, you'll need to provide references. So far we have a reference to one non-trivial published work, and nothing else. Dlabtot (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-trivial published works:

- Concert in Fashion Show at Amazonia - Changes to the MMO due to Fabio Machado's departure - Comments regarding Fabio Machado's playing and future - [83] - Regarding Fabio Machado and Norberto Cruz studies in Italy - Artists that represent the Madeira in other countries - Comments from Norberto Cruz - Machado performs Paganini - Fabio Machado and Norberto Cruz involvement with the MSA - Importance of the work developed - Mandolinist shines in Europe - Comparison - Fabio Machado's activity in Germany - "Young Talents" Kabrinsky (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please stop putting bullet points in front of every comment you make? It makes it very difficult for people to follow the conversation.

It also is not really helpful to provide all these links that are not really about Fábio Machado, but where he is merely mentioned. If you really want the article to be retained, you need to actually improve it by adding references that fulfill the notability guideline. Dlabtot (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are there, and you should read the article instead of just tagging the name and see if the sentence is long or short. I don't know how to add the references to the article (making it readable and not just spammy). Is it just adding a link after a sentence, that relates to it? And are you trying to help or just to delete it? I really don't see any support. Kabrinsky (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to help Wikipedia by getting articles about subjects that don't meet our guidelines for notability, deleted. Such as this one. Dlabtot (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good that there will be other users checking this; someone that will actually read it and not just scroll. Kabrinsky (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making further personal attacks against me, such as accusing me of 'not reading'. Our policies require us to assume good faith. Besides, attacking me will not in any way make Fábio Machado more notable. Dlabtot (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what's your knowledge of the Portuguese language, however your comment makes me believe you did not read the articles. I have listed some references, and as it has been stated, there are 2 CDs and a DVD for sale (from an independent-source that isn't owned by Fábio Machado). It fulfills the criteria, even if you try to ignore it. Kabrinsky (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that Fábio Machado is the subject of these articles is false. For example, the subject of the first link http://www.dnoticias.pt/Default.aspx?file_id=dn010804130704130704 is a fashion show[84]. The subject of your second link http://www.dnoticias.pt/Default.aspx?file_id=dn010801081004081004 is concerts by Bandolins da Madeira[85]. In both articles, Fábio Machado is mentioned in passing, but is not the subject of the articles. I assume that your false assertions concerning these links are not willful but stem from a misunderstanding of our policies. Dlabtot (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of other editors, I am providing links to auto-translated versions of these Portuguese links:

- Concert in Fashion Show at Amazonia autotranslated

- Changes to the MMO due to Fabio Machado's departure autotranslated

- Comments regarding Fabio Machado's playing and future autotranslated

- [86] autotranslated

- Regarding Fabio Machado and Norberto Cruz studies in Italy autotranslated

- Artists that represent the Madeira in other countries autotranslated

- Comments from Norberto Cruz autotranslated

- Machado performs Paganini autotranslated

- Fabio Machado and Norberto Cruz involvement with the MSA autotranslated

- Importance of the work developed autotranslated

- Mandolinist shines in Europe autotranslated imho this is the only one that actually qualifies as non-trivial coverage. Another article like this and Mr. Machado would meet WP:MUSICBIO

- Comparison autotranslated

- Fabio Machado's activity in Germany autotranslated

- "Young Talents" autotranslated

Form your own judgements. Dlabtot (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Dlabot is correct. The coverage for Machado appears to be trivial and partial. Notability not established sufficiently. JamesBurns (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the scan of a different newspaper article constitute enough proof? And if so, where should such a scan be hosted, in Wikipedia, or any other website (is it totally irrelevant)? I think I might get such document. Kabrinsky (talk) 12:29, 10 April 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. MBisanz ^talk 23:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Hayes[edit]

Delete (implied) as nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's basically a regurgitation of IMDB (minus the roles he played in the filmography. Given the amount of aliases he could be credited by, I wouldn't be surprised if was notable but the source was hard to find, but this is just blatant copying. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Things listed in the article make him notable enough for an article on Wikipedia.Davin (talk) 16:23, 9 April 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. Tone 16:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Stick (game)[edit]

Non-notable party game. Violates WP:NOT. Prod was removed for reasoning of basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In 2 years no sources have been added to the article to satisfy removal of the prod. A Gsearch [87] only turns up hits for a song and the memory card of the same name. twirligig_T to^the C 19:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I will say this: it's definitely a real and very common game, and I'd be far from surprised if there are reliable sources out there someplace (there are many books on party games, after all). It's usually done with a baseball bat, though, and usually called Dizzy Bat or something similar. No vote yet, but I could see this being keepable if sources are found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move and expand to Dizzy bat A common game. Google Search for Dizzy Bat Gigs (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like not too many people want to comment on this AfD. A Google search indicates that Dizzy bat is the more common name for this game, so I would support a move to that name. I also found some references to "Dizzy bat race" and "Dizzy bat relay", but without more time to research, I'm not 100% sure if they are the same thing. In any case, a quick Gsearch and Gnews search seems to indicate that there would be enough reliable sources to make an article out of this, although I don't have the time ATM to tackle it. Overall, I'd say keep and move to Dizzy bat. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, it should be moved to dizzy bat. I too know it by that name. No opinion on sources being enough. Hobit (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the game appears to be better known under the alternative name dizzy bat, none of the google hits provided in the link above are reliable. There is one eHow article, but Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:14, 7 April 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 Fuse. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Download[edit]

No third-party sources given since it was created in 2006. Had borderline promotional content. Alexius08 (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Fuse. Nate • (chatter) 05:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 5 April 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.

[1] The Believers Newsletter, Volume 1, Issue 3 by Theological Research, September 2003

[1]