Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 8

< 7 April	9 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 Speedy delete a7, company with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothgroom Productions[edit]

notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:55, 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 22:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Teaching seminars[edit]

Speedy A7 has been declined. No asserted notability for this British teaching firm. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I asserted some notability, and provided references to its accreditation. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see just what this notability consists of. 02:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 02:42, April 5, 2009
- Comment - When I said "asserted some notability", I was referring to this: "It was the first training organization in Europe to offer a training program accredited by the International Coach Federation". Whether that's enough or not will be for consensus to decide. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:35, 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, Black Kite 23:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Their 'first' does not seem in any way notable, and they have nothing else to support their inclusion. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:19, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerwhizz[edit]

Does not meet notability requirements for TV shows Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some stuff that needs to be cut if it's not sourced, but the 1st and 4th reference are solid to establish notability. The 4th isn't about the show, but gives it a significant mention in the context of the article rather than a trivial one. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per assserted and sourced notability. Article might benefit from cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have received substantial coverage (see Google News). Icewedge (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are available to establish notability. --J.Mundo (talk) 00:24, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why Do Fools Fall In Love? (musical)[edit]

Written an advertisment for the musical, no sources, no claims of notability Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No promotional language whatsoever, but it appears all the sources that can reasonably be found are local to the Milwaukee area and are not independent from the creator. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, fails notability. JamesBurns (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to satisfy notability. Would reconsider if someone could point to appropriate sources per WP:NOTE. Rlendog (talk) 17:59, 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/keep. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Righteous[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC's notability requirements for bands or artists. Also, only source is a blog which is not W:RS Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 23:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did find this, but the website doesn't appear to be reputable or well known. -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, no charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of third-party, non trivial coverage, being on MySpace is not an assertion of notability. -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band appears to have received significant coverage in a number of Texas media: [1] [2] [3] as well as a few others that are behind a pay wall. I'd say it's enough to recommend a keep, per WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BAND, in its examples, characterizes as "trivial coverage" directory-like listings of performance dates, or contact or booking details. The articles to which I offered links above are not like that at all: they are articles that are entirely about this band. The citations do need to be added to the article, with content added to the article, but that's an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources provided by Paul Erik. It meets WP:MUSIC. Tim meh ! 18:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the above sources it meets WP:MUSIC. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 14 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blaqkout[edit]

Does not meet WP:MUSIC's notability requirements for albums Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, non-notable release. JamesBurns (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per James. — Jake Wartenberg 21:08, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red String (webcomic)[edit]

There is no significant coverage asserted. It is on its own website and its publisher's website, and nothing else; it is totally self-contained within the company.
There are no reliable references to the source material. There is the author, and that is it. This is clearly not reliable, given how we are naturally driven to portray ourselves and our work as more important than we are or it is.
There are no secondary sources. The author and the publisher's sources make it entirely in-house and primary.
No source is separate from the author or publisher.
Given these failures of notability, there is no reason to keep it. It is fancruft. Octane (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per apparent lack of third party sources. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Raziel teatime 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question http://redstring.strawberrycomics.com/info.html Are none of those interviews valid? What about the awards it was nominated for? Dream Focus 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews aren't secondary sources... since they're almost entirely just the words of the creator. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But interviews do involve the editorial judgement of the journalist or writer involved. It is impossible to write something that is entirely independent from a subject because the information you use to write an article about a band is -- when you trace it back -- always from the subject in question. It's the only way for correct information to spread. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interview is still just the raw, unverified words of the person being interviewed... it may be a useful source but it can't be the only source. It's true that on a philosophical level, all information about say, a band, traces back to the band... but secondary sources process that information to (hopefully) reduce the level of bias, so an encyclopedia article isn't merely repeating what the band says about themselves. For example, basing the Wikipedia article on say, KISS, solely on things the band members themselves said, would be a very poor way to write the article. Listen to Gene Simmons' famous interview on Fresh Air - can you imagine an article using his words there as reliable information on his career? Interviews are primary sources and have to be used very carefully, and can't be the only source. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The awards don't indicate why the people handing it out would be an authority in the field.[4]. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The VAST majority of webcomics do not get published to print by a major comic published like Dark Horse, and will never be, no matter how long-lived they are. Surely that says SOMETHING to notability. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mgm makes a very good point about interviews.
Now. One entry on the above list of mentions is Comixtalk (formerly Comixpedia), which pays its writers and has editors. It's more of an online magazine than a blog. (Or it was when the interview was made, I haven't kept up with these matters for a year or two.) I recall it being accepted in these discussions before, though abject laziness prevents me from trawling through an AfD pile. So that's at least one valid third-party source. The link page's out of date, though, the article's here. --Kiz o r 13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking into this further, one of the references given is Newtype USA, a magazine. That should be looked into further, of course - can anyone dig up a copy? - but with that and Comixpedia, I'm ready to support the article as the subject seems to have multiple reliable, third-party sources. Both should be integrated into the article properly, of course, but if we started nuking stuff for being in need of work instead of irredeemable, the next major change in standards would blow up the encyclopedia. :-)
Now lessee here. The rule-of-thumb (also known as a "notability guideline") used for web content is WP:WEB, laboriously made to meet the unique position of online content. It requires the fulfillment of any of three criteria. Multiple non-trivial published works? That seems to be in order. Well-known independent award, or multiple nominations for such? There was a repeated wrangle over the state of the WCCAs. The decision was... well, mainly "NOT AGAIN," but they were accepted. This was a bit ago, though. A year or two. Distribution through a respected, non-trivial, independent medium? 159.182.1.4 points out that the strip is published by Dark Horse Comics, which is right behind Marvel Comics and DC Comics. Check. The article meets all reasonable standards for keeping. --Kiz o r 13:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was notable enough to get published by a major company, and because, as listed above, one of those reviews was in a major magazine. Anyone know how to get a clear and accurate count of how many hits a day a website gets? Alexa has confusing results Something is notable if a large number of people read it everyday. Dream Focus 14:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are notable and Sequential Tart has won an award or two. While interviews don't strictly count for notability being interviewed by folks like Newsarama shows it has got onto the radar of one of the highest profile of the comics websites. Getting picked up by Dark Horse is another shot in the arm. I think it is enough to suggest it is fine on the notability front - it needs work (reviews, circulation?, etc.) but it is a start. (Emperor (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
That seems to take care of the grievances. Could we get opinions from the nominator and the "delete" !voters? --Kizor 10:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still cites no third party sources at all. It lists 3 reviews but only gives 1 working link, and it appears it's from a site that will post reviews from anyone, and thus doesn't seem like a meaningful source. The only reliable source seems to be Comixpedia... and that's something. I guess the article probably needs editing more than deletion if more than just that one reliable source can be found. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:36, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Abyss[edit]

Unreleased computer game. Only source cited is an uninformative website, which gives no release date. The name is popular, Google turns up all sorts of things, e.g. a World of Warcraft "Guild" of that name, but no independent reliable source about this game. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nominator no WP:RS, no notability. in fact no information. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there's not even anything on the official page that can indicate anything. MuZemike 07:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be drum-banging for a personal project, lacks any sources demonstrating notability. A couple of RPG Maker-derived games are notable (one particular series and one other title, from memory) because they pushed the boundaries, but virtually every other homebrew will never gain the amount of reviews etc. needed for a Wikipedia article. Someone another 14:55, 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 between keep and merge. Keep by default, and move to Ickey Shuffle in accordance with naming conventions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ickey shuffle[edit]

Non notable "celebration" by a single player. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've added an ABC News reference which calls it "iconic" - I think that's notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I added a NY Times reference. I think this meets WP:N guidelines fairly easily, although a merge with Ickey Woods could be discussed in the future. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of referenmces, article needs development. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ickey Woods. Probably meets WP:N, but I don't see a need for a separate article at this point, based on the length and depth of both this article and the individual's own article. Strikehold (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It is currently a stub, but do you think it could never be expanded? Or has it just not been expanded yet? In my opinion, there is a big difference between the two. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see how it is a big difference. I'm not opposed to stubs, even if there is no hope of them being expanded. But this subject seems so interconnected to its creator, that I'm not sure of the value of breaking the information off into a separate article. If article length ever becomes an issue, it can always be folded back into a separate article. Strikehold (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, no question that this is a significant topic, but I agree that it would be better off being part of the player's article. It's not like axel jump, which is named for the first person to do it but is performed commonly by others: since he's the only one, no reason that it should stand by itself. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there was any one touchdown dance that would be kept, it would be this one. It was the single dance that made touchdown dances notable. Eauhomme (talk) 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is often thought to be the celebration that started it all, so it certainly merits being kept. However, the article needs improvement - more should be added. Mandermagic (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Ickey shuffle (use of 'the' when not neccesary is discouraged by naming conventions), merge and redirect per Nyttend's reasoning unless the claim it was the dance that started it off can be substantiated to allow a straight keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:12, 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 redirect to VIVA World Cup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2011 VIVA World Cup[edit]

Can't find any references supporting this - I don't think information has been released for 2011 yet. JaGa^talk 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, no notability, article written in Franglais, can't even figure which sport it is. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Soccer. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep even though Wikipedia is not a crystal ball the competition is genuine and previous tournaments have coverage here. It should be expanded upon by anyone who can navigate the NFB website with all due haste, however. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to VIVA World Cup as 2010 VIVA World Cup does. The current (2009) tournament details are barely finalised so I find it hard to believe anyone could know anything about the 2011 edition. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Utter crystal ball gazing. It is a bad idea to go more than one tournament into the future. _ Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely non-notable. - fchd (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Stu.W UK and MGM. Giant Snowman 11:43, 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 redirect to Mohakhali. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohakhali DOHS[edit]

Has sat in a horrible state for nearly a year with no sign of improvement. Zero referencing. Suggest either finding a suitable redirect or simply outright deletion. Enigma^msg 20:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, please!!!! Absolutely no notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mohakhali. That too is unreferenced, but has more content and potential. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mohakhali. Unless this complex can be shown to have distinction worthy of its own article. --Oakshade (talk) 19:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mohakhali. Mjroots (talk) 08:09, 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 redirect to Droid. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astromech droid[edit]

R2-D2's notability doesn't extend to notability of the group as a whole; this is an unreferenced list of trivial, non-notable droid types. It fails WP:GNG, WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:RS. --EEMIV (talk) 20:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, article could be improved, there are plenty of sources out there, mainly a preserve of role players and sci-fi trivia freaks, but Wikipedia reference produces lost of references and not just to R2D2. Have placed Afd ntoices on recent contributor talk pages. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm a huge Star Wars fan, but this is a little too in-depth too actually be notable to anyone but the most hardcore trivia freak. Isn't there a Star Wars wiki this can be cut-and-pasted to? --BlueSquadronRaven 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wookieepedia is the most prominent Star Wars wiki, but their article is in good enough condition that I doubt they'd want any of the material from here. BryanG (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This can be summarized on another page (i.e. R2-D2), it doesn't need an entire article. - Raziel teatime 22:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is material that can be covered elsewhere, it needs to be merged (not all of the detail) instead of deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps transwiki to Wookieepedia? Also, maybe this topic, protocol droid, and battle droid could be part of some kind of Science and technology in Star Wars topic? After all, there is a book called The Science of Star Wars. A sub-topic of such an article could include piecemeal commentary about droids. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge to Droid. This seems an obvious choice. The Droid article is slim and badly in need of additional content, and this would fit perfectly. If at some point in the future that article gets too big, then we can consider splitting this one back out. Powers ^T 16:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this: nothing in the astromech droid is appropriately cited; shifting it to another article merely moves around a pile of cruft. Additionally, the content is minutiae in-universe trivia that delves too deeply into insignificant make-believe content. Lastly, the material already at droid sufficiently covers this topic; it doesn't need expansion into every last type of model. --EEMIV (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the astromech is one of the two most well known types of droid in the Star Wars milieu. I don't believe the content at droid is sufficient. But do note I'm not suggesting a "straight text dump" as BryanG implies. Powers ^T 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R2-D2 is one of the two most well known droids in the Star Wars milieu; the character has been written about, merchandised, even turned into a great spoof. There is no "type" of Star Wars droid (except, maybe, battle droids) that is particularly well known -- at least, to the point of receiving any sort of significant coverage or commentary. The idea of "astromech droids" is a negligible bit of "filler" created to more fully populate the Star Wars universe, and are just window dressing. This droid family does not inherit notability or significance from the notable exemplar. I see no significant cited content at the astromech droid article worth merging anywhere. If you'd like to find and cite real-world information, critical reaction, etc. to astromech droids and merge it elsewhere, all the Lt. Powers to you. --EEMIV (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All I'm saying is that the content at droid related to astromechs could be expanded, and this title should redirect there. That sounds like a merge to me. Powers ^T 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Droid, though a selective merge of some material might be okay. Honestly, and I'm saying this as a Star Wars fan, the one-sentence summary of astromechs in the third paragraph of the droid article is probably close to sufficient for Wikipedia's purposes, though perhaps a little more elaboration would be nice. A straight text dump would simply overwhelm the droid article and place undue emphasis on one type of droid, though, so any merging of material would have to be done very carefully. BryanG (talk) 21:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough information to justify its own article, and the information may be interesting to some, plus is presented in a proper encyclopedic manner. Dream Focus 12:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Droid. Merge only selective details from the lead section (perhaps a paragraph's worth). Nothing below that section is worth merging, being in-universe and indiscriminate detail. Like I commented before, such information can be transwiki'ed to Wookieepedia, and that article could be linked to in the "External links" section at the Droid article. (Not sure about the acceptability of linking to Wikia sites, though?) At the very least, the article should redirect to Droid since this is a likely keyword search, and redirects are cheap. —Erik (talk • contrib) 15:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This page's information is too in-depth for Wikipedia, recommend transferring to Wookiepedia, but this page is redundant to theirs. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an in-universe collection of original research showing no relevence to the real-world whatsoever. This fails WP:WAF which states that notability of articles should be demonstrated in the real world, and not just in the subject's world. Furthermore, this article contains no reliable sources, even after this long discussion. As it stands, it is only a game guide and plot summary. If nobody's willing to make the attempt to bring this article up to par with our policies and guidelines when it is in the spotlight of deletion, then either it cannot be done or nobody cares enough to do it. Them From Space 01:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A certain editor still needs to swing by. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) 01:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no reliable sources that establish independent notability for this fictional object.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki To a star wars wiki Jwray (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re. transwiki - Wookieepedia already covers this topic in far more detail than does Wikipedia.[5] --EEMIV (talk) 18:52, 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. Stifle (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-flux[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable competition. Unsourced, not much in terms of third party coverage that I can find. Enigma^msg 20:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no WP:RS to be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News returns no results, while a normal Google search returns no third-party reliable sources. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 14 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asleep in the Bread Aisle[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This page meets Wikipedia’s criteria for deletion because article is about an album that does not yet exist. Esasus (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What exactly is orb gazing in that article? We have the track listing, the album cover, and the release date (which is 12 days from now). Please reread WP:CRYSTAL. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a reference about the album from mtv and future album tag, this appears to be a notable album that will be coming out, as it already has good secondary references don't think it is hindered by WP:CRYSTAL Bacchus87 (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a pretty clear exception to WP:CRYSTAL. It's a major album whose release is eminent and already has press coverage. If we deleted it, it would be recreated within a week I imagine. Kaldari (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sourced, release date set, artist is notable. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CRYSTAL is meant to keep out speculation. This is confirmed by the sources. There's not as much production info as I had hoped for, but it is sufficiently close to its release date to be acceptable. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:57, 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 withdrawn by nominator. Enigma^msg 00:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic Fate[edit]

This article does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Enigma^msg 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, band is notable in Bangladesh, could be improved and referenced. Nominator did not place notices on article contributor talk pages, I have now done so. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Per Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (music). The Daily Star (Bangladesh) alone has published about a dozen articles featuring the band, and not just in the passing. See [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]... and, they were even mentioned by The Times of India (see: [15]). and the BRAC portal (see: [16]). I believe, more would be found if looked for. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my responsibility to source the article, but I will withdraw the nomination. Enigma^msg 00:26, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black jack (alcoholic drink)[edit]

Unencyclopedic - an alcoholic drink that two people made up in April 2009. Radiant chains (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP by their own admission: "While on an ill advised offseason vacation…" KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following was transcluded from the talk page of the user, Artgod33 (talk · contribs), who I believe should have placed this comment here. KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the drink Blackjack and it is as relevant as any other drink article that appears on wikipedia. To immediately dismiss it saying that it is about a person is just not true. While the history section is hard to verify it is also hard to argue as not being the origination. I feel that the article should stay up even if it means editing or even deleting the History section. Artgod33 (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, reluctantly While I heartily approve of how some things made up by a couple guys can become legend, until this cocktail makes it past the Spring Break crowd and I can order one by name in a bar in Winnipeg, it's not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not for drinks made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds delicious, but not notable. Delete -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fabricated and unnotable (at this point in time). --Quartermaster (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Geoff ^T ^C 00:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When alcoholic drinks are nominated at AfD, I believe one of the required steps would be for a group of volunteers to test the recipe before the discussion is closed. I'll admit that if they reported that they need more time for research, I'd be inclined to vote keep. -- llywrch (talk) 19:12, 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 speedy delete as blatant copyright violation. To confirm, I checked both the Pythagoras text and Hippocrates text myself. Both were word-for-word copyright violations of Encarta's entries for these, with some sentences re-ordered. Encarta is non-GFDL and copyrighted ("© 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved."). Wikipedia:Copyright policy supercedes other considerations about neutrality and original research, and ends this discussion swiftly. Well spotted, JohnCD. Uncle G (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek influence[edit]

Unreferenced, un-encyclopedic, WP:SOAPBOXy essay that does nothing but tout how great Greeks are. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least rip up and re-write completely. I would suggest merging and redirecting to the appropriate articles on Greek history, math, philosophy, etc. if there is anything not already in those article that is sourced and neutral, but there doesn't seem to be much worth saving in the POV essay that this article is right now. Another option would be to make it into a disambiguation page for the various articles that discuss Greek history, culture, etc. The Seeker 4 Talk 19:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student essay and un-original research - for example the start of the music section is copied from Music of ancient Greece. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - every bit I have checked has been copied from elsewhere, much of it from within Wikipedia, e.g. Greek literature, Theatre of ancient Greece, Greek art, Music of ancient Greece, but also some from outside, e.g. Encarta (Pythagoras), www.perseus.tufts.edu (Aristarchus)... if the author served this up as an essay, he would get a Ph.D. in plagiarism. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wow, POV fork if I've ever seen one before, actually its not even a POV fork, it's just neutral content from several articles rearranged with weasel words. -Senseless!... says you, says me 23:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all comments above. --Boston (talk) 23:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hellenization: the title itself isn't that unreasonable. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dezmond Meeks[edit]

Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination was not listed (step 3) in the daily log. It has now been listed. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"hit #5 on idolwaves.com a site that charts radio play of material put out by American Idol Alumni." Idolwaves obviously falls under WP:BADCHARTS. If he actually appeared on the show rather than the audition rounds, he should be ~~redirected, otherwise deleted~~. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says in the article that he actually appeared in the 4th season, not merely auditioned for it. Mathmo ^Talk 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since auditions for these shows are televised, "appeared in" isn't sufficiently clear to establish things. We'd need to know what rounds he appeared in. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if what I said above holds to be true. Mathmo ^Talk 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On further inspection: According to this page he was rejected in an earlier audition and made it past that round in American Idol (season 4). Still, he hasn't made the semi-finals or finals according to our own article, so he didn't "place in a major music competition" nor does he meet other music inclusion criteria. The sources are insufficiently reliable to meet WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no awards, no charts, insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4, title recreated per American Idol hopefuls in redirects for discussion. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:25, 13 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 a1, virtually no content -- cast is unknown, release date is unknown. No reliable sources per WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Artifice[edit]

Non notable film. Per WP:CRYSTAL very little information (even says that!) given with no sources Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 18:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Nah Nah Nah[edit]

Individual episodes are not notable unless somehow special Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no external sources. --LK (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, ever other 160 episodes have been documented. It would be ridiculous not to document this one. Page has external sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciaran119 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment- looks like the page has been updated with some external sources, which might help indicate some notability. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF -- Just because otherstuff exists doesn't mean that this should. Perhaps every other episode shouldn't be documented. What makes each individual episode notable? Many shows have pages with summaries of a number of episodes at a time - Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all scrubs episodes have been documented. Check List of Scrubs episodes, perhaps this is better suited to a summary section in this article unless notability for this episode on its own can be established -- Cabe 6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 21:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable episode, nothing exceptional. JamesBurns (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reception section shows this episode has been talked about in third party sources. Million_Moments (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No policy requires topics to be "somehow special", only that they be verifiable in third-party sources, which this episode is. DHowell (talk) 04:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Nomination reason is not consistent with deletion criteria. Independent 3rd party sources are provided, indicating notability. Rlendog (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This episode was covered by independent sources. --J.Mundo (talk) 00:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 3rd party sources and real-world content are included--Jac16888 ^Talk 22:59, 13 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Parody religion[edit]

The article appears to be nothing but synthesis and original research. Although the article is about three years old, none of the article's few sources seem to be about the topic itself. Rather, the editors have cobbled together articles about the differenct subjects, i.e. Jedi showing up as a religion in censuses and the Flying Spagetti Monster, to create this article. This is synthesis plain and simple. If the subject were truly notable, there would be multiple reliable sources on the subject itself. Mamalujo (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - notable - also, the article was created in January 2004 and survived a comparable AfD in 2005 Ian Cairns (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note - an article's age and previous AfD results aren't really a valid argument for keeping/deleting an article in a deletion discussion. Consensus can change, especially in 4 years. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Side side note - true, but if it were created 5¼ years ago and nominated for deletion 4 years ago, it's not about three years old. Nyttend (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article certainly meets the notability requirements. Btw, in order for there to be synthesised information there needs to be an instance of concluding something unsourced but using sourced premises. Please point to the OR parts of the article. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article could use some work, but the subject is notable. John Carter (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listing specific instances of a broader cultural phenomenon is not synthesis. Jclemens (talk) 18:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there may be some synthesis here, but very little. The article mostly needs additional sources, which I think should be available. It could also do with some cleanup, but that is not a deletion argument. LadyofShalott ^Weave 18:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable topic, as can be seen from the sources. Also, using diverse sources does not imply synthesis. LK (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable topic and useful resource for people looking for information on religious parodies. Kiore (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those of you saying the subject is notable, can anyone come up with reliable sources that talk directly about the subject of "parody religions"-- not about FSM, or another one in particular, but about the subject "parody religions". If we can't come up with that, then the subject "parody religions" is wide open to original research and being our own synthesis of the different religions that we are calling parody religions. For example, if I have a reliable source that talks about how shoes cause death, and another reliable source that talks about how hats cause death, then those two individual subjects are notable, but if I make an article about how clothing causes death, with only those two sources, then that is original research and a synthesis. I would need reliable sources on the subject of "clothing causes death" for Wikipedia article on that subject. So, I haven't gone looking yet, but can anyone find sources for the term/concept of "parody religion"? If sources can be found, great; if not, this would most likely be better as a list of the religions. At least, that is how I read WP:OR -- specifically WP:SYNTH -- or is my logic faulty? — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see now:
  - Kibology is one of several parody religions that are popular on the Internet.
    — Michael H. Peckham (1998). "Internet". In William H. Swatos and Peter Kivisto (ed.). Encyclopedia of religion and society. Rowman Altamira. p. 237. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  - In 2002, Yahoo Groups had 514 parody religion discussion forums.
    — T. Matthew Ciolek (2004). "Online Religion". In Hossein Bidgoli (ed.). The Internet Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. John Wiley and Sons. p. 803. ISBN 047122202X.
  - In 2001, fans of Discordianism actually set up an electronic mail campaign to try to persuade Yahoo to take it out of the parody religions category in its search engine and list it with the "real" religions. One correspondent tried to convince Yahoo that it was practicing religious discrimination.
    —David Chidester (2005). Authentic Fakes. University of California Press. p. 199. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  - Last Thursdayism, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Pastafarianism are all parody religions.
    —Matt Millham (2008-06-15). "Faith takes strange forms on the Web". Stars and Stripes.
  - Pastafarianism and the other parody religions that it shares a "crowded stage" with have precursors in ideas such as Russell's teapot.
    — Nadja Popovich (2007-11-05). "Don't play with your food, worship it". The McGill Daily. Vol. 97, no. 18.
- Yes. There is a grouping here made by people other than us, long before Wikipedia even existed (note the date on Peckham). There's also a larger umbrella subject, of religions and Internet, too (c.f. Peckham and Ciolek — the latter runs to some 13 pages, with an extensive bibliography). Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Thanks for the sources. That takes care of my misgivings. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Participants here keep making the conclusory statement that the article is notable or that there is no OR or SYN, but without ANY support. None of the cited sources in the article are on the subject of the article itself. I even went through the first ten pages of google results and could not find a single reliable source on the subject. I am surprised at the votes to keep when there is not a single source on the subject itself. Although "parody religion" is a term which is used, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a slang, jargon or usage guide.". I would suggest that this is an idiomatic phrase which belongs in Wiktionary. As to the synthesis, the very conclusion that all the subtopics belong under the term parody religion is a synthesis. For example, the only source for Jedi is a primary source which does not say it is a parody religion. I would also suggest the closing administrator ignore the votes which do not provide any support.Mamalujo (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This article clearly meets WP:PG. Keahapana (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to agree that the nominator's concerns are outside the realm of what constitutes reasons for deletion. The article needs better referencing and editing, but I cannot agree that is deserves to be permanently removed. FWIW, I enjoyed reading about the "competition." Pastor Theo (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic is notable. Seems to me that the only thing being questioned is the Article Title. What would be a better title? Keeping in mind that "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." (WP:Name). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:25, 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.

Keep - Topic is notable and if anything should be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinthebrain (talk • contribs) 18:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was already closed. The article has been kept. Look at the top of the box above. LadyofShalott ^Weave 19:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt–Kazakhstan relations[edit]

These two countries have a relationship, but as established by plenty of recent AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations for example), bilateral relations are not inherently notable. The only additional claim of notability is that the Kazakh President visited Egypt, but a) world leaders love to travel; their trips don't automatically make for notable relations b) it's sourced to a propaganda organ. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N through a distinct lack of coverage of anything other than a single presidential visit, which is more often a staged event while the real work of bilateral relations is done by junior ministers and bureaucrats. No notability of the topic asserted. Wholly insignificant on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in the usual way, see [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] and so forth. WilyD 13:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of those are from propaganda organs, but if you'd like to try writing an article using the others, feel free to do so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see no justification for referring to any of these as propoganda organs. "I would like to have this article deleted" is not a very compatible request with "feel free to expand this article before it's deleted". WilyD 15:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I still don't think it's expandable into an actual article, but again, feel free to try - that often happens at AfD, when someone expands an article and turns the vote the other way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable relations. WilyD's "sources" don't work as they don't prove the relations are notable, but that a bunch of governmental officials are. Tavix | Talk 13:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This claim is wildly at odds with WP:N, as many of the sources discuss Egypt-Kazakhstan relations directly, in terms of trade, talks, agreements, cultural exchanges, et cetera. It also certainly doesn't prove that any of the officials are, as they're mentioned incidentally in the context of the bilateral relations between Egypt and Kazakhstan. BLP makes it explicitly clear that in a case like this, you should cover the subject (the bilateral relations) and not the people (who are mentioned on in the context of the bilateral relations). Wily D 13:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable bilateral relationship, whose notability is not established by any of the sources currently provided. That things can be proven to exist (that Kazakhstan and Egypt have officially recognized each other) should not be confused with a demonstration of notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source #4 is very good, 1,2,3 and 5 certainly help too... #6 is the Financial Times/BBC, I'm puzzled why there is any debate here. Nerfari (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cmt you seem to misunderstand notabilty. Take #6 -- its a news brief that ran in the FT that noted that leader x went to country y. The bit was written by BBC monitoring which is a translation service -- probably picked up from radio in Egypt. No one disputes that the Kazakh president once went to egypt. Just that isn't notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's your take on #4? Nerfari (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As WilyD's sources show, Nazarbayev and Mubarak met in 2007 and in 2008 and the two nations have been working on agreements on boring things like Kazakhstan exporting (yawn) grain to Egypt. There's enough evidence of an ongoing relationship to justify an article about the particulars. Mandsford (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not a fan of most of these "relations" articles, but the AL-AHRAM sources appear fine unless someone can show that they aren't independent. Hobit (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my standards. It's the usual: well-cited (see WilyD's notes, above); full diplomatic relations; both are Islamic nations with many connections; state or top official visits from one nation to the other. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. Some significant trade, relative to the size of GDP. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Egypt, Template:Foreign relations of Kazakhstan, Category:Bilateral relations of Egypt, and Category:Bilateral relations of Kazakhstan 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, 03:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austria–Egypt relations[edit]

These two countries have a relationship, but as established by plenty of recent AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations for example), bilateral relations are not inherently notable. The only additional claim of notability is that the Egyptian President visited the Austrian President, but a) the latter is a figurehead, and the meeting was of largely symbolic significance (see the transcript); moreover, one visit doesn't constitute a notable relationship; b) it's sourced to a propaganda organ. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Presidential visits are usually quite staged while the real internation relations work happens behind the scenes. One visit hardly constitutes ongoing independent coverage of the topic. Non-notable compared to other pairs of nations such as Cuba–Pakistan relations or Japan – United States relations. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll give WilyD this one. The academic conferences (and, presumably, the university-level research behind it) with peer-reviewed publication seal it. Of course, someone had better get busy contextualizing some of that into the article itself, with citations, because as it stands we still just have a stub. I also agree some more coverage into the 20th century would do well, as someone noted modern Egypt has only been around since 1922. There's more fish to fry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - academic conferences on the subject of Austria's relation with Egypt have published no less than four volumes of proceedings. http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/85717//Location/DBBC A field of academic inquiry = WP:N is satisfied that inclusion is sensible. WilyD 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Republic of Austria dates to 1918/45, and modern, independent Egypt dates to 1922; that book deals with the 19th century. Even if there were relations between the Austrian Empire and Egypt under the Muhammad Ali dynasty, the fact that you can't actually provide citations from the book to show that means nothing conclusive is demonstrated by that link. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not to mention that a single book isn't "significant coverage" as required by WP:N Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's the fourth volume of a set of peer reviewed papers published from a conference on the subject. This claim is simply false. If a single issue of Nature had multiple papers on a subject, they'd be treated as seperate sources (nevermind that this is the fourth such book). WilyD 11:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Have to side with the others here, I'm afraid. The books are not about what this article is about. The article is supposed to be about diplomatic and political bilateral relations between the two modern states. Those conference proceedings seem to be exclusively about cultural relations in earlier periods, when neither of the two states even existed in its present form. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect to more modern relations, one can look to reliable, independent sources such as [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] that cover their relations from their previous states (Austria is the successor state to Austria Hungary, and Egypt remained the same state too, despite being a British protectorate) around 1880 up until at least 2006. Wily D 13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, the usual mix of fairly small trade ties, visits of transitory importance, propaganda outlets, 19th-century stuff, government promotional sites -- if you think you can weave an article from this, I'm certainly not standing in the way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are by rapidfire nominating articles for deletion regardless of their notability, yes. Wily D 14:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) The fire isn't all that rapid. 2) I still don't think an article can actually be put together from those disparate bits, but you are free to try. 3) I resent the accusation. Do you see me nominating Cuba–Venezuela relations? Or even, say, German-Hungarian relations, Belgium–Netherlands relations, or Lithuania–Russia relations, which, despite their embryonic state, I happen to know can be expanded substantially? No. So please, enough of these allegations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those are any more notable than this. The first two are noticeably less so, in fact. Wily D 21:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: please note that the above user has taken to implying some sort of conspiracy theory to delete this article at WP:AN. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It probably isn't nice to make false claims about me. I said something has to be wrong when multiple users are arguing that a field of academic inquiry is nonnotable, and asked for less biased review. Wily D 14:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that it's not nice to make false claims about someone. Since I have not done so, I can't imagine why you bring up that bit of advice. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, WilyD? Right now it's three for and three against, plus the nomination. Hardly a conspiracy. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indications of notability in the article and a Google search doesn't provide sources appropriate to meeting WP:N Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A sampling of the copious references scraped up seem to value quantity over quality, with the none seemingly rising above the 'passing mention' level. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i came to this one after i saw wilyd's note about the "plot" on AN and would like to sign up for the plot to keep unsourced, non-notable bilateral relationships out of Wikipedia. Thanks for the heads up wily.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome. Doesn't explain why you'd vote delete on an article so notable it is a seperate area of academic inquiry, though. Wily D 21:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or why you think this is unsourced. Hilary T (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reliable sources provided by WilyD are enough to establish notability and expand the stub. --J.Mundo (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources sufficiently establish notability in my opinion.--Dycedarg ж 00:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These nominations are getting very very WP:TEDIOUS, particularly when Google searches reveals plenty of material which can be used. Being a stub is not reason to delete, and the academic conference sources only show notability, what is needed is someone to be able to get access and include details into the article and nurture it. There are also flights between the two countries - this also demonstrates that there are relations there, firstly because an air service agreement is required to be signed, and secondly, because there are obvious business/tourism ties between the countries involved. And then we have the state visits between Presidents/heads of state - state visits happen for a reason, because there are ties there. Also, has anyone bothered to check for German and Arabic sources on this relationship? --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourced, countries have established diplomatic relations, needs expansion. feydey (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To add to what others have said above, & by myself elsewhere (i.e. ambassadors prove notability), the University of Vienna has a department of Egyptology [48] which dates to the 1870s, & includes several notable Egyptologists. This points to an important & established cultural connection -- or do the Austrians sneer at tourist-trips to see the Pyramids? -- llywrch (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is valid information for an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 12:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Llywrch et al. While not all of these X-Y relations stubs are notable, this one is, at least per WP:HEY. The nomination admits it is notable by one standard. I think a standard should be, Have the heads of state or government had an official state visit? There are also lots of mentions in popular culture. Can you say Aida? Ottoman Empire? Agatha Christie's mysteries? Bearian (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC) See also User:Bearian/Standards#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FX.E2.80.93Y_relations. Bearian (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't a visit the stuff of news? Sure, we have 1972 Nixon visit to China, but most of these visits have zero lasting impact. And what do a 19th century Italian opera, an empire with its capital in Thrace, and a British novelist have to do with this subject? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the convincing arguments above, see also: Australia–Uruguay relations, Bulgaria–Peru relations Ikip (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Austria, Template:Foreign relations of Egypt, Category:Bilateral relations of Austria, and Category:Bilateral relations of Egypt 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, 03:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Zimbabwean relations[edit]

These two countries have a relationship, but as established by plenty of recent AfDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Uruguay relations for example), bilateral relations are not inherently notable. The only additional claims of notability are that Greece pledged some cash for Zimbabwe (which is hardly unusual, given it's a basket-case), and that the Greek Ambassador there made some pretty vague comments. These may make for interesting news stories, but hardly amount to an interesting relationship. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, regardless of the "interestingness" of the relationship there are multiple independent reliable sources which discuss it. Hilary T (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As noted, these types of articles are not inherently notable (as witnessed by the many in recent days that have been deleted). This one is even less so as by their own admission Zimbabwe does not even have an embassy in Greece. The entire relation ship doesn't even seem that bilateral. Fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that you dismiss a relationship as non-notable because one of the partners is too poor to have an embassy is the most despicable thing I've yet heard from you wikipedians, far worse than the lies, the bullying, the cheating and the witchhunts. Hilary T (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "You" Wikipedians? That's an odd choice of words. -- llywrch (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Although there is really no point writing these pages unless more is said, the very ref given in the article gives material for expanding. There's no point in attacking each other about it, though, in any case. At worst, it can be recreated with additional material. DGG (talk)
Delete No evidence of notability. Only two sources are provided, which aren't sufficient to meet the level of coverage required at WP:N, especially as one of them has nothing to say about the relationship between the two countries (unless Greece has become a theocratic state run by the Greek Orthodox church without anyone noticing). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You seems to be confusing "countries" with "governments". Hilary T (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be counfusing the Greek Orthodox Church (which is a multi-national religious organisation) with a country. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while maybe not as notable as some bilates recently nominated for deletion, it still more than meets the inclusion standard of WP:N, and I don't see it as an exceptional case. See [49][50][51][52]. WilyD 13:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Link 1 tells us of a "sizable" Greek community there; if truly notable, we should have a Greeks in Zimbabwe article. Link 2 I already addressed. Link 3 is a series of news (news) articles. Link 4 - yeah, interesting, but again more of a Greeks in Zimbabwe candidate. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I see we do have that article. Even more reason not to keep this one, then. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - TThat the sizeable Greek population in Zimbabwe has resulted in Greece and Zimbabwe having a notable relationship is pretty unsurprising, I guess. Wily D 15:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment contrary to some belief, WP:N is not a license to create and keep articles based on the most spurious of mentions in news media without casting even a cursory critical glance of comparison against other articles of the same type. If it were, a person with a lone mention in a newspaper of their brief political activist involvement at the municipal level would be sufficient grounds for an article. A little tighter, more concise editing for ease of use, navigation and access of information goes a long way. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody believes this. But "Is a notable, encyclopaedic topic, if a stub" is a much stronger argument than "I don't like it". Wily D 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad we all agree that this topic passes WP:N. I think it would be helpful for BlueSquadronRaven to go into more detail about how WP:OTHERSTUFF applies to it. Hilary T (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - First of all, it's quite evident we don't all agree. Second, WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply here and I have no idea how you think it does. I have in the past pointed out examples of these type of articles that are notable. Articles of this type are not inherently notable just based on the subject. This is one that is not notable. If anything, I think some other editors arguments more fall under WP:OTHERSTUFF. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage sufficient to establish notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the coverage sufficient to establish notability? WilyD 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You mean the ones on subjects other than the one the article is about? --BlueSquadronRaven 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the one on the bilateral relations between Greece and Zimbabwe. Wily D 20:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is none. Now you can keep saying "yes there is" but all you've found are newsbriefs and press releases that X official visited Y country. That kind of sourcing doesnt' establish independent notability for issues that should be covered (if there's any info on them at all -- none really in this "article") in Foreign relations of Greece and Foreign relations of Zimbabwe.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no relation, why would you mention it anywhere at all, let alone in two place? Hilary T (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't mention it, that's why this article is being deleted. Tavix | Talk 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Bali ultimate's sock puppet? If not, how can you answer for him? Maybe I should get one of those witchhunts going... Hilary T (talk) 00:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't know the question was exclusively for Bali. Why don't you assume good faith, eh? I dare you to get a witchhunt going, that would teach me a lesson! (sarcasm) Tavix | Talk 02:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended for Bali, but a reply from anyone else who agreed with him would have been a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Hilary T (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as bilateral relations that do not assert notability. Tavix | Talk 23:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wow, that reference on the page really made it very clear for me "no Greek businesses operate in the country and no businesspeople from Greece have developed activities there. Economic aid and development programmes have been insignificant from the beginning, except for certain individual grants"[53] --Enric Naval (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that reference also back up the religious connection: "The Holy Archbishopric of Zimbabwe and Southern Africa is under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria. The Metropolitan of Zimbabwe, His Eminence George, was installed in December 2004 and serves the Holy Archbishopric together with a Greek priest." Also I don't agree with the objection to news items per se. This doesn't clearly fail WP:N, but perhaps merging with Greeks in Zimbabwe would produce a more substantial article. Nerfari (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, that Archbishop is only for the orthodox community in Zimbawe, which I think that is not very numerous? Is there a similar archbishop in every country with an orthodox population? --Enric Naval (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, but in any case, this has very little to do with the Greek state. See the list of bishops under Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria: every district (Metropolis/Archdiocese) should ideally have an article, but this is not the place to do it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References already there, plus the Greeks in Zimbabwe points to a larger relationship. Some research would have told you that the role of Greek merchants in Central Africa and the eastern sudan, like the Lebanese and Syrians in West Africa, is of tremendous cultural/economic importance. T L Miles (talk) 17:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What references? Specifically, what references that might be used to write a fully-developed article? And isn't having this and Greeks in Zimbabwe permanently developing in isolation from one another bound to result in needless duplication? And what do Greek merchants in Sudan and Central Africa have to do with a landlocked country in Southern Africa? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't understand what the issue you have is here. This is a stub. The references already in the article establish notability. It doesn't have to be "a fully developed article" whatever that means. And even less do other editors have to provide further references which would prove to you that this topic will meet some additional standard. And very good, you noticed that Zimbabawe is landlocked. How do you supposed Greek merchants in South Africa got there? Or the DRC? In the early 20th century, following the formation of modern Turkey, a large diaspora of Greeks sought business opportunities in Africa, largely in British colonies. Via Egypt and Sudan many ended up in DRC, and from there modern Zambia, Zimbabwe, and SA. Therefore the Greek populations in these nations play an important role, and that has been an factor in the foreign relations of these post-independence nations. This is the sort of information you might discover if you weren't on some mission to delete every unreferenced stub on bilateral relations some obsessive created, and which clearly has really gotten under your skin. Perhaps its time for you to step back here. T L Miles (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, those links do not establish notability. Everyone gives money to poor countries; we're not even told the amount of money and no follow-up articles exist indicating the impact of that money -- that's news, not encyclopedic material. The other link tells us how an Egyptian archbishop met with the President of Zimbabwe; again, news, and unrelated to the purported topic. A fully-developed article isn't a scientific term, but let's just say 3-4 good paragraphs at minimum: these could never be written on the subject. And yes, every article should have at least the potential to become an FA; without at least the existence of sources adduced by its defenders showing such an article could in theory be written, it should either be deleted or merged elsewhere. Regarding the Greek diaspora in Africa: a) we already have Greeks in Zimbabwe, Greeks in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, etc (maybe a single Greeks in Africa would be better); b) no evidence has been produced showing showing these Greeks have played a role in Zimbabwe's foreign relations (I would think her British population would be the more influential). Finally, please comment on content, not contributors. You don't see me nominating Lithuania–Russia relations or Italy–Switzerland relations, even if the same guy created them, do you? I know those have some potential, so I leave them alone. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't want these articles developing in isolation, why not merge them? Nerfari (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's certainly a possibility worth discussing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Excellent example of an almanac like entry for Wikipedia. The topic is both notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, but doesn't that boil down to I like it, and isn't the almanac-style information already present here? - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not at all. The article contains verifiable text not found in your chart. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - almost no relationship, as noted above. I read the primary source, and that convinced me. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As long as Template:Foreign relations of Greece, Template:Foreign relations of Zimbabwe, Category:Bilateral relations of Greece, and Category:Bilateral relations of Zimbabwe 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, 03:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Delete as nonexistent bilateral relations, which would be non-notable if there was anything to say about them. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It appears that the main argument for keeping revolves around a Greek Orthodox Bishop. The removing that fact (largely because the Greek Orthodox Church and the country of Greece are separate entities) the relationship does not meet WP:N and should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Greece and Zimbabwe if found to be notable on those talk pages, otherwise Delete. Per WP:INSIGNIFICANT, it isn't important whether it is a significant relationship, but a notable one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:15, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goretex (rapper)[edit]

Non-notable underground (way underground) rapper with only one (non-charting) album. Fails WP:MUSIC. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda hard to see from the article itself, but I know this guy as being a fully paid-up member of the definitely notable Non Phixion. I remember him getting some press when his album dropped a few years back, but apart from this I can't pull much else out of Google right now - I'd love this to stay but gotta go for a Delete, unless reliable sources turn up before the close of this discussion. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've also found this and this - do these make a claim to notability? sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The review you linked originally does indicate the possibility of notability but these 2 links are to a store (fatbeats.com) and a site that appears to mirror content from Amazon in order to drive traffic there. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything salvageable and redirect to Non Phixion, his band. Once his solo career goes somewhere he can have his own article, but until then we should direct people to the most relevant information, since it is a valid search term. — Gwalla | Talk 21:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, no awards, non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 01:28, 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 Speedy delete a1 (very short article not indicating context), likely also a7, webcontent with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Shed[edit]

Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:56, 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 Speedy delete a7, company with no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothgroom Productions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 17:56, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe family (Sierra Leone)[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this family - with one blue link member and one redlink member considered notable, is notable apart from those two members. We don't have articles on any ole family with a couple of notables: Brown family (a few California governors), Powell family (FCC chair & Sec. of State), etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom hit it spot on. -Senseless!... says you, says me 00:00, 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 as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Owensboro Oilers[edit]

Non notable College-level team Spanneraol (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can't find notability for the current incarnation, but a google news search shows a number of articles about the former incarnations in the NY Times and Chicago Tribune. Unfortunately, the articles are behind paywalls, so a trip to the library for dead tree sources is needed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but recenter around the 1937-1955 team, which was a Class D minor league affiliate of the Indians, Braves, Red Sox, and Yankees. The current version is not independently notable, but maybe worth a one-line mention in the article. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as Class D teams are notable, but refocus article as suggested by User:Hit bull, win steak. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. There is no reason to delete this article on a former minor league baseball team. This minor league team played for about 20 years and groomed multiple major league players. (I am surprised that Chuck Tanner and Tony Kubek are not noted in the article as they played for the Oilers. Their time with the Oilers should probably be added to the article as it is of interest both regarding this team and to baseball historians and statisticians in general.) Also, Owensboro's ballpark was an impressive minor league park in its day, especially for a D league team. At any rate, an American minor league baseball team is notable enough to remain. There are many, many articles on them already, and they are notable and of interest. I agree with others above that the article should feature the minor league team more than the current incarnation but I don't know that information on the current incarnation needs to be erased.LanternLight (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:49, 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 Speedy deleted. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nico McLane[edit]

Reads like an ad, possible COI, notability. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete For an "extremely accomplished broadcast & streaming media architect" I couldn't find much of anything other than press-releases, his personal websites, and his LinkedIn account - no references to any of the awards he won. This biographical article is nothing more than fluffed up spam and a borderine copyvio. -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And judging by the creator's username, its a blatant COI. -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:54, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 08:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Kingsmill[edit]

Autobiography with no sources showing claimed notability. Just 7 non-wiki ghits, 1 gnews hit. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom. I did some searching and that's exactly what I found, too. The article provides no info on anything particularly significant that he did. The lack of reliable external coverage asserts that he doesn't meet notability guidelines. Jamie^☆S93 19:52, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid Radio[edit]

Pirate radio station that has not received significant third-party coverage to meet the notability threshold. Unlike a government-licensed broadcaster, pirate radio stations are not generally presumed notable. (Completing AfD process begun by another user.) Dravecky (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Station gives no evidence of notability, and I can't find any sources that would help it get past WP:N. Firestorm ^Talk 17:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they have an FCC call sign (WWRB-FM) wouldn't that imply they are a licensed radio station? Mr Senseless (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would if they did, but they do not. See for yourself, the FCC has no record of any licensed FM radio station with the WWRB call sign. There's not one on the AM band either. - Dravecky (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication that this is a notable station. Gotta wonder what it is exactly though. If it really does broadcast on 97.7 at 110 watts as is suggested on the "station"'s page, it should be licensed as a low power station with the FCC. At best this is a non-notable web stream.--RadioFan (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the FCC database, there are only three licensed broadcasters in Minnesota on 97.7: one full-power station and two translators, none of whom are at "110 watts". - Dravecky (talk) 18:50, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan de Freitas[edit]

Why this wasn't speedily deleted I will never know. Blatant self promotion (User:Alandefreitas), only six results on Google news and I'm not even sure if what's there is about him. His "official website" is a poorly done "Google Page" that caused my browser to freeze up when I clicked on it. Amazon doesn't have any of his albums. CyberGhostface (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. I agree that it is self-promotion. Also, there is no evidence that he is on a notable label or has ever been on the charts. He does seem to have gotten some third-party coverage, though, so that weakens the delete. Firestorm ^Talk 17:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it is self-promotion so far, very clear on the user name. On the other hand, one can not assume that something doesn't exist just because there's no enough info about it in English. After this post I can write a very long list of Brazilian bands which are very notable but wouldn't be easily found on Google nor Amazon, but are in Wikipedia. Actually, bands without a label are hardly found in those ways of media (specially Amazon) but it doesn't make them smaller. It would be better if someone could research a little and write something that seems more impartial about it and solve the problem instead. (List of notable bands in the same case: O Terço, Mutantes, Casa das Máquinas, Som Imaginário, Bacamarte, Bixo da Seda, Moto Perpetuo, Somba, Cartoon, Cálix, Secos e Molhados, A Barca do Sol, Sagrado Coração da Terra, A Bolha, Som Nosso de Cada Dia, Arion, Quartena Requiem, Recordando o Vale das maçãs, O Peso, Pão Com Manteiga, Terreno Baldio) alvesjoao 18:08, 8 April 2009— Alvesjoao (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. the same is true on wiki.pt

Comment: This article is also being voted on pt.wiki, at pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Alan de Freitas. So far, it's a weak keep. Daimore ^msg 14:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: None of the sources are reliable + cross-wiki spam. Algébrico (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: No reliable sources, no notability since all albuns are probably home-made (I looked for it on some online shops and I didn't found anything). On the top of that, it seems to be a cross-wiki spam. Lechatjaune (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: I agree with Lechatjaune, this article is irrelevant and a cross-wiki spam. OffsBlink (talk) 18:06, 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. Feel free to merge/redirect as appropriate. Flowerparty^☀ 08:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Reed[edit]

Non-notable, auto-biographical content. Bothpath (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep. Notability is barely there. Her band has gotten some third-party coverage, seems to be on a notable label, and she seems to be borderline notable herself. In a case like this, i'd rather err on the side of caution and keep it. Firestorm ^Talk 17:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Musician who has performed with multiple notable bands (at least, judging by the content of the article, "The Lies" should be considered notable; we don't currently have an article but I imagine there'd be enough info to support one). In such cases it is more practical to have a separate article than maintain details of the individual members in multiple places. JulesH (talk) 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:MUSIC, standard practice on Wikipedia is that if a musician's notability can only be reliably sourced to a single band, then they get a redirect to that band's article rather than a standalone article — they only get a separate article if they can be properly referenced as independently notable beyond that one band. Given, thus, that only one of her bands actually has its own article (and the descriptions here are also largely failing to present much of a case that any of her prior bands actually were notable for anything more than the fact of her participation in them), redirect to The Husbands until such time as proper references can be provided that are specifically about her, rather than simply mentioning her within the context of that one band. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 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 keep. Flowerparty^☀ 08:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Camden[edit]

BLP of doubtful notability. Black Kite 15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Multiple books on the program ColdFusion, by he relevant publishers for the subject. Beyond that I cannot judge, but it is wuitepossible that he is notable. DGG (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite notable in the ColdFusion community. While that doesn't hold much water here, he is the author or co-author of at least four books. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 18:10, 13 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 A7 by Dank55. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism Concern[edit]

Notability R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's not confuse nobility with notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:51, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The voice that rocks[edit]

Unreleased, Non-notable, film/audio documentary fails WP:MOVIE. Unable to find references to documentary in Google. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 21:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; Violation of WP:COI, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:SPAM, and fails WP:MOVIE. The only link included (and available) for this subject is a self-promotional piece on a podcasting/internet broadcasting site. It begs the question: is this a hoax? --mhking (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spreedy Delete without prejudice: Should it get significant media coverage once released, or win awards, then it will be notable. At present it isn't and is G12: Blatant Advertising. dramatic (talk) 00:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does cite references and sources. This article now meets the Wikipedia standards. This article has been checked and checked again by me personally. The Voice That Rocks merits a wiki entry and I request that discussion on possible deletion be ended and the page be referred back to normal. Thank you Krisisnow1 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is neither independent nor a "reliable source" (In the sense used around here) - it is the blog of one of the subjects of the documentary. Reference 2 also lacks independence - it is from an organisation which states it is sponsoring the documentary. I don't know if reference 3 is independent, but its content isn't really sufficient to hang an article on. Where's something in a non-industry-specific medium?dramatic (talk) 10:20, 13 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 work Matthias. Flowerparty^☀ 08:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R/West[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/R/West

Notability, reads like an ad. R3ap3R.inc (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim for notability, except as creator for advertising gimmick (Trunk Monkey) that already has it's own article. No external sources offered. LK (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Trunk Monkey company is non-notable on its own. Mr Senseless (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand - Page now contains external references and is comparable to many other small company pages. Further contributions are welcome. Matthiashess (talk) 15:14, 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy–Malta relations[edit]

This article consists of a dictionary definition of the topic, and a list of embassy and consulate locations, easily copiable into Foreign relations of Italy and Foreign relations of Malta which would benefit from it. It fails WP:N because it has no secondary sources providing an overarching view of these relations over time, and their significance, in a way demonstrated by articles such as Japan – United States relations. No references, no context, and indeed, very little content. Full disclosure: This article was nominated for deletion once before under the title Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian-Maltese relations. The debate was closed quickly due to the nominator being uncertain of deleting it. BlueSquadronRaven 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Admittedly, this may not be the greatest article in its current state. However, unlike many of the other Country1-Country2 relations articles that have come up for AfD recently, there are some actual associations between Italy and Malta. Both countries are members of the European Union. Historically, Malta was ruled at various times by the Roman Empire and by the Kingdom of Sicily. Malta is geographically closer to Italy than it is to any other country. Italian radio and television broadcasts are received in Malta, and two-thirds of the Maltese population speaks Italian. Italian was the official language of Malta until the 1930s. Hence, I suspect that a worthwhile article could be written about this topic, and the current content should be kept as a start. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90. Note that the nomination is incompatible with the GFDL, so I recommend speedy close. Hilary T (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is in a bad way, and needs some major cleanup, but that's not a valid reason to delete. Per Metropolitan90, the relations are there, its just that there are no sources for it at the moment. The article is definitely salvageable. Firestorm ^Talk 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that Malta is about 60 miles away from Sicily, I frankly can't see how they could avoid having relations. Mandsford (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Italy and Malta are not two unrelated countries from opposite ends of the world, but neighbors. There's a very long history, as Malta has been under the control of a wide variety of other nations from ancient times until 1964. There's potential for considerable growth of this article. DGG (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like if there are a few countries with whom Malta has especially notable relations, this should just be covered in the Malta article. No need for separate coverage given the low level of notability demonstrated by this article. Locke9k (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs a lot of work, but this relationship is inherently notable, unlikely most random pairings of countries, like Greek-Zimbabwean relations. . . Rcawsey (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Metropolitan90 said everything there is to say. If no one expands it, we can revisit the idea to delete in a couple of months. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What would have changed? Hilary T (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am in agreement with Metropolitan90. The article would benefit from further enhancing and expanding. Not all of these foreign relations articles are deletion-worthy. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seeing as Italy is Malta's nearest neighbour, I can't imagine how they can't avoid having relations. Also, there's a wealth of historical associations - it was part of the Roman Empire and Kingdom of Sicily, Italian broadcasts can be received there, and Italian was the official language until the 1930s. They are also both members of the European Union as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus Germany & Italy both tried to bomb the **** outta the island back in WWII. That has to be a vivid memory for at least one party. :) -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This stub has the potential for expansion based on the historical and geographical significance of the relation between the two countries. --J.Mundo (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article sucks and was created in bad faith by a disruptive editor who didn't bother seeking to demonstrate notability, but it's hard to believe that the relationship between Malta and its largest neighbor wouldn't be notable. Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For all the reasons stated above, the use of the deletion tag here is utterly ridiculous, and should be removed ASAP. It needs work, not deletion. Indisciplined (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fact, I'd close this as a snowball keep, except I feel it's only fair to give Biruitorul a chance to contribute, since he has been so active in this area. -- llywrch (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is one of the more notable relations, despite what the nominator thinks. Tavix | Talk 19:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see listed some interesting and easily verified historical facts. The article should be kept. Dream Focus 22:45, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Parkinson[edit]

Prod contested. Suspected WP:HOAX, at best fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. No indication from Google search that this character will be introduced in the series. If it can be shown that in RS that this character will appear, I will withdraw nomination and recommend a redirect to List of Emmerdale characters. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a hoax. If a celebrity like Dec was to appear, it would be in the news.--UpDown (talk) 17:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence that this is the least bit credible. If it eventually proves to be, it can be recreated. Firestorm ^Talk 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per UpDown, also I doubt that a major celebrity of the order of Dec would commit to a five-month acting stint, or that the writers plan storylines out five months ahead.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter bollocks. If he was indeed to enter the show, his death wouldn't have been written let alone released to the public. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete, go to creator's house, smash his/her computer, and pee on their sofa. --Boston (talk) 23:05, 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 speedy deleted as blatant misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spare head[edit]

This may be a hoax, the pecuilar details in the Where are They Now? makes it seem like it's possibility a joke. Since they didn't perform live or record tracks, the only claim to notability is the references. I searched through the Guardian's archives for the date given, the author doesn't exist and a query of 'Spare Head' doesn't bring up any relevant results. Even if it's not a hoax, there's difficulty verifying the small claim of signficiant coverage to establish notability Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly completely made up. I'm especially impressed that they never played live or recorded any tracks yet multiple bootleg recordings of them are alleged to exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wp:NFT. I especially love these three lines: "With their refusal to perform live, record any tracks or even practice", "a number of bootlegs subsequently became widely available" and "Bands influenced by the Head included… the S Club." (As far as I remember, none of S Club 7's songs - who "S Club" refers to - could be considered punk.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Further research - a Google search for "llama commune of llandudno" brings up nothing. A search for '"spare head" "neil johnson"' brings four results - the Wikipedia page, and three pages which sourced their info from Wikipedia (copyright status unknown), and "forest of byker" gives two matches - one for Wikipedia and the other being one of the pages I alluded to in the previous statement. So it's a surprise that the page was created in November 2006 and has only now been flagged up for deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was nominated for Proposed Deletion on 2006-11-04. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's silly vandalism. The subtle signs are all there. For example: "Bon Tempi", the supposed keyboardist, is a cross between Jon Bon Jovi, musician, and Bontempi, keyboard manufacturer. The "Forest of Byker" in "the North East", is Byker which … well, as you can see from reading its article … isn't a forest at all. The "llama commune of llandudno" is just alliteration. Needless to say, I can find no sources matching the citations. I have my suspicions, given what I did find, as to what their titles might be allusions to, as well. And do I have to explain what the joke in "Live at Mrs Fuller's" is? Delete. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 (I have tagged the article). As Uncle G points out, the jokes in this article are fairly obvious. JulesH (talk) 18:10, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 08:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indisputablyinsane[edit]

Non-notable youth comedy group Crashoffer12345 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two sentences long. Can hardly be considered a stub, let alone an article. Group is notable only to family members and the handful of fans who know it exists. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of notability. Google search gave only links to their videos. Google News provided no hits.--Lenticel ^(talk) 16:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a substub, not even a stub, and there are no third-party sources that suggest they might be notable. They may be in the future, but if so it can be recreated at that time. As of now, clearly fails WP:N. Firestorm ^Talk 17:38, 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. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los quesos[edit]

Speedy improperly contested by author. Article about a comic strip not notable to anyone outside the author's school. Zero Google hits. KuyaBriBri^Talk 12:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (though I don't think it qualifies for speedy - certainly not G2, test pages, which it was listed under.) No evidence of coverage in any sources, reliable or otherwise, or that it's at all known outside the school. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11. Blatant advertising for a comic strip that at no point approaches WP:N. Firestorm ^Talk 17:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's advertising - it doesn't seem very promotional and if the same article were written about a notable comic it'd be fine. Anyway I can't see it surviving AfD so the point is fairly moot. Olaf Davis (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No external sources offered to show notability. LK (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Sounds like the usual ramblings of some kid who made some comic and fictional movie or television series to go along with. Nothing notable about this in the slightest, why can't A7 or A9 extend to things like this? treelo _radda 01:01, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Vega[edit]

Unsourced BLP since 2006 of uncertain notability. Unsourced BLP cleanup - I am neutral Black Kite 12:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, has no references, links to no other articles. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no way of knowing whether the material asserted here is notable without looking for reviews and other sources. Per WP BeFORE, the nominator is asked to do that. BK, did you check this at all? --if you did, we wont have to recheck individually here. DGG (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I could find, this is something of a puff piece. The term "award-winning" is thrown around a lot but I can find no evidence of major awards. This is obviously unsourced, but all the evidence of notability that I can find on the web comes either from his own website or from Wikipedia mirrors of this article. Perhaps others can find better. Black Kite 11:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially a copyvio from [54]. I was looking for sources, and was able to update the article, but then I found the actual source. I don;t think this is important enough to justify a rewrite. This does nend to happen when one looks for verification of bios like this. DGG (talk) 00:51, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Brahimi[edit]

Unsourced BLP since 2006 - makes some claims of notability but (obviously) these are not sourced. Unsourced BLP cleanup - I am neutral Black Kite 12:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have a "feel" that he is not notable, but I wouldnt have nominated it without looking for sources, The work he claims to have done might conceivably have references. DGG (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I did look - couldn't find a lot - a few minor news reports mentioning him (mostly in French) - also there's an American of the same name who is the subject of many hits. Conscious that many sources will be in French, but still couldn't find much. Black Kite 12:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability can be found in reliable sources. Them From Space 01:17, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Rhine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced BLP about a minor contestant on a reality show. Does not appear to have any notability outside that show per WP:BLP1E. Unsourced BLP cleanup - I am neutral Black Kite 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, lacks references, most of the article is trivial nonsense. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming that there is nothing more to say, which is likely, what is asserted is not notable, regardless of whether it could be sourced (presumably his role in the program could be, from the various reviews and other attention paid even to the least important contestants in this show). DGG (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His work post-Big Brother could make it worth keeping if it was referenced, but deletion is a bad idea regardless. Reality show contestants can be redirected to their reality show. In this case BB season 6. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:59, 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Ford (Royal Household)[edit]

Unsourced BLP since 2006 about a member of the Royal Household. There are a few online sources, but they do not appear to be about the person themselves. Prod removed by author. Unsourced BLP cleanup - I am neutral. Black Kite 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his army career is fairly easily confirmed from the London Gazette viz http://www.gazettes-online.co.uk/issues/exact=(503807)/start=1 (an earlier search I did established that 503807 is his army serial number). A google search on "Andrew Ford" comptroller produces some relevant hits, and going into Google news found me http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/court_and_social/article548293.ece which confirms his appointment as comptroller. Whether holding this appointment is sufficient for notability, I'm not sure. David Underdown (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, that's the issue really. Despite the addition of numerous references about his military career, it doesn't appear to show any independent notability, so the issue purely appears to rest on whether holding such a post actually confers notability. Black Kite 14:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Publication of a notice in the London Gazette does not constitute an independent source, as the Gazette does not exercise editorial control of the notices it publishes. A single, brief note in the Times on his appointment is not adequate to establish notability. The position he holds is not one that is listed as automatically notable in any section of WP:BIO. The closest described position is that of a diplomat, although he is not a diplomat in the traditional sense of the word, and that position is not considered automatically notable in any case. JulesH (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Comptroller of the Lord Chamberlain's Office organises major royal events, such as State Visits by overseas Heads of State each year, Investitures, Garden Parties, the State Opening of Parliament, the Garter and Thistle Services, Swan Upping, Royal Warrants, Trade Marks, Royal Insignia, Ceremonial Body Guards, the Crown Jewels, and part-time and honorary appointments, including the Ecclestiastical and Medical Households. It organises Royal weddings and funerals and other special events. He also organises royal weddings and funerals. A number of previous comptrollers - though not all - have entries in Wikipedia.Ncox (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the above comment, which clarified things. DGG (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His Lt. Colonel rank and his job with the government do not as such satisfy WP:BIO. Wikipedia is not a directory of every retired officer with a government job, even if he is in charge of garden parties for the Royal Family. Edison (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if kept, it should be renamed "Royal Household" means little, perhaps (UK military) 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly not notable on the basis of his miltary career, he seems to have had a fairly routine career, although promotion to lt-col is not guaranteed. If he is notable it is on the basis of his Royal Household position, so that is the more sensible disambiguator. "British Army officer" would be the msot commonly used form in any case for a disambiguator based on his army career. David Underdown (talk) 09:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a UK bias. When is the UK royal household the only one in the world? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominations concern was the lack of sources but article now has numerous citations and the London Gazette is a source of the highest quality being a journal of record. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the London Gazette citations utilized within the article are related to his promotions in the army, which any officer in the British Armed Forces would have if they were advanced in rank. The London Gazette is a reliable source (I have myself used it numerous times), but its addition in an article does not determine notability of the subject in question. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:51, 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 Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual abuse scandal in Miami archdiocese[edit]

This article is a WP:Content fork that duplicates information also located at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami. The article provides no new information than what is already on these other pages. NancyHeise ^talk 11:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forty-nine people in the archdiocese accused of sexual abuse (from the article [55]) is notable enough for its own article, regardless of whether the information is mentioned on other pages. This definitely needs to be moved to a better title, though, something that doesn't sound like a screaming headline. Mandsford (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases. Doesn't seem notable enough on its own, but is definitely relevant within the context of the larger article. Firestorm ^Talk 17:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are far too many of them to redirect the individual ones to the general article on cases, which has quite enough general material to deal with. So the question is whether to merge with the article on the diocese. this article gives more detail. Merging all of this in would probably overbalance the article and be a failure of nPPOV, so I think its best just to keep a summary there, and have this separately. I don't think we want to go to separate articles on all the individual cases, so combination articles like this are the best compromise solution.DGG (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG's excellent summary above, which says it better than I could on my own. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has reliable sources and too much to put in diocesan or general abuse articles. Springnuts (talk) 19:57, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Seung-moo[edit]

Prod contested without explanation. No indication that this Korean poet is notable. There is an article on ja:河承武, but it isn't much help. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 10:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean Wik article is quite extensive (for a Korean Wik entry). It is evidence to keep the entry. Kdammers (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this page? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find any English-language sources online (for whatever that's worth), but the Korean wiki entry—while not "evidence" of anything—makes me feel inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt. This discussion really needs the input of someone who can read and understand Korean, so I'll ask over at WP:KOREA. PC78 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Caspian Blue. PC78 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable poet. Only news/info from third parties in Korean are just to mention his name along with other colleague writers.[56] The info on Korean Wikipedia would be "self-promotion".--Caspian blue 15:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 08:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Almost Any Sunday Morning (Counting Crows song)[edit]

Non-notable song; fails WP:MUSIC. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:23, 8 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" 11:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge any useful information to article on the album that the song is from, Saturday Nights & Sunday Mornings. LK (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Merges are followed up with redirects. You can't merge text and delete the related edit history. (Well technically you can, but it violates the GFDL, so you shouldn't). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you may not. Why doesn't anyone ever use that word any more? :-)

Delete: no significant coverage, no charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect normally I'm a big fan of redirection, but just doesn't seem like a likely search term. But I also don't see any harm in doing so. Hobit (talk) 04:02, 14 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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Rod Girls Save The World[edit]

Non-notable film; fails WP:MOVIE. fuzzy510 (talk) 09:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 13:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable indie film, no awards, no film festival screenings, no IMDB entry, and most importantly, no non-trivial third party sources Mr Senseless (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did not look? Or were you only referring to the article not sourcing those very assertions? Per WP:AFTER I found the festival screenings. I found the IMDB listing. I found the film reviews. I found the cast and crew and music informations. So I did the copyedit per film MOS to bring it into line with standrads. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improved article and more that can be done as the film recieves additional notice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no awards, no wide-spread non-trivial coverage. Clear fail on WP:MOVIE.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah. The review comes from "Film Threat" which promises to review every and any movie mailed to it, per here [57]. So that site can't help with notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note about Film Threat: A respected film magazine (now online) that has an an article on wiki, has been around since 1985, has an editorial staff with a reputation for fact-checking, most definitely helps with establishing notabiliy for a released and distributed film. That they encourage filmmakers to get their films looked at does nothing to denigrate the quality of their work... no more that a major news agency acting from "tips" in developing and creating a report. Reliability comes from the processes involved in the work, as with all reliable sources. With respects, any opinion to the contrary should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, rather than here when attempting to discredit the article. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It meets one of the suggested requirements for notability, having reviews in legitimate third party media sources. Dream Focus 22:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources seem to meet WP:N. I don't know of a requirement that sources need to be picky about what they write about, so I'm not seeing the issue with Film Threat. But even without it, there is enough to write an article on and meet our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 02:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good cleanup; passes WP:N now. Radiopathy •talk• 19:27, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of closed drive-in theaters in recent years[edit]

Reeks of WP:IINFO. The list is almost completely unverifiable, as well. fuzzy510 (talk) 08:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or severely refactor. "In recent years" just runs afoul of the WP:MOS which says "Avoid recently, soon, and now". I think this list is very verifiable, as local newspapers would tend to at least have a small blurb about the closing of a longtime business, but I'm not seeing why drive-ins that closed recently is a particularly notable topic for a list. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The decline of drive-in theatres is notable; few items on the list will ever be encyclopedic subjects, though, and as such this list does not really list or help navigate to anything. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This list of North American drive-ins that survived past 2000 is all drawn from the excellent drive-ins.com database, which is a good link to put in the main article. I'm guessing that the purpose is for editors to add to the article if their local drive-in doesn't reopen this summer, but it's unlikely they would find the article. If I were the author, I'd put some of this information about recent closures (such as the twelve theaters that closed in 2008) in the main drive-in theater article, which already has some silly lists about "drive-in songs". Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Smerdis' reasoning. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a list of wikilinks, which is the only way I can see this being useful.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:48, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
The result was no consensus. Delete 'votes' included sock puppets JamesBurns and A-Kartoffel. PhilKnight (talk) 10:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Room Service Tour[edit]

Non-notable tour. All the article states is that it happened. fuzzy510 (talk) 08:53, 8 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. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the source is reliable , and the tour is very significant because is the last concert of the band. Mauro4727 Talk 4:00, 11 april 2009 (UTC)
Delete: no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. A-Kartoffel (talk) 02:55, 13 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of terrorism[edit]

WP:OR Anshuk (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It breaks Wp:OR and seems like someone's essay. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 11:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this seems to be a copy of an article on another site anyway. --Chiliad22 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above, a copy/paste job of a waffly, unsourced essay. Wayniac (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete copyvio plagerism now --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed all the copyvio from the indicated page that I could find, and removed the copyvio tag. If there's more copyvio that I missed, please delete it (if it's not the whole article) or tag the article with {{db-copyvio}}. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unencyclopedic essay, tho probably original. The ed who introduced this article also wrote one, now deleted, on Jai Manral "an engineering student from Indore. He is also a freelance writer". DGG (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Interesting essay but Wikipedia is not a web host. --J.Mundo (talk) 21:16, 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 keep as the page is now a useful disambiguation page thanks to Matt. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctic Whales[edit]

This should be merged with Whale and deleted.. Anshuk (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a list of whales in the antarctic. If this is useful info could easily be put in the main Whale article. Quantpole (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate might be a better approach? I can handle that one... Matt (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has now been converted to a disambiguation page and, as such, has its use. --87.115.1.175 (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion Nominator called for a merge which does not involve deletion at any point. WP:MRFD is the place to go. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting close. I would like to close this discussion since this article is now a dab, thanks to User:Mikaey‎.----Anshuk (talk) 02:01, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Journey Home[edit]

Albums fail to meet criteria at WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. There is little or no context and the only content is generally a tracklisting. No valuable or reliably sourced material here. Also see related articles below Nouse4aname (talk) 07:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 00:54, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M4/M203[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/M4/M203

This article should not be here on Wikipedia as the M4 and the M203 are seperate weapons that can be attached to eachother (ie. M203 can be attached to M4). They have never been one and the same system, they can merely be integrated together. -- Nohomers48 (talk) 08:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If they can be "integrated together" it would appear than an article on that is certainly reasonable. The article is a stub which might go to AfD, but the reasoning given here is likely insufficient. More likely it would be deletable for having insufficient sources. Collect (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum, WP:AFD. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Moved to AFD from Miscellany for deletion. Article re-tagged and creator and nominator notified. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. M4 carbine has an Accessories section, the subject should be dealt with there, instead of needlessly proliferating stubs. Rd232 ^talk 19:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the M203 is an accessory for attachment to various main weapons. There is no need for this specific combination. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 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 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This is hard one. Why combo is already covered in M4 article, it seems to be being used more and more in the various wars(Iraq, etc). I think if it is referenced properly, it should be notable for own article. This is just my humble opinion.JimmySmitts (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to M4 carbine, since the combination is already covered there. Rklear (talk) 14:17, 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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 22:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noshi Gillani[edit]

Fails WP:AUTHOR. Cannot find information on the listed books. لenna vecia 19:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: as per references added to article should now meet wp:n and WP:AUTHOR standersm the person is a poet article should be kept and expanded.Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 07:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't references. They're mini-bios from random sites, two of them read exactly the same. The only one that can be used as a reference would be the 4th (currently) which is the CityOfLife link which discusses her being one of a few featured poets in the Poetry in Translation tour. This isn't a claim to notability unless it can be shown that this was a "significant exhibition." لenna vecia 16:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no awards won, no best sellers, no reliable sources discussing this authors work? Clear fail.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: most references I come up with are in Urdu, which I don't read. Note that this] suggests there are at least a dozen variations on the roman transliteration of her name. While it doesn't speak to WP:N, the number of message boards and blogs devoted to her poetry would turn Ted Hughes green with envy. T L Miles (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —T L Miles (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and seek input from experts in the field and readers of the Urdu language. Nice article to help curb the anglocentricism of en.wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:01, 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, MBisanz ^talk 07:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The books are in no American library, but considering the notorious American indifference to the contemporary literature of other countries, that's not surprising. That she was included in an important tour is significant though, and the refs for that are sufficiently reliable. That a mention of her mother';s death was though worthy of publication on the basis of her fame, is an interesting approach to notability. What we really need are proper reviews, but I would not be able to either locate or read the necessary sources. DGG (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and look for someone who speaks Urdu. In a quick search, I found a copy of her book translated into English on the UK version of Amazon, as well as a mention in other books pertaining to poetry in Pakistan (Feminism in modern Urdu poetesses, Appraisals) and her translator, Lavinia Greenlaw, apparently merits inclusion on Wikipedia. I believe the above qualify her for notability under - "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors." Her native language not being easily searchable by Americans on Google should not cause her to be removed. -- PEPSI2786^talk 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep the Poetry Translation Centre is more than a book tour, less than a Pulitzer? a Template:Expert-subject Tag is in order. pohick (talk) 03:48, 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 redirect to Analog hole. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analog loophole[edit]

I think this is redundant due to the presence of Analog Hole Anshuk (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally created to link in with the Tunebite article but no longer used there as it merely replicated material from Analog hole and was thus orphaned. Lame Name (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Analog hole. I agree that this article is redundant and provides very little context. Analog hole gets the same point across, but goes into much more detail. Matt (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Analog hole. Plausible search term. Grandmartin11 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Analog hole. Is there an echo in here?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Analog hole (more detailed). Yes, I'm your echo. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:46, 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 Article redirected, seems like everyone's happy.. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritable media[edit]

This should be deleted or merged with Computer data storage Anshuk (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I wouldn't delete this, since it is at least a plausible search term. As for merging and redirecting to Computer data storage, this is not really the right place to discuss that. It would be better to use the {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} templates to mark the articles for merger, and then discuss the merge on the article's talk page. Or you could also just carry out the merge and redirect if you think it would be non-controversial. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I have set up the article to redirect to an appropriate location, as suggested by Anshuk. If somebody wants to close the AFD, I don't think there's anything else that needs discussing here. JulesH (talk) 18:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close discussion. Try Merger requests for discussion and come back if a merge is not supported. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting close. I would like to close this discussion since this article is now a redirect, thanks to User:JulesH.--Anshuk (talk) 01:58, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sólrun Løkke Rasmussen[edit]

Her husband is obviously notable as the prime minister of Denmark, but as she isn't really notable for anything else than this marriage herself, she fails WP:BIO completely. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 07:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a clearly non-trivial source on the person, which describes her as "first lady". There is no reason to treat Denmark differently from the United Kingdom (Sarah Brown) on an issue like this. Notability for being the first lady is still notability; her role makes her a person of public interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except she is not the first lady (Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is). 85.164.196.159 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Queen is the Head of State not the First Lady, thank you very much. TH (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - ?????? The term first lady is applied to the wife of the head of state (not head of government). It originates in the USA and has no official use in Denmark. The Queen is the "first lady" of the state in Denmark, it's hilarious to claim that the wife of the Prime Minister (head of government, not state) is above the Queen. 85.164.196.159 (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is pretty much an automatic keep. Easily passes WP:BIO notability criteria as the Danish First Lady. Receiving significant coverage in major news sources (Politiken Berlinske Tidende, TV2). And this is only after her first few days. This will certainly grow, just as it does for Sarah Brown, Michelle Obama and other national first ladies. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How can she "easily pass WP:BIO notability criteria as the Danish First Lady" when she is, in fact, not the Danish first lady (Queen Margrethe II of Denmark is). 85.164.196.159 (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Queen is the Head of State not the First Lady, thank you very much. TH (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You contradict yourself. No woman in Denmark is above the Queen, nor has the wife of a member of the cabinet any official role or title. 85.164.196.159 (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All the sources and the Danish Wikipedia disagree with your POV. — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are citing a Wikipedia article full of nonsense and original research written by yourself as a source. LOL 85.164.196.159 (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, the history for the Danish article shows my only edit was the link to the English WP. Whereas, it shows several editors reverting your edits for vandalism. — CactusWriter | ^needles 21:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are enough verifiable biographical data to support an article. If she's not notable on her own, she could be merged to the PM. Either way, deletion would not be a suitable outcome. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but merge any data not already in the PM to that article. Sarah Brown is notable independent of being the spouse of a politician. And the article here makes no assertion of Solrun's notability other than as spouse of a notable politician. --Trödel 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is pretty much an automatic delete, non-notable person who works as a teacher at a primary(?) school. Being married to a notable person doesn't make a person notable, all relevant information can be included in the article on her husband. Btw, she is NOT the first lady of Denmark. The "first lady" of Denmark is Queen Margrethe II of Denmark (although, strictly speaking, the term "first lady" is only used in republics and applied to the spouse of the head of state, not the head of government). In Scandinavia, the spouses of politicians (including members of the government) does not have a particular role (unlike the royal family) and are usually NOT considered public persons unless they are known for something in their own right. She isn't. 85.164.196.159 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not about marriage. WP:BIO guidelines clearly state "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The several referenced articles, from national news sources and written solely about the subject, qualify her as a notable public figure. The use of the term "first lady" (førstedame) is made by the independent sources, as well as many other articles such as Fem førstedamer taler ud, Her er Danmarks nye førstedame and the 2006 book Førstedamer about the previous five first ladies of Denmark. The references provide the information and speak for themselves. Anything else is personal POV and a violation of NPOV and WP:OR. Please do not remove the referenced information from the article like here. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The same bio, written by an administrator on the Danish Wikipedia, suggests the Danes find her notable. (See da:Sólrun Løkke Rasmussen) — CactusWriter | ^needles 12:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Crosswiki-spam, nominated for deletion on several projects. 85.164.196.159 (talk) 16:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She has only been first lady for a week so yes it may be a bit thin on bio-things to report about her but this will only grow during her term. The article already contains enough to be kept on its own merits. TH (talk) 16:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Her term"?. You mean her husband's term (as a member of the government, not head of state). She has no official role or title, nor is she the first lady in the state (the Queen is). 85.164.196.159 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Danish Order of Precedence (official government source), the Queen is presently the "first lady" of Denmark. There are a large number of people that takes precedence way before the Prime Minister (the entire royal family, the counts of Rosenborg, the countess of Frederiksborg), the wives of cabinet members takes precedence with their husbands, as such, Mrs. Rasmussen takes precedence in Class 1 (after the Royal Family) Number 4, not as the "first lady". 85.164.196.159 (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, Sarah Brown (spouse) is called "the wife of Gordon Brown, the current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom" and the "Spouse of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom", not the "first lady of the UK" (in Scandinavia, the spouses of government members are, unlike the UK, not usually considered public persons unless they are known for something in their own right – there are no articles on the wives of Anders Fogh Rasmussen or Poul Schlüter either, while the wife of Poul Nyrup Rasmussen is a former cabinet minister). 85.164.196.159 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the point of view of the Faroe Islands, she has the highest position, a Faroese ever reached in the Danish society. Of course, the Danes call this "First Lady". It is the language of the media, and everybody knows, that the Queen is the head of state. There is another aspect, relevant for Wikipedia, which is Sólrun Jákupsdóttir's family. She is the granddaughter of the Tjóðveldi founder Sigurd Joensen and furthermore great-granddaughter of Símun av Skarði. These are nationalist leaders, every children in Faroe now, and that one of them is now the wife of the Danish Prime Minister, ist already now a very important fact in the History of the Faroe Islands. By the way, I will write the German article and show the relevance in my way. -- Arne List (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: If we skip the popular Danish term førstedame (First Lady) of many good reasons in the language of the English article, so we should mention her merely official title, which is statsministerfrue (State Minister's spouse). As mentioned above, she is together with her husband the highest civic person in the Danish protocol. And as mentioned by me, the highest Faroese person ever in that protocol. The Faroese Prime Minister (løgmaður) comes in Denmark after the vice presidents of the Folketing. -- Arne List (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and merge as suggested. The interesting fact that "she has the highest position, a Faroese ever reached in the Danish society" might be important to fo:wp, but it makes no general claim of relevance. --Orland (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but she is relevant in the Danish WP and will remain it. And most of the foreign people interested in the Faroe Islands don't speak Faroese. And by the way do the Danish media write more about her, than the Faroese. The Faroese even know, that she is the great-granddaughter of Símun av Skarði, while this is unknown in the Danish media. For us here is it interesting, that she has at least 4 persons in her family (aunt Turið Sigurðardóttir not to forget), who deserve Wikipedia articles without any doubt as part of Faroese history, literature and philology. -- Arne List (talk) 23:31, 13 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 (snow) keep. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of McGee and Me[edit]

Delete: no reliable third party coverage (either in the article or readily ascertainable from {{notice|{{find}}}}-links), thus no WP:Notability. This TV show had a fairly short run (13 episodes, of which only 12 are listed), so an 'inherent notability' claim would be a stretch. Article is (and from comment on talk from June last year, has long been) simply a mix of boilerplate information (characters, episodes, etc) sourced to its publisher & broadcaster, and WP:OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable TV/video series. The book "Shaking the world for Jesus" (ISBN 0226326799) claims that the series had sold 15 million [VHS video] copies by 1996. It's significant enough to have had sequel/spinoff series, a book series, and is still aired on TV two decades after its debut. A relatively small number of episodes doesn't necessarily translate to non-notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as it is a TV/video series, so it definitely deserves more than a redirect to the creator's page. As well, with McGee having a separate page, it could benefit from the TV/video template and info boxes, something that it could not have if it was part of the creator's article. GoldDragon (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Certainly this article has problem, however I've updated it with a couple reviews and references to help establish notability. The series is too old for google new hits to provide many publicly accessible URLs. I was able to login to my public library website and do a NewsBank search to find two of the refs I added, hence no public URL to cite. The nominator of this AfD may have had trouble finding coverage because very few reliable sources use the title this article currently uses. The series seems to be mostly referred to as McGee and Me! and the image in the article, as well as the official website, should help demonstrate that that appears to be the official usage. As such, I suggest we move this article to McGee and Me! at the conclusion of this AfD. Sarilox (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix the article name, despite its really really really bad article, it is a television series, it aired on a national network and plenty of sources out there under the correct name (as noted by Sarilox). Meets WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is covered by Terrace in his 2009 Encyclopedia of Television Shows. And I too agree with Sarilox (talk) that the page should be moved to the (correct) title of McGee and Me. JimVC3 (talk) 22:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly trivial, but well within out inclusion standard. Eusebeus (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per notability asserted and found per WP:AFTER Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:19, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tetraphenyl group 14 derivatives[edit]

Declined speedy. Rationale was, "this is not an article, this is an research proposal". SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although that isn't a valid criterion for speedy deletion, this article is indeed more of a research proposal than anything. Notably absent in the text is any description of any experimental results involving these compounds. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I completely agree with the nomination, it reads like a proposal rather a summary of what is KNOWN. Walkerma (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the final reference in this article (Laliberté, D.; Maris, T.; Wuest, J. D. "Molecular Tectonics. Use of Urethanes and Ureas Derived from Tetraphenylmethane and Tetraphenylsilane to Build Porous Chiral Hydrogen-Bonded Networks." Can. J. Chem. 2004, 82, 386.) has been published, a single source is not enough for an article. I've looked for another similar article to merge the useful introduction into, but I can't find anything related. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:23, 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. -- Menti fisto 09:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michalis Limnios[edit]

Non-notable journalist. 136 ghits (many of these wiki mirrors and blogs). Zero Google news hits. Does not appear to have been published in anything notable. Possible self-promotion - User:Bluzistas sole edits on wikipedia [58]. JamesBurns (talk) 04:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - you would think that a journalist of all people would be able to get himself some well sourced references wouldn't you? Not this guy! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant independent coverage, fails WP:BIO. TheClashFan (talk) 01:47, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian McMahon[edit]

Hoax; should be speeded.

How to tell:

Subject "died" in 1523 before his name was cleared of something he did in 1525—two years later.
Subject supposedly related to Lamia Michelle Bowen and Hemlock Coole, both of whose articles were deleted (for the same reason).
According to the literary criticism article, the "birth of Renaissance criticism was in 1498." If he was a "well-known" "French literary critic," he was the first (by far!).
He also would have been one of the very first Europeans to die of syphilis.
Can't find any references to him, anywhere. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. It doesn't help that the only source in the article is made-up. The only other Ghit for "Moyen Age: Collection Litéraire" is a student essay the cites a book with that title, but with different author and publication information, nor is it in Gbooks. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 07:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I smell a hoax here (and Wp:CSD#G1 exists for those, I believe). It doesn't help that he was supposedly captured at a war that happened two years after he died. (He was born in 1486 and died 37 years later. 1486+37=1523. The battle was in 1525.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:CSD#G1 explicitly excludes hoaxes. WP:CSD#G3 includes them, but only if they're really blatant, obvious at a glance. If they need a second thought or any research, it's better to use AfD to get some more eyes on - surprisingly improbable things can be true. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As well as all the other improbabilities, "Lamia Michelle Bowen" sounds a rather un-sixteenth-century name. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd placed a hoax tag on it after it was speedied. Google Scholar and Books reveal nothing, for someone who was supposedly a notable French critic. This and Lamia Michelle Bowen and the blatantly phony Hemlock Coole appear to be nothing more than a little collection of interdependent hoax articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, good deduction and detective work, Dori. If there was a Sherlock Holmes barnstar, I'd award you one. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Something like this? File:Detective barnstar.png — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sweet! I sure wouldn't turn that one down... (and thanks!) Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:17, 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 Further discussion is moot. Turkish Flame, who created the article, made it into a redirect 19:07, 9 April 2009. Otherwise, per WP:SNOWBALL, I would have closed this as a DELETE. llywrch (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–Micronesia relations[edit]

An almost absurd intersection. That Micronesia recognises Kosovo is noted at International recognition of Kosovo. That they could have any other interaction is hard to imagine; more to the point, they have not. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latvia–Uruguay relations for recent precedent), and this falls into the non-notable category, so we should delete. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an almost canonical example of a nn intersection of countries. JJL (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with the earlier ones. Just silly. WillOakland (talk) 05:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. My goodness - It's hard to think of anything less notable than this. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All it consists of it Micronesia recognising Kosovo's independence. That hardly makes it notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has been said most excellently by all editors above, there is nothing really notable about these countries "relations".JimmySmitts (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a dictionary definition and a (very recent) date. Non-notable, especially as compare to some (but not all) others of the type. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- trivial combination of two countries. Reyk _YO! 21:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a good deal more to be quickly found here. DGG (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Outside of the fact both countries have star-filled flags, I don't see any notability in their relations. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:30, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solatium[edit]

This is a definition in Wiktionary, and the article adds nothing to the definition. Alice (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Item is a stub that will be expanded overtime. Article is already linked from many pages, proving that the article needs expanding.-- Esemono (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's a dicdef, and not very many pages link to it. At most a merge to a law glossary. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - While currently a dictionary definition, which wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia, this strikes me as a potential article that can be fleshed out, due to the use of this term and concept in law and legislation. For example, Solatium in Australian law [59][60], in New Zealand law [61], in Bangalore [62], a reform bill in Scotland pertaining to solatium [63], US military solatium payments [64]. So I would fill out the article with information on solatium in terms of the law in different countries and how it is applied. In addition to that, it needs to be disambiguated with Solatium, which is apparently a species of fungus [65], [66]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a perfectly reasonable stub to me. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has clear potential to become an article on a concept. —An gr 06:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless expanded A dictdef is a dictdef is a dictdef ... unless it gets some expansion immediately it's Wiktionary material which doesn't belong here. Potential of an article needs to be shown inside the article. Readers can read texts, not minds. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to pain and suffering. This is a dicdef and there are other articles which cover compensation for damages. Powers ^T 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs improvement, but discussion and article indicate there's enough notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MacGyverMagic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Them From Space 01:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - for those of you saying "delete per WP:DICDEF", I think you should be looking at the topic's potential to be an encyclopedic article, not it's current state. Wikipedia has no deadline. WP:STUB mentions that an encyclopedia article stub may be nothing more than a definition (to start with). The difference between a stub and a DICDEF is the stub has the potential and likelihood to be expanded, even though it currently may be nothing more than a definition. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:36, 14 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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio DeJesus[edit]

Minor leaguer who doesn't pass WP:ATH or WP:N. Giants27 ^T/C 02:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I struck out in my gnews/google search for WP:RS that would show notability for this player. If someone has better luck than I, I'll reconsider my !vote, but at this time I'm not seeing notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable player; career stats (1 HR, 0.261 BA, 19 SB in 146 games) indicate he has little chance of making in in MLB at this time. Mandermagic (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 23:55, 13 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. I am taking the normal editorial action of redirecting this to Colorado Rockies minor league players in the hope that a merger will be completed, but this carries no more weight than any other edit. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton Buller[edit]

Non-notable minor leaguer who doesn't pass WP:ATH or WP:N. Giants27 ^T/C 02:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE by playing in a fully professional league, unlike stated on deletion tag. Also, there is enough sources on google by a quick search to write a stub classed article that passes WP:N and WP:V. Borgarde (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether he passes WP:ATHLETE is debatable, but a gnews search turns up a number of promising Fresno Bee articles including this one that should satisfy WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players per usual consensus. Secret ^account 16:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by Fabrictramp. Rklear (talk) 00:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable player; and despite the Google news article found, I still do not believe there is enough to merit a Wiki page; poor minor league numbers indicate little chance of eventual callup. Mandermagic (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. The Fresno Bee article cited by Fabrictramp isn't sufficient to satisfy notability either, IMO. BRMo (talk) 23:53, 13 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. (non-admin closure) KuroiShiroi (contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nelson (baseball)[edit]

Non-notable minor leaguer who doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE and not enough sources to establish notability. Just being drafted is not notable. Giants27 ^T/C 02:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Nelson (baseball) meets the criteria for WP:Baseball. It also meets the criteria for Wikiproject:Baseball. Please to remove the deletion template. For more information on WP:Baseball notability, see the large fuss I stirred up, as listed in the previous messages on this TALK page. Gjr rodriguez (talk) 02:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No it doesn't he's Double-A Secret ^account 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I'm not quite convinced that AA is a fully professional league (it's borderline to me), but I've added links to a couple of short articles about him. These are enough to push me over to the weak keep camp.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for making the page ungeneric, like the rest of pages the creator creates.--Giants27 ^T/C 20:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players per usual consensus. Secret ^account 16:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standalone article, as Nelson is notable. He was a first-round draft pick and a minor league All-Star, and has received substantial media coverage (such as this article, for example, or his profiles in the last three years' worth of Baseball America annual prospect guides). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 19:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a 1st round pick. youngamerican (wtf?) 19:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep only because he is on the Rockies 40 man roster--Yankees10 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He's a former first-round pick, a top prospect with accolades and he's on the 40-man roster. Plus, he has my name.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've seen this before so I'll use it here, I'd like to WITHDRAW this AfD.--Giants27 ^T/C 01:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chris Nelson was on the verge of making the opening day 25 man roster for the Rockies this year, so for that fact alone, I think its a keeper...a weak one, but a keeper nevertheless. Mandermagic (talk) 06:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My thinking is this - in any sport, high draft picks get paid big money and carry with them certain expectations. Therefore, they are notable enough whether or not they pan out. If they succeed and become stars, that's the story. But if they don't and become busts, that is the story, and a story worth telling as well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah I agree with Chris, I think any first round pick is notable enough to have articles--Yankees10 22:46, 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 keep. Discussion to merge should take place on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cole Garner[edit]

Non-notable minor league player who has never played in the majors. Giants27 ^T/C 02:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 ^T/C 02:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 30 second gsearch came up with plenty to pass WP:BIO. I've added links to two Rocky Mountain News articles about him, as well as a couple of other citations about him. That was only looking at the first page of google and google news hits. Anyone who digs deeper than the first page will surely find more to add.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Colorado Rockies minor league players per usual consensus, also try to merge all of gr rodriquez articles and show links to the consensus of them, he's creating hundreds. Secret ^account 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable player--Yankees10 00:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At first I was inclined to delete, as most of the results are simply trivial mentions, but Fabrictramp's sources (the Rocky Mountain News) and a Denver Post article on him that I found [67] establishes notability per WP:N and WP:BIO. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TonyBalloni took the words right out of my mouth. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:16, 14 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. It's WP:SNOWing. Mgm|^(talk) 22:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Build-A-Bear Workshop (video game)[edit]

Article has lacked any sources whatsoever for the several years it has existed, and no reliable third party sources could be found when I search. Clearly fails any notion of verifiability or notability. Steven Walling (talk) 01:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trim and Merge with Build-A-Bear Workshop, likely notable as it is a published, licensed game for Nintendo DS, but I couldn't find any non-trivial third party coverage for it to stand on its own. -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It seems to have won an award [68][69][70], and is a "traditional favorite" for the Nintendo [71]. If that's not convincing, I'd be ok with a merge to Build-A-Bear Workshop — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's sources, see Gamerankings' page (some of the reviews listed are undesirable, but the likes of GameZone are good), hands-on preview from GameSpot, piece on pocket gamer. As a general note, if anyone comes across a video game article and is struggling to find reliable sources they are very welcome to bring the video game project's attention to the article, we've got a lot of experience in digging out sources. Someone another 11:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someone another 11:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep –notability is established quite easily. It could be merged to Build a Bear Workshop to make a more complete article, but as far as this AFD is concerned, deletion is right out. MuZemike 13:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As lame as this looks, it's sold over half a million copies, which makes it a substantial hit by video game standards. Lots of professional reviews and other sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per above sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone should probably SNOW close as Keep. Steven Walling (talk) 20:41, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cinematic immersion[edit]

Neologism / non-notable counseling method. Appears to be used by Warren Farrell and nobody else. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the CSD because it wasn't an obvious candidate, but...while there was some notability asserted, it isn't actually supported by reliable sources. Frank | talk 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Most of the references offered are indirectly related at best. No third-party non-trivial reliable sources that I could locate. -Senseless!... says you, says me 05:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged the parent article as an advert and I think it needs radical pruning. But I have to say I think a speedy merge and redirect is the way to go. Whether it's just a mention or a paragraph or whatever can be verifiably sourced it seems like given the parent article it can be included there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- By "parent article" you mean Warren Farrell. A redirect there would be acceptable to me. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - CrapYourname (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:IDL. Frank | talk 16:33, 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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Build-A-Bear Workshop[edit]

For the several years of its existence, the article has had nothing but self-referential primary sources and press releases. A cursory search of Google News also gives up nothing but PR Wire and BusinessWire press releases. The company may be public, but it's clearly not covered significantly in third party sources. Thus, it fails WP:CORP. Steven Walling (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [72], and [73]. Well known company with an international presence. -Senseless!... says you, says me 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable publicly traded company. Founder is also quite well known and I'm certain there is substantial coverage available if someone wants to add cites... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's see: Publicly traded company,[74] 400+ stores in a dozen countries,[75][76] a handful of subsidiaries and other stores that aren't build-a-bear,[77] litigation and controversy over patents,[78][79] 300-450+ million USD in yearly revenue over several years,[80][81] its own award winning[82] Nintendo DS game,[83] a logistics company makes a case study on build-a-bear as a distribution solution.[84] Yes, I think the company is notable, and the article should be expanded and references improved, not deleted. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I sincerely hope you'll add all you found to the article then. If no one steps up to fix it, keeping an article built out of press releases is untenable. Steven Walling (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Its better to try to fix an article's issues before taking it to AfD, in this case adding sources that satisfy WP:V. -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News archive search reveals all kinds of valid sources from newspapers and magazines. [85] This is fine. This looks good. So does this. And so on. Zagalejo^^^ 05:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - So because it uses first party sources and press releases, it's not notable (despite there being stores in at least a dozen countries and makes at least US$300 million)? That demands rewriting, not deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Couldn't believe my eyes when I saw this in AfD, I wish people would search properly for references instead of bringing articles to AfD and having other people do it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject is certainly notable, as the various links given above show. And trout the nominator for not following WP:BEFORE. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hugely notable, a household word for anybody with kids, passes WP:CORP easily. Notable enough to be the primary subject of a published book ("The bear necessities of business", ISBN 0471772755). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I propose we snowball close this one. -Senseless!... says you, says me 16:36, 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 speedy close - we do not discuss redirects here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike[edit]

This is a redirect page. However, the only thing that links to the article is in the I476 article's talk page, which discusses merging the two articles (and since has been merged). --Seascic ^T/_C 01:46, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay per ship[edit]

Neologism (see WP:NOT). Likely created and maintained by employees of Adship (see history). Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be part of the AdShip MLM scheme, but does not otherwise seem to be a widely-recognized concept. Geoff NoNick (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read something about the pay per ship method a while back in some marketing journal somewhere, but from what I remember, only two small companies were doing it, with very limited success. I would normally be neutral on the subject, but it seems blatant that there are serious COI issues going on with it, so I'm going to say Delete. --Seascic ^T/_C 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI issues aside, there is no third-party non-trivial coverage. -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cost per action. It's a tiny part of a small commercial trend. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:10, 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 delete a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser Kingdom[edit]

Fails WP:MOVIE and WP:INTERNET, no substantial coverage or awards. ttonyb1 (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:No one cares, amongst others. Geoff NoNick (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete being posted on Newgrounds is not an assertion of notability. -Senseless!... says you, says me 02:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:14, 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 01:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Armageddon[edit]

Non-notable album. Fails WP:Music Azviz (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC by being an album by a notable band on a notable label. Needs better sourcing, but AfD is not clean-up. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do not see the criteria you list on WP:NALBUMS. Being released by a notable label by a notable band doesn't automatically make the album notable (notability not inherited, etc.). It needs to have coverage in of itself. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Music. Does not meet the basic notability criteria which is: "All articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I can not even locate this album on Allmusic.com - and they list every album; notable or not. Untick (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just as an FYI, User:Untick and the nominator, User:Azviz, are among a group of accounts on Wikipedia currently being discussed on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Prodding spree as potentially being sockpuppets or otherwise fishy accounts. Both were created somewhat recently and from the very start seem to solely devote themselves to AFD-style matters instead of regular contributions to the encyclopedia, and they also share some other strange behavior in question. See the AN/I thread for more info. DreamGuy (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 05:00, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe I'm hallucinating, but I'm seeing two reliable references in the article already. Unless we've put the bar higher without informing the community, it meets the multiple reliable sources requirement -- just barely. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:MUSIC. Untick (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote twice in the AFD. All the arguments before the relisting remain the same and are just as valid. MuZemike 01:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails MUSIC.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see at least three reliable sources there if you count AllMusic. That's enough significant coverage to establish sufficient notability. MuZemike 01:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the problem people are having finding sources is that this band is from Brazil, and when you search Google it ranks results in your language of preference much higher than others. By going in and doing an advanced search set to only Brazil, and specifying the album name in quotes and the band name, I find a sizeable number of results that look like they'd meet our notability requirements... sources in other areas/languages are just added icing on top of that. Per our policies we try to avoid institutional/regional bias, and I think this article is in danger of falling because of that. On top of that, as others point out, there appear to be enough English language ones to demonstrate notability all by themselves. DreamGuy (talk) 20:16, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babajide Ogunbiyi[edit]

Player fails the notability guidelines at WP:N, WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTY. Has not played a professional game for any team in any league in the world, is not contracted to play for a professional team, and has no notable achievements as an amateur JonBroxton (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep players drafted to play professionally are notable, even if they never do so. He played at the highest amateur level of his sport (at Santa Clara), which passes WP:ATH.--TM 15:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Guidelines state that a soccer player must have PLAYED a game in a professional league to be considered notable by WP:ATHLETE, or to have done something especially notable in his college career or in some other capacity to be considered notable by WP:N. Ogunbiyi does not meet either of these criteria; just being on the team, or just being drafted, is not enough - he has to have PLAYED. Also, because soccer is a professional sport, the "played at the highest amateur level" is not applicable; the highest amateur level caveat only applies to sports which are not played professionally, or at events such as the Olympics. And, besides, college soccer is not the highest level of amateur soccer in the USA - that is the USL Premier Development League - and playing in the PDL has been deemed by the members of WP:FOOTY to be not sufficient to meet notability criteria. --JonBroxton (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:FOOTY is not the only decision maker on wikipedia regarding this. If the highest level of college football, baseball and basketball players are deemed notable by most decisions on WP, I see no reason why college soccer players shouldn't be as well. Players drafted should be considered notable as they are considered the highest professional prospects in their professional league.--TM 13:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not. Most Division I athletes are considered not-notable, unless significant honors come their way, such as the Heisman Trophy, All-American, etc. DarkAudit (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 17:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's rather obvious that this is not a notable sportsperson since he has yet to play at the highest level, which is in a fully professional league. Not notable and fails WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:14, 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, Pastor Theo (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 12:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to prove this guy's notability for any reasons. Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After this closure, it was brought to my attention that User:JamesBurns and User:A-Kartoffel are abusive sockpuppets. I have therefore restored this article and relisted it. Stifle (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spider Rockets[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC, references include a single interview with the guitars (perhaps he's notable) but no reviews outside of all music (they cover everybody) and no indication of awards or charting singles/albums that would indicate notability. RadioFan (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, no awards or charts, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, apart from the rated review at allmusic; [86], I could find nothing else that I would consider a reliable source, and nothing to back up the claim of touring overseas as stated in their bio. Just not quite enough to pass WP:Music at this time. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable coverage. A-Kartoffel (talk) 18:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. I have added several references to the band's charting success on the CMJ and FMQB charts, as well as references to their performance at the Popkomm Festival in Berlin, Germany. Percolating (talk) 18:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - In addition to the many new independent 3rd party references added by Percolating (good work by the way), I have also found 3rd party articles on the group Here, and Here. More to be found if you just look. Easily meets notability criteria. Unionsoap (talk) 23:13, 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. Icewedge (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LempelZiv Schumacher[edit]

This appears to be original research that has not been published in any reliable source per my searches on Google web, Google books and Google scholar. This thus fails two of Wikipedia's core content policies, i.e. no original research and verifiability. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or fix the name of this algorithm with an extra space and rd to LZ77 and LZ78. The Lempel-Ziv algorithm is important but this page is a mess. JJL (talk) 00:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. Looks like original research. Interesting concept, but until it's been published elsewhere it's not appropriate as a topic. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of OR; doesn't even seem to exist in written form outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Hqb (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR. This is not the Lempel-Ziv algorithm, but a non-notable unpublished variant of it. Precisely 3 ghits, 2 of which are the author's blog, one of which is the article. Redirect would be inappropriate as the title (even with punctuation/spacing fixed) is an unlikely search term. JulesH (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no redirect. As the comments above state already, this appears to be original research not represented in the scientific literature. There is such a thing as Schumacher compression (DOI:10.1103/PhysRevA.51.2738) but it appears to be unrelated to the Lempel-Ziv compression methods discussed in this article, and by a different person (B. Schumacher rather than James Schumacher). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 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 delete. The term is not mentioned in World of Warcraft, so redirecting there is counterproductive. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raidroll[edit]

Unremarkable neologism Oscarthecat (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and mention in World of Warcraft - Seems like a plausible search term to me. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 05:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unremarkable neologism. Term is so uncommon that it isn't even mentioned in wowwiki. MLauba (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable dictionary entry and game guide content. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because it's cheap and does no harm here. 9Nak (talk) 17:07, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP isn't a dictionary of obscure gaming slang, if WoWWiki doesn't need it we certainly don't. Someone another 12:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF && WP:NEO. G'day, Jack Merridew 12:37, 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. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet billy pilgrim[edit]

Delete someone moved the page to Delete me, which I'll WP:AGF and treat as a kind of a WP:PROD because it does seem that this band fails WP:BAND. The article is primarily sourced to their own webpage, twitter, and facebook. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That 'someone' was the author, and no-one else has made significant edits to it, so it's a speedy candidate. I42 (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It transpires the author tried to delete in performing a cut and paste move; he has recreated the same article at Sweet Billy Pilgrim. I42 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Despite the speedily deletable nature of the article,~~ Google suggests the band seems to have a lot of attention, and the Times review confers notability. I42 (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am the author, and tried to change the spelling of the page so that each word in the title had a capital letter, as I couldn't do it, I thought it would be easier to delete the old one and start a new one with the correct spelling. I'm of course willing accept your decision on deleting it, but I think the band fulfil enough of the wikipedia criteria to stay. They are very busy all summer playing festivals and shows accross europe, specifically The UK, Spain, Italy and Norway. Besides the CD of the week review in The Sunday Times the new album has also had reviews in Mojo and Uncut this month,(4 stars each) both mainstream UK music media magazines. Furthermore BBC Radio 6 and BBC Radio 3 have both played songs by Sweet Billy Pilgrim, and Tim form the band was interviewed by Fiona Talkington on BBC radio 3 last week. They have also recorded, toured or worked with Steve Jansen David Sylvian Toyah Willcox and Martin Grech although admittedly, that was not always under the name Sweet Billy Pilgrim MrGorsky (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once the discussion is over, if the article is kept, please move it to properly capitalize it. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid of messing up something with the AfD discussion fuzzy510 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move now done. I42 (talk) 06:08, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Times and BBC articles are enough for notability. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, Times and BBC are excellent sources. The other two magazines would be excellent sources if the references were pointing to the magazines not the bands website. Article should have been flagged for clean-up instead of being brought here. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm araid neither Mojo nor Uncut publish their reviews anywhere online I know of. The scans were the best I could do and I wanted to add references from known sources. MrGorsky (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there are good sources in there, it's unlikely the source on the band website are made up. Pointing to the band site is unfortunate, but not a deleteable offence that cannot be fixed by editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:19, 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 delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Spencer (author)[edit]

He's a spokesman of behalf of e-bay who's written a "how to" book. There's nothing notable here, and less that's verifiable Scott Mac (Doc) 14:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't mention anything that confers him notability per general WP:N standards. The author fails WP:CREATIVE (unless some new source is brought forward). The book appears to fail WP:BK#Criteria for notability of its own. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I created this article as a split from the Christopher Spencer (inventor) article. I agree with the nominator. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:24, 31 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 00:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain The book, which I have read, contains a direct content contribution from a senior employee and legal staff member at eBay and is notable. I do not think this article should be deleted and therefore refute the nomination to delete it. user- horich —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horich (talk • contribs) 00:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC) — Horich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

hum, is there any independient source saying that the book is important? --Enric Naval (talk) 04:22, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Take a look at this IP's contribs to Lamont Bentley before Christopher Spencer (author) is deleted and the connection is lost. No points for guessing who belongs to that IP address. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:53, 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 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir Lohar[edit]

This artist does not meet any of the criteria listed at WP:BAND, there is a references section but they do not list any actual references. This article fails WP:V and WP:N Lets drink Tea 01:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, relevent [87] google search turns up an occasional announcement of an upcoming performance, or a quick blog review of his works, but nothing at all appears in reliable sources on this musician. There are several other people with this name as well, but I find very little about the musician to support notability requirements. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:07, 29 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, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Seems like it could be notable, but needs substantial coverage from reliable independent sources... ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live At The NIGHT Volume 1[edit]

Same as for series article Live At The NIGHT Series: No claim of notability made. No reliable sources can be found and no sources at all are in the article. Album released once every few years by a radio station to its members, no indication of siginificant regional influence, no significant sales or distribution, clear failure of WP:MUSIC and WP:N The Seeker 4 Talk 18:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete non-notable, no assertion of notability and none establishable by me. No reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:49, 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 00:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to fail WP:N. South Bay (talk) 00:41, 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 22:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Thompson[edit]

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE guidelines for biography of sportsperson Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - meets WP:ATHLETE criterion #1 - have competed at the fully professional level of a sport. He plays for the Castleford Tigers, part of the Super League (Europe). I have also referenced the article. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No he doesn't, he's signed and has made no appearances, ergo he has not competed at the highest level.[88] Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:58, 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) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hasn't done anything or gotten enough coverage to make him notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Dylanfromthenorth. Thanks for pointing that out. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:15, 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 01:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost babies[edit]

Non-notable film; fails WP:MOVIE ttonyb1 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this was tagged to be deleted. It was FEATURED ON ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY'S WEBSITE - I realize that this form of entertainment (movie) was not released in theaters, but how much more references are needed? Nothing is a reliable source unless its a printed newspaper, but most of WIKI is more bogus than what you claim this page is. In the meantime - what is this page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Fensler There are no article or references about this - it could be all made up, just like most of wikipedia. Please take back your suggestion for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgoodberg (talk • contribs) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just noting, it wasn't featured on the main part of Entertainment Weekly's website - it was only featured on their "Popwatch" blog. Radiant chains (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Attacking Wikipedia's validity sounds like an odd reasoning for wanting to keep an entry on Wikipedia. Wperdue (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Delete It fails WP:MOVIE and the sources don't meet the standards. As for the other entry mentioned by the original editor, I don't particularly see why it's notable either, but that isn't the subject of this AFD. Wperdue (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 06:01, 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 00:10, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Craig[edit]

Created by subject. Wholly unsourced; notability not established. Looking at IMDB, it appears he was in minor roles in these movies (puddle soldier, sewer monster, vomit creature). Article claims his role in Sssssss was "major", however, cast listing suggests otherwise. 4th from bottom on cast list, below "seal boy" and above "kootch dancer". Google search throws up bios, some of which indicate nothing more than he is a male actor. Doesn't seem notable to me, but I'm bringing here for other's input. لenna vecia 15:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rely on the order in IMDB listings. I've seen several entries that had non-main characters listed before the lead. I believe IMDB to be wildly inaccurate in some cases there. Case in point: the IMDB entry for Half Moon Investigations lists the main character Fletcher Moon below his sidekick and the sidekick's the brother and doesn't even put those two in the proper order. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete very brief appearances in several notable films, but I'm not seeing much in the way of sources (the Google News hits are mostly other folks with the same name). I'm kind of surprised, too, because someone with such a strange resume would probably make an interesting subject for an interview or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI, notability, the text borders on nonsense. I42 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:34, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Wood[edit]

Gsearch and gnews aren't turning up independent, reliable sources other than stat listings and passing mentions. So it comes down to this: if the highest level he's competed at is AA, has he competed at a "fully professional level" of the sport, as required by WP:ATHLETE? (The proposed Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Notability guidelines says not, but while this did have much consensus, it is just a draft.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trusting nominators good faith search. There is broad interpretation among Wikipedia editors of what constitutes "fully professional" for baseball players, I interpret as having played in one of the major leagues outlined in the proposed (but not fully adopted) baseball notability guidelines, and that minor league players are not notable unless there has been significant coverage of them in reliable, independent sources (not just statistic pages), in which case they would pass the general notability guidelines and would not have to pass WP:ATHLETE.--kelapstick (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor League baseball players are under contract with a 'Professional' team, having to be stored in lower class teams, but still 'professional' players with stats. These type of minor league stub can further knowledge of the player by fans in the seats (with Blackberries etc, thus more webhits) or team scouts. WP:ATHLETE and 'people of notability' doesn't take into account that a 'player' and a 'person' of notability are two different things. A 'person' is vague to define. A 'player' of notability, say a minor league baseball player, does have stats and awards to his name sometimes, and these stubs can add perfectly to what Wikipedia was meant to be in the first place! I have reliable references and always note the stubs accordingly.Gjr rodriguez (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only are some statistic sites just stats on a webpage, they also carry 'history', 'contact information','stadium information', what can be considered "signifigant coverage" with more research available on player beyond just the stats. The websites I reference are more than just a stat site. The stat sites are referenced for the stat tables, the bio info is from different sources melded and noted accordinglyGjr rodriguez (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Statistics or brief mentions in articles about minor league teams do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources," as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 04:15, 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 00:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:ATHLETE's requirement of playing in a fully professional league. Borgarde (talk) 04:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. Is not playing at the highest level and there is not substantial coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines do not state highest level. Borgarde (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:ATHLETE asks for a fully professional league. In different sports, this means different things, and in minor league baseball, this is under controversy. I would think no one believes that all minor leaguers are notable, as that makes no sense. By that same token, saying minor leaguers are never notable doesn't make sense, since one may have many secondary sources on his career. This means we have to compromise. Most frequently, this compromise has meant either a season at AAA, or a decent all-star appearance. If we were to go by this compromise, then he fails WP:ATHLETE and, consequently, WP:N. A minor leaguer would need secondary sources beyond statistical databases. Saying solely "keep meets wp:athlete" means nothing if it gives the implication that all minor leaguers are notable, which they are certainly not, and in the case of this one, he isn't. Wizardman 13:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor leaguers fail WP:ATHLETE, per longstanding deletion consensus. Average minor leaguers are never notable: if you get enough coverage to be notable for some other reason, you're not notable. However, being a minor leaguer and never getting into the major leagues isn't a reason for deletion: after all, we don't delete Michael Jordan just because he was a minor leaguer who never reached the majors. However, any minor leaguer who never goes higher and isn't notable for any other reason (such as this guy) is not notable overall. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of musical acts that have played at CBGB[edit]

WP:NOTCATALOG for starters. CBGB was indeed a notable club but I see no reason to catalog every single band who played there in its 33-year history, or even just the ones who are notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. It's just plain unencyclopedic. The bands that have a notable relationship with CBGB (e.g., Ramones, Blondie, Television, Talking Heads, et al.) are already included in the CBGB article. If that's not enough, then note that only 2 of the how many artists are sourced as having played there. Fails WP:V as well. A previous AFD under a slightly different name was closed as no consensus, 9 June 2007. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some of the entries are dubious nonetheless, WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:LISTCRUFT, notable acts are already in the main article. JamesBurns (talk) 06:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How embarassing! (*facepalm*) TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list like this is unmaintainable and has no encyclopedic merit. The relevant acts are already listed elsewhere. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:28, 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 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a poorly-sourced list of trivia better handled by a web page. JJL (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unmaintainable unencyclopaedic listcruft. A-Kartoffel (talk) 03:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As indicated in the nom, the bands most closely associated with CBGB are already listed in the CBGB article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:42, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weapons Grade Life[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Weapons Grade Life

This article fails the Notability Test. Its one source is IMDB, which isn't reliable, because it can be edited by its users. There's no reason why Wikipedia should have articles on Xavier episodes. Wikipedia is not the place for just plot. We need real-world information, which is impossible, since there's literally no credit sequence. Hence, Wikipedia has no place for it. The question isn't if this will be deleted, but when. TBone777 (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomination contains quite some assumpts and a lot of them are false. Most importantly: 1) IMDB is not unreliable because users can submit information, but because the vetting process by its owners is known to have led to inaccurate information being spread. 2) No credit sequence in the episode broadcast you've seen doesn't mean it doesn't exist. TV stations occasionally cut credits short to stay on schedule; it happens most often with Hollywood films, but it's not unheard of to do it in TV shows. 3) The last point also undermines the idea there's no reason to cover these episodes. Information about writers and directors and an episode's production is often released on DVD extras and there is no evidence you looked for such information. While the article is largely plot, it's not ONLY plot. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The episode (or any XRA episodes) doesn't seem to be notable enough for its own article. Instead of deleting it, though, I suggest merging this and other XRA episode articles into a single List of Xavier Renegade Angel episodes article. Or, alternately, creating an article for each season of the show -- i.e. Xavier Renegade Angel (season 1). Graymornings_(talk) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's too big to fuse into the episode list. Someone tried to make seasonal pages for Frisky Dingo, but Wikipedia only accepts them for long-runners, like Seinfeld. South Park doesn't even have seasonal pages. What makes xavier any better? At lest South Park makes sense. The only option is to delete it.TBone777 (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I somehow wasn't aware that XRA already had a "List of episodes" article. I've looked it over and it seems to contain all relevant info about the episode. I think we can do without the gigantic plot summary, so redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes. Graymornings_(talk) 12:51, 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 00:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to List of Xavier: Renegade Angel episodes as a search term. Violates WP:NOT#PLOT, and no evidence is given that the article can be improved beyond a plot summary. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:28, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaimer Comic[edit]

I originally WP:PRODded this, but realized that it was ineligible for PROD because it had been undeleted. The only possible claim of significance is being mentioned in Bungie's developer blog. However, the coverage is limited to very short blurbs, such as "The latest episode of Reclaimer is up. All the questions you've had about the series have now been answered." which doesn't count as non-trivial coverage. A Google search excluding forums, blogs, and wiki turns up about 21 unique hits, none of which appear to be reliable sources. No hits in Google News, Books, or Scholar. A less restricted search separating Reclaimer and Comic still fails to find non-trivial reliable coverage. I also can't find any indication that this webcomic has won an award. Therefore, this work seems to fail our guideline of notability for web content. — TKD::{talk} 11:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While obviously verifiable, absolutely no indication of sufficient real-world notability to warrant an article. Orbital Delegate (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—no evidence of real-world notability/out-of-universe information. — Deckill er 21:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 15:16, 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, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 10:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compliment slip[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, WP:NOTDIC Chzz ► 09:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dictionary definition. I see little chance of expansion here. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. I struggle to imagine a good article for this topic, but this is worse than a redlink as a basis for it. Rd232 ^talk 15:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - possible cites may be found at Google scholar. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 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 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Perhaps a merge with Thank you letter. Although, Compliment slip is more fleshed out and Wikified. L0b0t (talk) 02:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Weak Keep It does have potential, however merge now would probably be best. --MikemoralSock (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per PAMd. --MikemoralSock (talk) 02:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I'm not sure about the Emily Post style of some of the text, but the concept is distinct enough for a short article. A merge with thank you letter is not appropriate. A thank you letter expresses gratitude for a conferred benefit, whereas a compliments slip tells the recipient that "this item you have just received is free of charge". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly no longer just a dicdef. They are a distinct piece of stationery - there are probably collectors of them. Plenty of sources. PamD (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough material for an article, at least at present. DGG (talk)
Keep; fairly well sourced, and I am sure there is plenty more material about- potentially a substantial, if a little odd, article. J Milburn (talk) 00:22, 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 22:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Vs. Silence/Gator Records[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sound Vs. Silence/Gator Records

Does not assert notability, only self-referenced sources, no verifiable reliable source. Chzz ► 09:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:03, 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, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of third party coverage. -Senseless!... says you, says me 03:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: trivial coverage, no assertion of notability, fails WP:CORP. JamesBurns (talk) 01:40, 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 Chrysanthemum. Stifle (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chu-hsien[edit]

Tao-yuan-Ming, also known as Tao Qian is said to have been born in Jiujiang. I can find no mention of Chu-hsien, as a city, although there are some alternate spellings. The reference is incomplete, and the city may exist only in the literary world. I think we need an expert on the topic, or it needs to be merged with a list of Chinese cities. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 08:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: the article's author has added information that may help clarify the correct spelling, location and notability of the city. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 11:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chu-hsien).[reply]

Merge: According to online sources, The Chrysanthemum City is correctly spelled Ju-Xian: (http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Chrysanthemum). This city is mentioned in the history section of the wiki article Chrysanthemum. Recommend merge to Chrysanthemum, as there doesn't seem to be enough additional informatoin to support an article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 09:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per OliverTwisted unless we can find more info on this place (like whether it was real or legendary, even). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:27, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears to be a form of Wade-Giles romanization... so there should be several different spellings for it, not to mention that a more recent reference might use Pinyin instead. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 70.29.213.241 and I have done some minor cleanup to the article, without adding much content, as more does not seem available without some additional experts. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:28, 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 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Campbell (security)[edit]

Non notable businessman. Appears to have been created by the subject and then moved here by another. No reason to keep. (Prod removed) Scott Mac (Doc) 08:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - notability not stated. (No, I dont feel creating training and evaluation material is sufficient.) Sadly with such a common name, sourcing is tough for WikiEditors. Of course if Mr.Campbell could mention a ISBN # here in the AFD conversation, we may be able to help. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also note that the Threat Image Projection page was created by the same Editor at the same time. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:36, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:27, 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 Redirected by nom to Fensler Films. (non-admin closure) Ipatrol (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Fensler[edit]

AfDs for this article:

No reliable sources I can find that aren't more than a passing mention, doesn't leave anything for verification. Ipatrol (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fensler Films (which needed trimming last time I checked). WillOakland (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to parent article, not quite enough to stand on its own yet.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:51, 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 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect A cheap fix. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WebDevStudio[edit]

Article content originally take from [89] and [90] - the official website of the product - naturally this content is not neutral, designed to promote the product. Appears to fail the general notability guideline, I can't find any sources which cover the software in-depth (or in english). Additionally the article appears to have been created by the owner of the product's website, which betrays a strong conflict of interest. – Toon ^(talk) 16:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've stubbed this. Doesn't appear to be any less notable than many software articles. However, main contributor definitely does need to appreciate policies on conflict of interest, instruction manual content and advertising. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - I can't find any evidence of notability or coverage in reliable, external sources and there are none provided in the article. Did you find some sources? I'd be happy to withdraw if there's evidence of notability. :) – Toon ^(talk) 17:01, 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) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article lacks sources establishing the notability of the software. The use of 'would' in the article suggests that the software might not be complete. Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to draw conclusions based on wording choice - the project's website proclaims right at the top that it's in beta. Nothing useable as a reliable source jumped out at me from a casual google search, though I admit I didn't look very hard - unrelated site webdevstudios.com has apparently put a lot of effort into seo, and I have to be extremely dubious of a webapp-based application development package that's hosted on a personal account at university anyway. The sourceforge site stats aren't impressive either; excluding spikes on the 3rd (first afd listing) and 8th (relist) that are probably us, they're getting about 5 hits a day, which leads me to suspect nobody else knows the project exists either. Delete unless someone presents reliable third-party coverage. —Korath (Talk) 02:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable using wikipedia for advertisement. 16x9 (talk) 14:16, 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 no consensus to delete. Flowerparty^☀ 08:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Broadcast[edit]

Created by company, only has trivial coverage, does not pass WP:CORP. Mfield (Oi!) 06:50, 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 00:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems most of the reason you wish to delete it is because the creator is obviously from or promoting a company and has been blocked indefinately. See User talk:Synergy radio#April 2009 Daniel Christensen (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure that? It has some references but they are only passing mentions. I don't believe the company meets the benchmark for notability, although I felt that was better decided by AfD than speedying it as advertising. How do you feel it meets WP:CORP?Mfield (Oi!) 05:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 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 delete. No indication that this meets wp:bio. Keep arguments rely on an assumption that the band is notable. Although there may be enough coverage to support an article about the band, just, there is no independent coverage of Lombard in particular. Flowerparty^☀ 08:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Lombard[edit]

Delete so he has caught the largest of a species of fish - does each such recordholder get a page here; what about the growers of the biggest tomato, squash, etc... Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that he was founder of an apparently-notable band (see two reviews in reliable sources linked at the bottom of the article) is probably more relevant than the fish. JulesH (talk) 10:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable for his role in the band, rather than for catching the fish. If we had an article on his band (we don't, but it could be a good project for someone), it might be a decent merge target, but as it is I think the article ought to stay for now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 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 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per substantial coverage. COuld also be merged if necessary?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 articles about the band he's in does not impart notability to him. If the band had its own article on Wikipedia, his name would be redirected to the band's article. Since there isn't an article on the band, this should just go away. TheJazzDalek (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no stand alone notability, no band article, transient coverage of an event, non-notable artist. JamesBurns (talk) 01:30, 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. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Paul Lafler[edit]

Delete resume for nn programmer; fails WP:GNG and almost is WP:SPAM. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail notability, and reads like a hidden autobiography, or as LinguistAtLarge said, a resume.
Judicatus | Talk | Contributions
08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. Author of several apparently notable books and a syndicated periodical column that may also be notable. That said, I find it hard to find anything much about the author between all the references to his works. The article claims listing in several "Who's Who" style books, which may or may not be reliable sources. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find copies online. JulesH (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Who books are "pay for inclusion" vanity affairs and are no indication of notability. TheJazzDalek (talk) 12:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a pretty broad generalisation you're making there. Yes, I'm aware that some such books are, or at least have been, but others are more restrictive over who they include. See [91] for a description of selection process for one such book. JulesH (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note--even if he is notable, the article had more fluff than those twins from Knoxville. I cut some. He seems to have written a bunch of those articles, sure. I don't accept Who's Who as a reference since too many are too dubious: if someone is notable, they should be found in other sources as well. Drmies (talk) 00:18, 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 00:04, 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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Logan[edit]

Delete nn musician, fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:06, 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 00:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:CITE. South Bay (talk) 00:45, 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 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Kenney[edit]

Delete fails WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as guys named Kirk go, I don't believe that a sportswriter is inherently notable, regardless of being a contributor to TSN or on a big city paper. Regarding Kirk Paul Lafler, Kirk Lombard, Kirk Logan, Kirk Dawes, I think we need to refer to WP:KIRK which indicates that although Kirk is a cool name, there is no notability inherited and each Kirk must be judged on his own merits. Mandsford (talk) 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:34, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Dawes[edit]

Delete fails WP:GNG Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 06:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as article creator, I initially based this stub on a full page interview/profile in The Guardian. A quick google gives 480 hits for "Kirk Dawes", the vast majority of which do seem to be about the article subject, and include further mentions in The Guardian, and also by the The Times, BBC, Sky News, Channel 4 and some of the large British regional newspapers such as the Birmingham Post and Yorkshire Evening Post, and in more academic contexts such as King's College London and the European Mediation Conference; and giving evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee, the Home Affairs Committee; and being used by other UK police forces to give advice. I'll try to incorporate some of this into the article - I was a bit pressed for time when I originally wrote it, and then forgot to go back to it. David Underdown (talk) 10:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems notable enough after expansion. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources are clearly sufficient at this point. They may even have been sufficient in the version that was afd'd. DGG (talk) 19:52, 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 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- sources in the article are enough to establish notability.--J.Mundo (talk) 01:48, 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 22:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bintro[edit]

This is a new internet networking tool. There is a dearth of notable independent references, so notability is largely WP:CRYSTALBALL. WWGB (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 04:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize I am a "biased" person since I am on the Board of the company, but as you can tell from my wikipedia entry James_Hendler the reason the stub for this article was created was that I had listed Bintro on the boards that I am on. More importantly, the reason I think the article merits inclusion and, in fact, the reason I was willing to join the board (I have turned down a number) is that Bintro is the first company to use semantics in the match process, something I have been suggesting in talks for a number of years now. The addition of semantics to current Web technologies is mentioned in a number of articles on Semantic Web and related technologies - for example the articles on twine (website), Freebase_(database), Powerset (company) - and bintro is the first to bring Web 3.0 technologies to asynchronous match. I realize that these things are judgment calls, but there is considerable interest in this growing area, and this company is the first in its space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAHendler (talk • contribs) 02:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a dearth of advertising agencies, how is this posting different than Modernista? Allmayaillusion (talk) 13:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC) This article contains 3 notable references to the company, 2 independent articles and a radio interview. Allmayaillusion (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Firstly, notability is not established (WP:WEB requires "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself", but the refs are all either not independently sourced (the radio show is an interview with the CEO, the second article is written by the CTO), or unreliable (the third ref is a blog entry) or not particularly relevant (the fourth and fifth refs are about a board member and the technology, not the company). Secondly, the article is not written from a neutral point of view. I42 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a website and Alexa says it isn't a particularly popular one. It has minimal RS coverage. It should be deleted for now and it can always be recreated, in a more neutral way, if it ever becomes notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:16, 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 00:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm going with WP:CRYSTALBALL. It hasn't achieved notability yet and an article should be created if it turns out to be a popular and note-worthy site. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 11:19, 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. Flowerparty^☀ 08:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Burns[edit]

No assertion of notability. Biggest claim is being press secretary at the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and the two sources cited for this are Wikipedia itself and a story in which he had to comment, as it was related to the VA department. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without additional sources, this would seem to fail WP:BIO. It also reads more like a web resume than an encyclopedia article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 04:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment his stint as the VA spokesman is trivial to verify, I didn't see any reliable sources about him, as opposed to quoting him, in a quick search. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:23, 14 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rephormula[edit]

Non-notable re-released of a previously released album. Fails WP:Music Azviz (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but re-name to Phormula. Easily meets WP:MUSIC; album by a notable band on a notable label, with sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given above, with thanks to Cannibaloki for their good work. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case to speedy keep? Canniba loki 17:22, 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 00:02, 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 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skyline Turbine[edit]

Non-notable company, tagged for over a month. Was dePRODded without comment, and edits since then have not addressed my concern about not meeting WP:CORP. Makes some claims, but they are not supported by cites, and the cites that are provided make no support for notability. There is lots of material about the general field of their business and where their business and products are located, but this is the article for this company--articles about wind turbines and other general things are elsewhere--and I don't see anything notable about this company or it's products in particular. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm the admin who deprodded it while patroling the expired prod lists. Four refs to non-trivial news sources indicated to me that this met the standard. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment...that's just it: they are news sources that support the notability wind-power and alt-energy in general ("The work that Skyline Turbine is engaged in is in line with building momentum in this country for alternative energy in response to geopolitical pressure from abroad.") but not this company. Some don't even mention the company at all. DMacks (talk) 17:33, 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 00:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... I wrote the original article and agree it should be deleted. Thanks for the thoughtful comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurorocker (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail to see how the references meet the requirements of WP:N. This is simply a dealer and not even a company. Fails WP:CORP Vegaswikian (talk) 06:10, 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Nagare[edit]

Non-notable new martial art. No sources, no claim of notability, fewer than 300 ghits. JJL (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable art. Unsourced and no assertion of notability. --Nate 14 81 09:39, 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 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts/Notability jmcw (talk) 09:13, 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 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak (online game)[edit]

Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: unremarkable game with no references. Wyatt Riot (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be done to keep this page? If you can give us some criteria we'll do what we can. Deville Rule (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, it needs to meet WP:WEB and WP:V. Other editors may have other suggestions. You may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article for some suggestions. Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, DV, we'll just have to work on getting some media articles written about Outbreak, and hopefully prod Nathan into doing some PR work. Juranas (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by that, I meant ask media people to write an article about it.. I'm well aware references must be from an independant source. Juranas (talk) 21:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just checking :> Good luck. Marasmusine (talk) 00:17, 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, MBisanz ^talk 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Someone another 11:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks any reliable secondary sources (reviews for instance) which demonstrate notability for web content. Indie/low-budget MMOGs are probably the most difficult type of videogame to get reviewed, even flash games get better coverage (and that's saying something), the sheer volume of them doesn't help either. It does look interesting, but until it gets some independent coverage from reliable sites/mags there's nothing to hang an article on. Someone another 12:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with same ratioanle as Someone another. I'm a bit curious about Juranas's statement about "getting some media articles written". Coverage for (WP:N) needs to be independent of the subject! Marasmusine (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google's giving me a various results, but most are related to a similarly-named flash game, something to do resident evil etc and very few are what we're looking for. No media coverage, external reviews etc. Seems to me to be soap boxing. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 16:07, 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 00:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nalin kumar kateel[edit]

This person does not pass the criteria Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians. Just a candidate in the coming elections and worker in a political party. I wasn't sure if I should tag this {db-a7}. —SV 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Keep - If he is elected then he is a M.P or MLA. This article does not say. It says that he is just a candidate.

--Athos, Porthos, and Aramis (talk) 01:16, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to poor sourcing of a BLP. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources in a BLP. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:17, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gandhi Brigade[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it does have regional media coverage. Such a web search should have been done before bringing this to AfD but Justin (koavf), I can guess and do sympathize with the feelings that prompted you to bring this here: someone with no previous interest in editing Wikipedia is using it to advertise a NPO with which they are associated and they did not bother to learn guidelines about notability before doing so. That upsets me too. ----Boston (talk) 00:27, 8 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, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This was the best source I could find, and it doesn't really focus on the group itself. It just mentions that a member won an award. The others are mostly similar. Also I could only find coverage in the local community paper, i.e. no coverage in the big regional D.C. metro papers. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep [92] seems okay too. Local, but pretty good detail. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 14 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 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nora Samosir[edit]

Tagged for various things since October 2008, including COI, notability and need for additional citations. Necessary improvements have not been made. لenna vecia 17:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines for inclusion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the article is a big mess, proper copyedit and sandblasting can be done to answer the nom's concerns. Bad that it has not yet been done, but good that in CAN be done so as to improve wiki. There are some things to be found through Google News and her work is in a national archive. She has numerous listings even under a cursory Google search. It will be a pain... but it can be salvaged... and that improves wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those Google News hits are worthless. Simply having your name mentioned in a cast list doesn't cut it. The archive link is equally as worthless. It's discussing a certain aspect of Singaporean culture, mentioning how a film portrays that culture and simply states that the role of the maid is played by Samosir. From there, the character is discussed, not Samosir. She is not notable, and these are the neglected biographies that are at the highest risk for unreverted libel. لenna vecia 14:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That a subject may be "neglected" or prone to vandalism may be a reason to be more diligent... but is no reason for deletion. Further, in wiki's continued effort to curb anglo-centric systemic bias, it is important to enlist the assistance of Singapoere Wikipedians, and not simply relegate tis article to the void. Not being a speaker/reader of the non-English languages in that part of the world, I am unable to search the databases in those languages for non-English news sources covering her career as an actress of educator. I am not prepared per WP:AFTER to state without eqivocation that they do not exist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, your vote is to keep because she may be notable, even though we have no reliable sources indicating that she is? لenna vecia 15:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My vote to keep is because she is notable. Yours to delete is because she "may not be". The article itself lists over 70 theater productions, 16 television productions, and 3 films, that could themselves be searched for Singapore reviews in any of the many languages used in Singapore. Logic and WP:AGF allow that the non-English reliable sources showing her notability as an accomplished actress, singer, and educator exist... unless a Singapore Wikipedian, qualified to do a proper (and lacking) search per WP:BEFORE tells me they do not. For me to assert "I haven't heard of 'em, so they can't be notable" Or "I cannot find English sources, so she can't be notable" OR "I cannot read the non-English sources, so they must not be notable or reliable" would be the height of hubris. I will not relegate an accomplished artist to the scrap pile simply because I do not speak the languages of Singapore. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:44, 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 merge to Metro Orange Line (LACMTA). Black Kite 21:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Orange Line bicycle path[edit]

This is a procedural relist of a bundled AfD (see here for previous discussion). The original rationale (by User:JamesBurns) stated: "Wikipedia is neither a travelguide WP:NOTTRAVEL, nor a how-to manual WP:NOTMANUAL. Articles fail to establish why these paths are particularly notable. Some of the content in these also reads like opinion pieces, eg. "The Western Balboa section is frequented by soccer players and observers, which can make cycling tedious.", "The entire path is on the beach, affording beautiful views, mixed with the hazard of beachgoing pedestrians who do not respect the boundaries of the path." Tavix (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Appears to be notable pending improved sourcing and some clean up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Sorry, but I think this should simply be a section in Metro Orange Line (LACMTA). I wasn't able to find any notable independent coverage of it, anyway. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Article fails to establish why it is notable. JamesBurns (talk) 09:59, 30 March 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, 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 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Major bicycle route. A merge might be appropriate, but deletion would make the encyclopedia worse and less complete. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Duplicate !vote[reply]

Merge so that the history of this article can be preserved and brought back into existence again if it outgrows its new home as a section in Metro Orange Line (LACMTA). This article is so small that I imagine there would be no loss of important content and so a merge is as good as a keep, really. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Madrazo[edit]

This just seems like a biography to me. Computerwiz908 | Talk 17:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion Information along the lines of - "She seats on the board of: Museo del Barrio in New York; Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Alliance for a new humanity" and "and has been interested in knowing and learning since her childhood" makes me a bit uneasy. Sources? Too many weasel words in there, it'll have to go. AyrtonProst ^{Sign Here}/_Contact 17:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A Google News search shows enough potential sources to verify notability (even discarding those relating to a NY literary agent) – but results are in Spanish, so I can't really judge. 9Nak (talk) 16:57, 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, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I will take a closer look tomorrow. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:54, 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 by nominator. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Golden hammer[edit]

I've been unable to find any good sources that define "golden hammer" as this articles does, and it has been long unsourced; recent sources for related concepts don't mention "golden" in them at all. Dicklyon (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to be an original blend of multiple different recognized and properly documented (by sources) concepts: functional fixedness, silver bullets, the Einstellung effect, and Kaplan's Law of the instrument. Since
- we're lacking an article on the fourth,
- sources do not call this confused and novel mish-mash of multiple concepts a "golden hammer" (At most, a very few clearly inexpert sources call the single "everything is a nail" aphorism a "golden hammer rule". But then many other sources do not, or make up their own nonce names for it that there is no actual agreement on. And it's patently not a coherent subject in its own right, being an aphorism that is employed, but not treated as a topic itself, in discussions of several of the aforementioned actual subjects.), and
- the ground covered by this article outside of Kaplan's law is already covered by other articles,
renaming this to Law of the instrument and refactoring the article to focus upon that (observing that this article doesn't actually cover it in the depths that sources do, yet) seems to be an appropriate course of action. Uncle G (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This [93] is one of the only references I can find, unfortunately the article seems to steal a bit from this, so it'd be a delete anyway! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Law of the instrument and move apropriate content there. Nixdorf (talk) 17:46, 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) 23:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps move/redirect as suggested by Uncle G. I find this phrase repeatedly used matter of factly in reliable sources [94]. Notability seems assured, and an article explaining the idiom seems warranted. There also seem to be (several?) Golden Hammer Award(s), which seem to be unrelated to the idiom, and make searching news sources difficult. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Law of the instrument and refocus. The uses of "golden hammer" in a few reliable sources seem to suggest it's a bit of a neologism (it seems to appear mostly in books on Java programming, so someone there may have come up with it). To get beyond that to notability would require a source about the term, or the concept referred to by that term. That's what I haven't been able to find. The "law of the instrument", however, is widely discussed and attributed in books, so that would be a good title to move to and re-focus the contents on. Doing more work, it appears that the "law of the instrument" comes from a 1998 book, while "Maslow's hammer", originating in Abraham H. Maslow's 1962 book Toward a psychology of being, is widely cited before that; so maybe "Maslow's hammer" is the right new topic to move it. I went ahead and did some cleanup and added some sources, preparing to move, probably to Maslow's hammer, when we're done here. Dicklyon (talk) 00:12, 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 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – since I, the nominator, no longer want to delete it, and have worked on it to save it by moving it, I'll just go ahead. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Moved to Maslow's hammer and made redirect from Law of the instrument as well as Golden hammer. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 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 22:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almas Khan[edit]

Author whose work is not notable (i.e., not a bestseller, not received any awards, not gathered much public attention) fails WP:CREATIVE. JaGa^talk 18:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Onbe book, from either a very minor publisher or self-published, no indication of notability. DGG (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 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 01:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SM Supercenter Novaliches[edit]

Verifiability in question. SM Prime holdings does not have any information on SM Novaliches. Hits obtained in Google are mostly from mirrors. Lenticel ^(talk) 08:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't yet exist, no evidence of notability for the project. JJL (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable project. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 02:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This has been here before - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SM City Tungko Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 23:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The article was a recreated from SM City Tungko article. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 15:31, 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 00:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does note meet inclusion criteria. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it says there "According to SM Prime SM Novaliches design will finalized in 2008 and construction starts on 2009 or 2010." Not until the construction starts, no article for this is needed. axrealmdotcom (talk) 14:49, 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 William Stamps Farish II. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Stamps Farish, Jr.[edit]

This individual does not seem to be notable, and no sources are given to back up the little information given on the individual Gabe0463 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources and not even an assertion of notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on his father, who is extremely notable--as is his son. He himself died in WW II too early for anything significant, and I could not find a NYT obit. DGG (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:BLP#Deletion - has been unsourced for months with no interest shown in sourcing it. Kevin (talk) 03:14, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I don't see enough notability for an independent article, but a targeted redirect to a short section in the Dad's article would be okay. The family is notable so including him seems helpful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - The only reason he's notable is that he's the son of William Stamps Farish II, so that's where any information on him should go. Greggers ^{(t • c)} 10:38, 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 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auspicium Melioris Aevi[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary - WP:DICT. Note that this is part of Category:Latin mottos, just about all of which (with exception of E pluribus unum, maybe 1 or 2 others) seem to violate this too. Rd232 ^talk 19:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is non-notable, but this AfD should not be used as precedent; many if not most of the maxims in Category:Latin mottos appear to be notable. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, OK, I was a bit too sweeping, quite a few are US state mottos, that sort of thing. Rd232 ^talk 20:21, 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) 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Possibly worth a mention in the article about whatever it's the motto for, but no indication of notability for its own article. I do like latin sayings though. Is there an article of them? Merge and redirect there if someone knows of one. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:47, 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 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Pugh[edit]

Fails WP:BIO; claim to notability is a tenure as a high school basketball coach and a recent appointment to an NCAA Division III post. fuzzy510 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:37, 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) 23:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not enough substantial coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Wizardman 18:11, 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.